Who is the best team of all-time

[juju151111]

In the modern era 1980 forward. If these tes were put in the playoffs to face each other who would come out on top.

1.2015 Golden state
2.1996 Bulls
3. 1992 Bulls
4.1986 Celtics
5.1987 Lakers
6. 2012 Heat or the 13
7. 01 Lakers
8.08 Celtics
9.14 spurs
10.83 Sixers

[GIF REACTION]

The 2013-2014 Spurs are better than 92 Bulls

[SouBeachTalents]

'83 76ers should be there

[juju151111]

'83 76ers should be there
I'll add 14 slurs and 83 Sixers. I based my list on points differntial in RS and Playoffs. Thats why 83 sixers wasn't in.

[Round Mound]

1. 86 Celtics
2. 87 Lakers
3. 83 Sixers

[juju151111]

1. 86 Celtics
2. 87 Lakers
3. 83 Sixers
I doubt the 87 Lakers beat the 96 bulls

[SHAQisGOAT]

Since 1980? Probably...

1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1983 76ers
3./4. 1992 Bulls/1987 Lakers
5./6. 2001 Lakers/1996 Bulls
7. 1989 Pistons
8. 2008 Celtics
9./10./11. 2004 Pistons/2015 Warriors/2014 Spurs
...

Mostly based on my opinion on which team would've won more series between them, given equal "conditions". Some are very tough to say, just extremely close. And I guess that another Spurs' team could've been there instead of the '14 squad.

[juju151111]

Since 1980? Probably...

1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1983 76ers
3./4. 1992 Bulls/1987 Lakers
5./6. 2001 Lakers/1996 Bulls
7. 1989 Pistons
8. 2008 Celtics
9./10./11. 2004 Pistons/2015 Warriors/2014 Spurs


Mostly based on my opinion on which team would've won more series between them, given equal "conditions". Some are very tough to say, just extremely close. And I guess that another Spurs' team could've been there instead of the '14 squad.

I did the list record,point differntial and other facttors. The 96 Bulls dominated the most when you add in RS and Playoffs Point differntial. In terms of dominace none of the Spurs team dominted RS and Playoffs at those teams level.

[Mr. Jabbar]

2001 Lakers

The rest can get out of their fkn way. :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

86 Celtics pretty easily. Most complete team of alltime definitely.

[sdot_thadon]

Can't decide between 86 celtics and 96 bulls. 96 bulls are my personal favorite but boston was awesome.

[Fallen Angel]

Here are rankings for the top thirty teams according to Elo Ratings:


Rank Season Team Peak Mean End Composite Elo
1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls 1853 1770 1823 1815
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls 1811 1792 1802 1802
3 '14-15 GS Warriors 1822 1745 1822 1796
4 '85-86 Boston Celtics 1816 1735 1801 1784
5 '08-09 LA Lakers 1790 1726 1790 1769
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls 1782 1759 1762 1768
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls 1788 1719 1785 1764
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls 1785 1693 1785 1755
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons 1788 1675 1788 1750
10 '82-83 Phila 76ers 1777 1731 1739 1749
11 '12-13 Miami Heat 1774 1715 1754 1748
12 '13-14 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1764 1742
13 '08-09 Cle Cavaliers 1765 1708 1742 1738
14 '84-85 LA Lakers 1764 1680 1764 1736
15 '96-97 Utah Jazz 1764 1693 1748 1735
16 '66-67 Phila 76ers 1755 1715 1733 1734
17 '97-98 Utah Jazz 1766 1695 1737 1733
18 '71-72 LA Lakers 1753 1717 1726 1732
19 '09-10 Orlando Magic 1782 1669 1744 1732
20 '00-01 LA Lakers 1779 1634 1779 1731
21 '02-03 SA Spurs 1757 1674 1757 1730
22 '86-87 LA Lakers 1750 1699 1740 1730
23 '04-05 SA Spurs 1771 1719 1696 1729
24 '98-99 SA Spurs 1756 1674 1756 1728
25 '03-04 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1719 1726
26 '11-12 SA Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
27 '99-00 LA Lakers 1779 1703 1690 1724
28 '71-72 Mil Bucks 1741 1711 1718 1723
29 '70-71 Mil Bucks 1757 1687 1725 1723
30 '01-02 LA Lakers 1738 1684 1738 1720

[QUOTE]Elo is like the iPad of sports power ratings: Their design is quite simple, and they do a lot with a little, depending only on the final score of each game and where it was played. Teams always gain Elo points after winning games

[97 bulls]

96 or 97 Bulls.
83 Sixers
87 Lakers
86 Celtics
92 Bulls
01 Lakers

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Here are rankings for the top thirty teams according to Elo Ratings:


Rank Season Team Peak Mean End Composite Elo
1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls 1853 1770 1823 1815
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls 1811 1792 1802 1802
3 '14-15 GS Warriors 1822 1745 1822 1796
4 '85-86 Boston Celtics 1816 1735 1801 1784
5 '08-09 LA Lakers 1790 1726 1790 1769
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls 1782 1759 1762 1768
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls 1788 1719 1785 1764
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls 1785 1693 1785 1755
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons 1788 1675 1788 1750
10 '82-83 Phila 76ers 1777 1731 1739 1749
11 '12-13 Miami Heat 1774 1715 1754 1748
12 '13-14 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1764 1742
13 '08-09 Cle Cavaliers 1765 1708 1742 1738
14 '84-85 LA Lakers 1764 1680 1764 1736
15 '96-97 Utah Jazz 1764 1693 1748 1735
16 '66-67 Phila 76ers 1755 1715 1733 1734
17 '97-98 Utah Jazz 1766 1695 1737 1733
18 '71-72 LA Lakers 1753 1717 1726 1732
19 '09-10 Orlando Magic 1782 1669 1744 1732
20 '00-01 LA Lakers 1779 1634 1779 1731
21 '02-03 SA Spurs 1757 1674 1757 1730
22 '86-87 LA Lakers 1750 1699 1740 1730
23 '04-05 SA Spurs 1771 1719 1696 1729
24 '98-99 SA Spurs 1756 1674 1756 1728
25 '03-04 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1719 1726
26 '11-12 SA Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
27 '99-00 LA Lakers 1779 1703 1690 1724
28 '71-72 Mil Bucks 1741 1711 1718 1723
29 '70-71 Mil Bucks 1757 1687 1725 1723
30 '01-02 LA Lakers 1738 1684 1738 1720



Unbiased and statistical, just how I like my opinions.
Nice always wondered what Elo thought was the GOAT team

[SHAQisGOAT]

I did the list record,point differntial and other facttors. The 96 Bulls dominated the most when you add in RS and Playoffs Point differntial. In terms of dominace none of the Spurs team dominted RS and Playoffs at those teams level.

Cool... Plenty of other factors come into play though, especially competition.

Imho, in 7-games series, the 1996 Bulls wouldn't have beaten the 1986 Celtics, the 1983 76ers, the 1992 Bulls and the 1987 Lakers more than the other way around, so...

I can't quite decide on whether I'd pick the 1987 Lakers or the 1992 Bulls, and then the 2001 Lakers or the 1996 Bulls... Guess I'd have to put the 1996 Bulls in the top5 though, based on their sheer league dominance; definitely one of the VERY best teams ever but, tbh, they're not even clear top3 to me, despite what their record W-L might "say".

[juju151111]

Cool... Plenty of other factors come into play though, especially competition.

Imho, in 7-games series, the 1996 Bulls wouldn't have beaten the 1986 Celtics, the 1983 76ers, the 1992 Bulls and the 1987 Lakers more than the other way around, so...

I can't quite decide on whether I'd pick the 1987 Lakers or the 1992 Bulls, and then the 2001 Lakers or the 1996 Bulls... Guess I'd have to put the 1996 Bulls in the top5 though, based on their sheer league dominance; definitely one of the VERY best teams ever but, tbh, they're not even clear top3 to me, despite what their record W-L might "say".

Record is a factor, but not all of it. The Bulls dominated in Point differntial in RS and Playoffs.

[juju151111]

Nice always wondered what Elo thought was the GOAT team
Warriors dinfinatly have asterisk. Most of theor playoffs teams were decimated. The pelicans and the Cavs the most.

[plowking]

86 Celtics, 96 Bulls, 01 Lakers, and 14 Spurs for me.

[Cold soul]

This is really hard to just name one team as greatest team when there is so many to narrow down to one only.

[Cold soul]

87 Lakers
86 Celtics
96 Bulls
01 Lakers
14 Spurs

[rmt]

Here are rankings for the top thirty teams according to Elo Ratings:


Rank Season Team Peak Mean End Composite Elo
1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls 1853 1770 1823 1815
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls 1811 1792 1802 1802
3 '14-15 GS Warriors 1822 1745 1822 1796
4 '85-86 Boston Celtics 1816 1735 1801 1784
5 '08-09 LA Lakers 1790 1726 1790 1769
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls 1782 1759 1762 1768
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls 1788 1719 1785 1764
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls 1785 1693 1785 1755
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons 1788 1675 1788 1750
10 '82-83 Phila 76ers 1777 1731 1739 1749
11 '12-13 Miami Heat 1774 1715 1754 1748
12 '13-14 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1764 1742
13 '08-09 Cle Cavaliers 1765 1708 1742 1738
14 '84-85 LA Lakers 1764 1680 1764 1736
15 '96-97 Utah Jazz 1764 1693 1748 1735
16 '66-67 Phila 76ers 1755 1715 1733 1734
17 '97-98 Utah Jazz 1766 1695 1737 1733
18 '71-72 LA Lakers 1753 1717 1726 1732
19 '09-10 Orlando Magic 1782 1669 1744 1732
20 '00-01 LA Lakers 1779 1634 1779 1731
21 '02-03 SA Spurs 1757 1674 1757 1730
22 '86-87 LA Lakers 1750 1699 1740 1730
23 '04-05 SA Spurs 1771 1719 1696 1729
24 '98-99 SA Spurs 1756 1674 1756 1728
25 '03-04 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1719 1726
26 '11-12 SA Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
27 '99-00 LA Lakers 1779 1703 1690 1724
28 '71-72 Mil Bucks 1741 1711 1718 1723
29 '70-71 Mil Bucks 1757 1687 1725 1723
30 '01-02 LA Lakers 1738 1684 1738 1720



Unbiased and statistical, just how I like my opinions.

There's no way that Spurs 03 > than any of those other Spurs teams listed.

No Orlando Magic team belongs on this list and definitely not above 87, 00, 01, 02 Lakers or Spurs 04, 05, 99.

[Fallen Angel]

Elo Rating measures more than just who wins titles. It's a representation of how a team dominated over the course of an entire season, regular season and playoffs.


Why should we judge teams solely on postseason success when we don't do the same for players. An 82 game sample size is just as (if not more important) than a sample size of 16-28 games.

[GoatBoy]

01 Lakers :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[PHILA]

Elo Ratings

This can be somewhat useful in looking at teams over a number of years like the Spurs, but very misleading for single season teams. It's no wonder the 1971 Bucks (#29) are so low, despite having a much bigger margin of victory per 100 poss, SRS, and basic point differential in both the regular season and playoffs compared to teams like the 2009 Lakers (#5), 2009 Cavaliers (#13), and 2015 Warriors (#4).

The 1971 Bucks are heavily punished on a list like this due to their performance in 1970. What a team did the previous season (2007 Celtics) should have no value on how they rate during the new season. Again, unless we are comparing multiyear dynasties like the Spurs to the old Celtics, this is a very misleading list. The rating for any given team is 75% dependent on how they performed the previous season.


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

Instead of resetting each team’s rating when a new season begins, Elo carries over a portion of a team’s rating from one season to the next. In our NFL Elo ratings, teams retain two-thirds of their rating from the end of the previous season. In our NBA ratings, by contrast, they keep three-quarters of it. The higher fraction reflects the fact that NBA teams are more consistent from year to year than NFL squads.

[ClipperRevival]

Elo Rating measures more than just who wins titles. It's a representation of how a team dominated over the course of an entire season, regular season and playoffs.


Why should we judge teams solely on postseason success when we don't do the same for players. An 82 game sample size is just as (if not more important) than a sample size of 16-28 games.

Because playoffs are different from the regular season. More physical, more slowed down with more half court, possessions are more crucial and the pressure to perform is much higher. What good is a team if they dominate the regular season but don't show up when it matters most? For example, the Clippers. Every year, their offense is dominant in the regular season. Their advanced numbers are way up there. But they choke in the playoffs. So in the grand scheme of things, what good is all that regular season dominance?

[ClipperRevival]

This is a very subjective topic but if I had to choose one, I say 1987 Lakers.

Magic at his absolute peak. Also, Worthy, Scott and Coop at their peaks. Jabbar still effective enough to give you 18 ppg down low. Great role players in Green, Rambis and Thompson.

They could play any style. Fast pace or slow it down and go big.

[HOoopCityJones]

Based on Elo the 08-09 Lakers is a Top 5 Team.

Above the 01 Lakers? This is why I can't trust advanced metrics.

It's like the Top name will certainly make sense then after that is a total crap shoot.

[ShaqTwizzle]

2001 Lakers
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Everyone else

[ClipperRevival]

Based on Elo the 08-09 Lakers is a Top 5 Team.

Above the 01 Lakers? This is why I can't trust advanced metrics.

It's like the Top name will certainly make sense then after that is a total crap shoot.

To be fair, that team was an offensive jaggernaut. But no one will pick that team as an all time great team. One stat never tells the entire story.

[HOoopCityJones]

To be fair, that team was an offensive jaggernaut. But no one will pick that team as an all time great team. One stat never tells the entire story.

More like one stat tells a story to prove an agenda and once that's proven , ala "96 Bulls are the best ever" the rest of the formula goes to shit after.

Like PER , it was invented to purpose the notion that guys like Chris Paul and Lebron have the most impact in today's NBA, yet one is 2 for 6 in the historically weakest conference ever while CP3 doesn't know what the 3rd round feels like.

[ClipperRevival]

More like one stat tells a story to prove an agenda and once that's proven , ala "96 Bulls are the best ever" the rest of the formula goes to shit after.

Like PER , it was invented to purpose the notion that guys like Chris Paul and Lebron have the most impact in today's NBA, yet one is 2 for 6 in the historically weakest conference ever while CP3 doesn't know what the 3rd round feels like.

PER measures efficiency. It's not the be all, end all but I give that stat a good deal of weight. Of course you being a Kobe fan, you obviously detest it. That's fine. I don't want to sideteack this thread.

[97 bulls]

More like one stat tells a story to prove an agenda and once that's proven , ala "96 Bulls are the best ever" the rest of the formula goes to shit after.

Like PER , it was invented to purpose the notion that guys like Chris Paul and Lebron have the most impact in today's NBA, yet one is 2 for 6 in the historically weakest conference ever while CP3 doesn't know what the 3rd round feels like.
I couldn't agree more. Agenda and bias plague this forum like none other that i frequent.

And stats can tell any story you want them to tell. Dennis Rodman led the league in FG i believe twice. So technically, I could say that he was one of the best scorers ever based on how efficient he was. But context obviously says different.

The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest teams ever. But their defensive numbers would put them in the middle of the pack today.

Jerry Stackhouse avg 30 ppg a season or two. But he also shot a paultrt 38% from the field.

Theres just so many variables.

[HOoopCityJones]

PER measures efficiency. It's not the be all, end all but I give that stat a good deal of weight. Of course you being a Kobe fan, you obviously detest it. That's fine. I don't want to sideteack this thread.

And you being a Clipper fan you obviously detest things like competition , beyond the second round , conference Finals and championship record. These things are foreign to you.

While on the other hand Kobe' shot well above league average in efficiency for most of his career until recently. His percentage is skewed by taking more difficult shots than anyone else in the league the last 15 years, does it hurt his Teams on some occasions? Yup, but has it lead to more success than failure? Yup.


How that leading in PER shit going for Chris?

[ClipperRevival]

Anyone able to access best point differential since 1980? I'm sure there will be a pretty good correlation for great teams but I wonder how much.

[HOoopCityJones]

I couldn't agree more. Agenda and bias plague this forum like none other that i frequent.

And stats can tell any story you want them to tell. Dennis Rodman led the league in FG i believe twice. So technically, I could say that he was one of the best scorers ever based on how efficient he was. But context obviously says different.

The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest teams ever. But their defensive numbers would put them in the middle of the pack today.

Jerry Stackhouse avg 30 ppg a season or two. But he also shot a paultrt 38% from the field.

Theres just so many variables.

I completely agree.

And it's not like I'm suggesting metrics don't have their place , but as measuring tape, a ruler etc. Not as player comparison or Teams across eras.

That shit is skewed by pace and style of play back in the day and in Today's game. So many differences to account for that metrics don't care to bother with.

[Young X]

Anyone able to access best point differential since 1980? I'm sure there will be a pretty good correlation for great teams but I wonder how much.http://bkref.com/tiny/1v5gx

[1987_Lakers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4

'86 Celtics.

Already stated my opinion why they are #1 numerous times so I don't feel like giving another long explanation.

[ClipperRevival]

http://bkref.com/tiny/1v5gx

Thank you sir.

[ClipperRevival]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4

'86 Celtics.

Already stated my opinion why they are #1 numerous times so I don't feel like giving another long explanation.

:biggums: I'm a little confused. I look at your user name but you say 1986 Celtics?

[3ball]

In the modern era 1980 forward. If these tes were put in the playoffs to face each other who would come out on top.

1.2015 Golden state
2.1996 Bulls
3. 1992 Bulls
4.1986 Celtics
5.1987 Lakers
6. 2012 Heat or the 13
7. 01 Lakers
8.08 Celtics
9.14 spurs
10.83 Sixers
translation: I'm biased towards the Heat

[1987_Lakers]

:biggums: I'm a little confused. I look at your user name but you say 1986 Celtics?

I'm a laker fan and the showtime lakers is one of the reason why I became a NBA fan which is why I rock the user name, but as far as single season teams nobody messes with the '86 Celtics.

Just look at that roster...

Bird: At his peak, Mvp, best player in the league
McHale: At his peak, top 5 player in the league
Parish: All-Star Center
DJ: Elite defensive guard, clutch, was an All-Star the year before
Ainge: Their worst starter, but averaged 15/5/5 in the PS, All-Star just 2 years later
Walton: HOF Center who was past his prime off the bench, won 6MOY

In total 5 HOF players, one top 10 player ever (Bird), another top 30-35 player ever (McHale). Their worst player in the starting 5 was Danny Ainge, a guy who made an All-Star team and played 14 years in this league. That is stacked.

[Young X]

'96 Bulls and '86 Celtics are the best ever. They were balanced teams that were dominant on both ends (Bulls only team ever to rank #1 in defense and offense in the same season iirc).

Both had an all time great player on the top of their games, phenomenal 2nd options, a 3rd all star level player, great coaching, great 6th men and efficient role players that stepped up when needed.

Both dominated the regular season and playoffs in impressive fashion while facing pretty good competition.

'87 Lakers weren't a dominant defensive team
'89 Pistons weren't a dominant offensive team
'92 Bulls didn't dominate the playoffs (almost lost to the Knicks)
'01 Lakers were mediocre (relatively speaking...of course they still won 56 games) for most of the season
'08 Celtics struggled in the playoffs
'13 Heat struggled in the playoffs
'14 Spurs almost lost in the 1st round
'15 Warriors didn't dominate depleted competition like they were supposted to

[HOoopCityJones]

I'm a laker fan and the showtime lakers is one of the reason why I became a NBA fan which is why I rock the user name, but as far as single season teams nobody messes with the '86 Celtics.

Just look at that roster...

Bird: At his peak, Mvp, best player in the league
McHale: At his peak, top 5 player in the league
Parish: All-Star Center
DJ: Elite defensive guard, clutch, was an All-Star the year before
Ainge: Their worst starter, but averaged 15/5/5 in the PS, All-Star just 2 years later
Walton: HOF Center who was past his prime off the bench, won 6MOY

In total 5 HOF players, one top 10 player ever (Bird), another top 30-35 player ever (McHale). Their worst player in the starting 5 was Danny Ainge, a guy who made an All-Star team and played 14 years in this league. That is stacked.

Yet , you never hear Bird or Magic get stifled with these "But look who he played with!" arguments. They've had some of the most stacked rosters of all time. :wtf:

[1987_Lakers]

'96 Bulls and '86 Celtics are the best ever. They were balanced teams that were dominant on both ends (Bulls only team ever to rank #1 in defense and offense in the same season iirc).

Both had an all time great player on the top of their games, phenomenal 2nd options, a 3rd all star level player, great coaching, great 6th men and efficient role players that stepped up when needed.

Both dominated the regular season and playoffs in impressive fashion while facing pretty good competition.

'87 Lakers weren't a dominant defensive team
'89 Pistons weren't a dominant offensive team
'92 Bulls didn't dominate the playoffs (almost lost to the Knicks)
'01 Lakers were mediocre (relatively speaking...of course they still won 56 games) for most of the season
'08 Celtics struggled in the playoffs
'13 Heat struggled in the playoffs
'14 Spurs almost lost in the 1st round
'15 Warriors didn't dominate depleted competition like they were supposted to

Good post. I have the '86 Celtics & '96 Bulls #1 and #2 on my list. One of the reasons why Boston is ahead is simply because of the better talent they had.

[ClipperRevival]

A lot of people do have the 1986 Celtics as #1 all time. Again, this being so subjective, I just prefer the 1987 Lakers. The Lakers did beat those same Celtics in both 1985 and 1987. And although defense is obviously important, you don't need an all time great D to be dominant. The 1987 Lakers could stop people when they had too. And that's all that matters to me.

[Odinn]

Since 1980? Probably...

1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1983 76ers
3./4. 1992 Bulls/1987 Lakers
5./6. 2001 Lakers/1996 Bulls
7. 1989 Pistons
8. 2008 Celtics
9./10./11. 2004 Pistons/2015 Warriors/2014 Spurs
...

Mostly based on my opinion on which team would've won more series between them, given equal "conditions". Some are very tough to say, just extremely close. And I guess that another Spurs' team could've been there instead of the '14 squad.

2008 Celtics are build on reputation, not on their level of play, IMHO.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231705


From 1980 my list would be like;
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1983 Sixers
3. 1992 Bulls
4. 1996 Bulls
5. 2001 Lakers

I rank 1992 Bulls over 1996 Bulls due to PJ's and MJ's comments, though.

[Odinn]

A lot of people do have the 1986 Celtics as #1 all time. Again, this being so subjective, I just prefer the 1987 Lakers. The Lakers did beat those same Celtics in both 1985 and 1987. And although defense is obviously important, you don't need an all time great D to be dominant. The 1987 Lakers could stop people when they had too. And that's all that matters to me.
That's just wrong and ignorant. Celtics in 1987 struggled due to injury issues. In the finals, they were just 5 starters without a bench. The only bench player with 10+ mpg was Greg Kite. I bet you hearing this name for the first time.

The way of thinking; get your facts straight then have an opinion.

[Young X]

A lot of people do have the 1986 Celtics as #1 all time. Again, this being so subjective, I just prefer the 1987 Lakers. The Lakers did beat those same Celtics in both 1985 and 1987. And although defense is obviously important, you don't need an all time great D to be dominant. The 1987 Lakers could stop people when they had too. And that's all that matters to me.To be fair, the '85 Celtics didn't have Walton (his rebounding, defense, passing off the bench were a big part of their success) and in '87 most of the team was injured outside of Bird. Walton missed most of the season and McHale was playing on a broken foot in the playoffs.

It's all about matchups though and although I think the Celtics were better, I think the Lakers would've given them hell. Celtics didn't have the athleticism to run with that Lakers team.

[1987_Lakers]

A lot of people do have the 1986 Celtics as #1 all time. Again, this being so subjective, I just prefer the 1987 Lakers. The Lakers did beat those same Celtics in both 1985 and 1987. And although defense is obviously important, you don't need an all time great D to be dominant. The 1987 Lakers could stop people when they had too. And that's all that matters to me.

It's close. The Celtics were a different team in '86 being they had Walton off the bench and everyone was healthy (Boston was pretty banged up in '87)

I just think that '86 Celtics team had less flaws as a team compared to showtime. The Lakers were by no means a bad defensive team, they got stops when they needed to, but I think a weakness that surfaced at times was their rebounding, playing in the West they got away with it, but put them up against a physical team from the East and they were exposed at times for their weak rebounding (Kareem was old and stopped rebounding), Pat Riley knew this more than anybody, he stressed to the Lakers about it and he even came up with his famous phrase "no rebound, no rings".

I'm just saying...put that '87 Lakers team against the '86 Boston team with Walton and rebounding becomes a big concern for the Lakers.

[1987_Lakers]

Interesting stat on the '87 Lakers considering rebounding...

Lakers vs the Western conference ('87 Season)
Lakers: 45.2 RPG | Opponents: 41.8 RPG

Lakers vs the Eastern Conference ('87 Season)
Lakers: 42.3 RPG | Opponents: 43.1 RPG

Lakers weren't really a bad rebounding team, but I find it interesting how different the rebounding numbers are when comparing their West & East opponents.

[3ball]

Both had an all time great player on the top of their games, phenomenal 2nd options, a 3rd all star level player, great coaching, great 6th men and efficient role players that stepped up when needed.


The Bulls ORtg was 106.1 in 1994 (14th) and 109.5 in 1995 (10th), but when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).

I credit the Bulls' #1 all-time offense to one of MJ's best individual seasons, where he once again achieved the league's leading scoring average on high efficiency within an equal-opportunity offense.

Since the offense still allowed other players to get touches and opportunities to playmake, the defense was giving up the worst of both worlds - one player dominating and everyone else also creating for each other as well.. That's a defense's nightmare because there's no right choice and the offense is adjustable so it's harder to exploit.
.

[Round Mound]

2008 Celtics are build on reputation, not on their level of play, IMHO.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231705


From 1980 my list would be like;
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1983 Sixers
3. 1992 Bulls
4. 1996 Bulls
5. 2001 Lakers

I rank 1992 Bulls over 1996 Bulls due to PJ's and MJ's comments, though.

Pretty Good List :applause: . The Only Team That Could Beat The 1986 Celtics, 1987 Lakers, 1983 Sixers and 1996 Bulls is The Spurs: Even The Old Passed Prime Spurs of 2014 Could Compete But I`Think They Still Loose In The End To Those 4 Teams Mentioned.

[Young X]

Question: Does a team absolutely have to win a championship to be an all time great?

People might think I'm crazy but if you look at a team like the '97 Jazz...up until they ran into the Bulls they did everything an all time great team should do. They had the MVP, another all time great player, all time great coach, solid role players, 64 wins, and went 11-3 in the first 3 rounds (beat the 56 win Lakers and 57 win Rockets).

They basically had a dream season up until Jordan's gamewinner in game 1 of the finals. I honestly think alot of the Spurs teams that we praise wouldn't be looked at any differently from that Jazz squad had they ran into a team like the Bulls. That's just how I feel.

[Round Mound]

It's close. The Celtics were a different team in '86 being they had Walton off the bench and everyone was healthy (Boston was pretty banged up in '87)

I just think that '86 Celtics team had less flaws as a team compared to showtime. The Lakers were by no means a bad defensive team, they got stops when they needed to, but I think a weakness that surfaced at times was their rebounding, playing in the West they got away with it, but put them up against a physical team from the East and they were exposed at times for their weak rebounding (Kareem was old and stopped rebounding), Pat Riley knew this more than anybody, he stressed to the Lakers about it and he even came up with his famous phrase "no rebound, no rings".

I'm just saying...put that '87 Lakers team against the '86 Boston team with Walton and rebounding becomes a big concern for the Lakers.


:applause:

[B]Bill Walton in 1986 Per 19.3 MPG: 7.6 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 2.1 APG and 1.3 BPG

Healthy Walton per 36 Minutes: 14.1 PPG (On 56.2% FG); 12.7 RPG, 3.8 APG and 2.5 BPG.

Walton Was Probly The GOAT Defensive-Rebounding-P

[3ball]

Question: Does a team absolutely have to win a championship to be an all time great?

People might think I'm crazy but if you look at a team like the '97 Jazz...up until they ran into the the Bulls they did everything an all time great team should do. They had the MVP, another all time great player, all time great coach, solid role players, 64 wins, and went 11-3 in the first 3 rounds (beat the 56 win Lakers and 57 win Sonics).

They basically had a dream season up until Jordan's gamewinner in game 1 of the finals. I honestly think alot of the Spurs teams that we praise wouldn't be looked at any differently from that Jazz squad had they ran into a team like the Bulls.
If you like the Jazz playoff run in 1997, look what who they beat in the 1998 Western Conference Playoffs.

[3ball]

Pretty Good List :applause: . The Only Team That Could Beat The 1986 Celtics, 1987 Lakers, 1983 Sixers and 1996 Bulls is The Spurs: Even The Old Passed Prime Spurs of 2014 Could Compete But I`Think They Still Loose In The End To Those 4 Teams Mentioned.
The Bulls ORtg was 106.1 in 1994 (14th) and 109.5 in 1995 (10th), but when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).

[Round Mound]

The Bulls ORtg was 106.1 in 1994 (14th) and 109.5 in 1995 (10th), but when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).

Addition of Kukoc and Harper too. Great team but they dont stand a chance to the 80s teams.

[rmt]

Because playoffs are different from the regular season. More physical, more slowed down with more half court, possessions are more crucial and the pressure to perform is much higher. What good is a team if they dominate the regular season but don't show up when it matters most? For example, the Clippers. Every year, their offense is dominant in the regular season. Their advanced numbers are way up there. But they choke in the playoffs. So in the grand scheme of things, what good is all that regular season dominance?

Not only the above, but veteran teams will rest their players - giving up RS games keep them fresh for the playoffs. They know that the RS means nothing other than seeding - when playoffs start, everybody gets reset to 0-0. Younger, inexperienced teams will fight for the RS games and better seeding because they feel they might need the HCA edge as they have less experience.

[3ball]

Addition of Kukoc and Harper too. Great team but they dont stand a chance to the 80s teams.



The Bulls had Harper in 1995 and Kukoc in 1994 and 1995 - the Bulls' ORtg was 106.1 and 109.5, respectively, good for 14th and 10th.

But when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).

I credit the Bulls' #1 all-time offense to one of MJ's best individual seasons, where he once again achieved the league's leading scoring average on high efficiency within an equal-opportunity offense.

Since the offense still allowed other players to get touches and opportunities to playmake, the defense was giving up the worst of both worlds - one player dominating and everyone else also creating for each other as well.. That's a defense's worst nightmare because there's no right choice and the offense is adjustable so it's harder to exploit..

Equal-opportunity offenses in today's game can involve all 5 guys driving and kicking, not just the PG.. But in the triangle, all 5 guys caught the ball on the post, since that was the preferred option in the absence of 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick preferable.
.

[GIF REACTION]

The illegal defense guidelines allowed teams to get away with non scorers on the court. Spacing was guaranteed via the guidelines, hence player made spacing was not a priority like it is now.

[3ball]

The illegal defense guidelines allowed teams to get away with non scorers on the court. Spacing was guaranteed via the guidelines, hence player made spacing was not a priority like it is now.


zone isn't allowed inside the 16 x 19 foot painted area - inside the paint, defenders must stay within "armslength" (about 3 feet).

"armslength" is the strictest defense possible outside of having defenders stand shoulder-to-shoulder.. yet this ridiculously strict policy governs today's defenders in the most important area of the floor: the paint.

[3ball]

The illegal defense guidelines allowed teams to get away with non scorers on the court. Spacing was guaranteed via the guidelines, hence player made spacing was not a priority like it is now.


Also, paint-camping is a superior defensive tactic than shading.

No spacing is tougher for the offensive player than spacing.

And hand-checking is tougher than no hand-checking.

The most important factor above is spacing - today's game has it, so defenders are helping from further away - that's the definition of spacing... The further distance of today's help defenders isn't disputable - it's physics... Spacing affords today's players more time and room to operate than ever before.

[3ball]

.
Today's player enjoys hands-off defense where he has tons of room between him and defender:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-07-2015/KVA0Bm.gif



But in previous eras, he'd face hand-checking and NO space between him and the defender:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-01-2015/V2-pAN.gif


Btw, even without considering hand-checking - we know that Lebron's below-average midrange and isolation efficiency shows that he wouldn't be as good in previous eras, since those were the main options remaining without the 3-pointers needed to make today's customary drive-and-kick preferable.

[Round Mound]

The Bulls had Harper in 1995 and Kukoc in 1994 and 1995 - the Bulls' ORtg was 106.1 and 109.5, respectively, good for 14th and 10th.

But when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).

I credit the Bulls' #1 all-time offense to one of MJ's best individual seasons, where he once again achieved the league's leading scoring average on high efficiency within an equal-opportunity offense.

Since the offense still allowed other players to get touches and opportunities to playmake, the defense was giving up the worst of both worlds - one player dominating and everyone else also creating for each other as well.. That's a defense's worst nightmare because there's no right choice and the offense is adjustable so it's harder to exploit..

Equal-opportunity offenses in today's game can involve all 5 guys driving and kicking, not just the PG.. But in the triangle, all 5 guys caught the ball on the post, since that was the preferred option in the absence of 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick preferable.
.

Well We All Know How Good Of A Defender MJ Was. The Best Defensive SG Ever Too. But He Was Blessed With Great Teamates In Their Primes and His Prime. For Example Pippen`s Plus/Minus Was 2nd To MVP Robinson in 94 and 95 and In The Top 10 Like 7 Years! Pippen Was The Best SF of The 90s! And Thee Best Defender for The Bulls. We All Know Jordan Was The Best Guard Ever Play But He Was Blessed With Better Teamates than That of Stockton-To-Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem, D-Rob and even Shaq etc

[3ball]

Pippen was the Best Defender for The Bulls.



Pippen guarded Mark Jackson once, the slowest PG of all-time - yet people are so biased by their MJ fatigue, that it's enough for them to say he defended better than MJ.. But show me another time he was the primary defender on a PG?

Otoh, Jordan was the primary defender on the other team's best player ANYTIME THEY WERE A GUARD, including Magic (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713075&postcount=45), Gary Payton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meL62CUehuw), Reggie Miller, Isiah Thomas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MfhFFE7fc), Clyde Drexler, John Stockton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOuMwmXtgd0), Kevin Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K2rBgOqGCw), Tim Hardaway (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ouMPqEk-s), Rod Strickland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3JqY3CECW8), etc., etc.

Again, the only reason people revise history now, is because of MJ bias/fatigue.. But at the time, EVERYONE knew MJ was the best defender, including the mainstream media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s
.

[3ball]

He Was Blessed With Better Teamates than That of Stockton-To-Malone, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem, D-Rob and even Shaq etc


DRob's: Duncan > Pippen

Shaq: Kobe > Pippen

Hakeem: Drexler > Pippen

Malone or Stockton > Pippen


That's pretty much everyone on your list... MJ's first 3-peat Bulls had the least help of all-time, which is why MJ had to put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats during those 3 seasons than any player ever.

[Round Mound]

How Many SFs or Should I Say Point-Forwards That Created For Others Have Lead The Entire League in Defensive Rating 3 Times?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Season Lg Player DRtg Tm

2014-15 NBA Kawhi Leonard 96.39 SAS
2013-14 NBA Joakim Noah 95.82 CHI
2012-13 NBA Tim Duncan 94.97 SAS
2011-12 NBA Kevin Garnett 94.21 BOS
2010-11 NBA Dwight Howard 94.18 ORL
2009-10 NBA Dwight Howard 95.44 ORL
2008-09 NBA Dwight Howard 94.56 ORL
2007-08 NBA Kevin Garnett 93.85 BOS
2006-07 NBA Tim Duncan 94.45 SAS
2005-06 NBA Tim Duncan 94.41 SAS
2004-05 NBA Tim Duncan 93.17 SAS
2003-04 NBA Ben Wallace 87.48 DET
2002-03 NBA Ben Wallace 89.99 DET
2001-02 NBA Ben Wallace 92.89 DET
2000-01 NBA Marcus Camby 90.56 NYK
1999-00 NBA David Robinson* 92.22 SAS
1998-99 NBA David Robinson* 87.94 SAS
1997-98 NBA David Robinson* 93.61 SAS
1996-97 NBA Alonzo Mourning* 95.31 MIA
1995-96 NBA David Robinson* 96.45 SAS
1994-95 NBA Scottie Pippen* 98.25 CHI
1993-94 NBA Patrick Ewing* 92.88 NYK
1992-93 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.34 NYK
1991-92 NBA David Robinson* 94.38 SAS
1990-91 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 93.39 HOU
1989-90 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 93.43 HOU
1988-89 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 94.86 HOU
1987-88 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 98.05 HOU
1986-87 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 98.75 HOU
1985-86 NBA Bill Walton* 97.49 BOS
1984-85 NBA Mark Eaton 96.50 UTA
1983-84 NBA Alton Lister 98.63 MIL
1982-83 NBA Alton Lister 96.19 MIL
1981-82 NBA Jack Sikma 97.23 SEA
1980-81 NBA Alvan Adams 96.24 PHO
1979-80 NBA Tree Rollins 95.90 ATL

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly_p.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Playoff Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Year Lg Player DRtg Tm

2015 NBA Andrew Bogut 94.34 GSW
2014 NBA Paul Millsap 97.74 ATL
2013 NBA Kevin Garnett 90.30 BOS
2012 NBA Josh Smith 93.20 ATL
2011 NBA Dwight Howard 95.73 ORL
2010 NBA Dwight Howard 92.98 ORL
2009 NBA Dwight Howard 98.35 ORL
2008 NBA Tim Duncan 98.51 SAS
2007 NBA Jason Kidd 94.63 NJN
2006 NBA Alonzo Mourning* 95.13 MIA
2005 NBA Ben Wallace 93.48 DET
2004 NBA Ben Wallace 83.91 DET
2003 NBA Ben Wallace 90.51 DET
2002 NBA Ben Wallace 86.41 DET
2001 NBA David Robinson* 92.42 SAS
2000 NBA David Robinson* 84.01 SAS
1999 NBA David Robinson* 87.33 SAS
1998 NBA David Robinson* 93.42 SAS
1997 NBA Alonzo Mourning* 94.64 MIA
1996 NBA Scottie Pippen* 96.07 CHI
1995 NBA David Robinson* 97.53 SAS
1994 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.36 NYK
1993 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 96.56 HOU
1992 NBA Dennis Rodman* 99.35 DET
1991 NBA Scottie Pippen* 99.52 CHI
1990 NBA Bill Laimbeer 96.32 DET
1989 NBA Dennis Rodman* 99.38 DET
1988 NBA Bill Laimbeer 99.51 DET
1987 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 102.24 HOU
1986 NBA Bill Walton* 100.62 BOS
1985 NBA Ralph Sampson* 97.16 HOU
1984 NBA Buck Williams 99.41 NJN
1983 NBA Moses Malone* 95.76 PHI
1982 NBA Larry Bird* 94.21 BOS
1981 NBA Truck Robinson 94.51 PHO
1980 NBA Larry Bird* 95.93 BOS

Stop Underrating Pippen :rolleyes:

[Round Mound]

DRob's: Duncan > Pippen Agree

Shaq: Kobe > Pippen Not Defensively and Play-Making Wise

Hakeem: Drexler > Pippen Not Defensively and Play-Making Wise

Malone or Stockton > Not Defensively


That's pretty much everyone on your list... MJ's first 3-peat Bulls had the least help of all-time, which is why MJ had to put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats during those 3 seasons than any player ever.

:roll: :rolleyes: :no:

Which Superstars 2nd Option Was 4th In PER For A Whole Season? Jordan`s

Pippen Was The Best SF of The 90s. Stop Trying To Overrate Jordan and Underrate Pippen.

[3ball]

How Many SFs or Should I Say Point-Forwards That Created For Others Have Lead The Entire League in Defensive Rating 3 Times?


All that bolded and nothing you said refutes:

DRob: Duncan > Pippen

Shaq: Kobe > Pippen

Hakeem: Drexler > Pippen

Malone or Stockton > Pippen

Btw, don't rely on individual defensive ratings because they assume all players on a team are equally good at forcing turnovers and misses, and face the same number of possessions - those are massive holes in the data:


Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

See 2nd footnote at bottom: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Again, MJ's first 3-peat Bulls had the least help of all-time, which is why MJ had to put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats during those 3 seasons than any player ever.. 2+2=4.

The only reason people revise history now, is because of MJ bias/fatigue.. But at the time, EVERYONE knew MJ carried the team on offense and was the team's best defender, including the mainstream media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s

[Gileraracer]

96 Bulls easily best team ever

[Round Mound]

All that bolded and nothing you said refutes:

DRob: Duncan > Pippen

Shaq: Kobe > Pippen

Hakeem: Drexler > Pippen

Malone or Stockton > Pippen

Btw, don't rely on individual defensive ratings because they assume all players on a team are equally good at forcing turnovers and misses, and face the same number of possessions - those are massive holes in the data:


Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

See 2nd footnote at bottom: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Again, MJ's first 3-peat Bulls had the least help of all-time, which is why MJ had to put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats during those 3 seasons than any player ever.. 2+2=4.

The only reason people revise history now, is because of MJ bias/fatigue.. But at the time, EVERYONE knew MJ carried the team on offense and was the team's best defender, including the mainstream media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s

:roll:
:facepalm
:no:

Look even i agree Jordan is the best guard ever but he had tons of help compared to other superstars of the 90s: He had the SINGE BEST PLAYER AT THE SF POSITION FOR 6 rings!. Thats a luxury only he had! No other superstar had a 2nd fiddle like Pippen. More broken down statsitical proof:

PLUS/MINUS

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_top_10_p.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Top 10 Playoff Leaders and Records for Box Plus/Minus

1990: 8th
1991: 6th
1992: 3rd
1994: 3rd (NO Jordan)
1995: 6th
1996: 1st! (In The GOAT Team For The 90s)
1997: 10th
1998: 4th
2000: 4th


http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_top_10.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Top 10 Leaders and Records for Box Plus/Minus

1991: 6th
1992: 6th
1994: 2nd! (N0 Jordan)
1995: 2nd! (Lesser Games With Jordan)
1996: 4th
1997: 6th
1998: 3rd

So for the whole 90s These are The Only Players That Where Better Than Pippen Are The Following:

1-Jordan
2-Hakeem
3-Shaq
4-Duncan
5-Barkley
6-Malone
7-Robinson
8-Ewing

9-Pippen


But LOOK: quite strange that when Jordan LEAVES Pippens Stats Go Full Blown and He Appears as a Top 4 in PER the 1993-94 Season and The Best or 2nd Best Plus/Minus in The League?

-Jordan Was No Bird or Magic: They Made Others Better: Magical Passers and See The Game Different

Clonclusion:

A) MJ Hd A Top 9 Player in the League In His Own Team.
B) A Better 2nd Option Than Any Other Superstar in the 90s
C) The BEST SF in The Game
D) The GOAT Defensive SF
E) One Of The GOAT ALL AROUND PLAYERS EVER.


PERIOD!

[OldSchoolBBall]

The 2013-2014 Spurs are better than 92 Bulls

LOL's

[Demitri98]

86 Celtics.

The only thing they didn't have was a great athlete for attacking the basket and getting out in transition.

Most complete team ever.

[juju151111]

Addition of Kukoc and Harper too. Great team but they dont stand a chance to the 80s teams.
Your definitely delusional

[sd3035]

Okc 2015-2016

[dubeta]

'96 Bulls


Was able to win with Jordan having the WOAT performance


Look at the SRAS rankings (teammate strength) they come out at #1 all-time

[sd3035]

'96 Bulls


Was able to win with Jordan having the WOAT performance


Look at the SRAS rankings (teammate strength) they come out at #1 all-time


agreed, they easily coasted to a title despite having to carry old choking Jordan

[juju151111]

:roll:
:facepalm
:no:

Look even i agree Jordan is the best guard ever but he had tons of help compared to other superstars of the 90s: He had the SINGE BEST PLAYER AT THE SF POSITION FOR 6 rings!. Thats a luxury only he had! No other superstar had a 2nd fiddle like Pippen. More broken down statsitical proof:

PLUS/MINUS

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_top_10_p.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Top 10 Playoff Leaders and Records for Box Plus/Minus

1990: 8th
1991: 6th
1992: 3rd
1994: 3rd (NO Jordan)
1995: 6th
1996: 1st! (In The GOAT Team For The 90s)
1997: 10th
1998: 4th
2000: 4th


http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/bpm_top_10.html

NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Top 10 Leaders and Records for Box Plus/Minus

1991: 6th
1992: 6th
1994: 2nd! (N0 Jordan)
1995: 2nd! (Lesser Games With Jordan)
1996: 4th
1997: 6th
1998: 3rd

So for the whole 90s These are The Only Players That Where Better Than Pippen Are The Following:

1-Jordan
2-Hakeem
3-Shaq
4-Duncan
5-Barkley
6-Malone
7-Robinson
8-Ewing

9-Pippen


But LOOK: quite strange that when Jordan LEAVES Pippens Stats Go Full Blown and He Appears as a Top 4 in PER the 1993-94 Season and The Best or 2nd Best Plus/Minus in The League?

-Jordan Was No Bird or Magic: They Made Others Better: Magical Passers and See The Game Different

Clonclusion:

A) MJ Hd A Top 9 Player in the League In His Own Team.
B) A Better 2nd Option Than Any Other Superstar in the 90s
C) The BEST SF in The Game
D) The GOAT Defensive SF
E) One Of The GOAT ALL AROUND PLAYERS EVER.


PERIOD!
Mj did make him better. Look at his stats from 88-92. He had a down year in 93. He basically had the same stats in 92 with mj

[sd3035]

Have to agree that Pippen's Bulls in 96 were definitely top 3, probably the best

[feyki]

1) 1971 Milwaukee Bucks: 11.92 (Won Championship)
2) 1996 Chicago Bulls: 11.80 (Won Championship)
3) 1972 Los Angeles Lakers: 11.65 (Won Championship)
4) 2015 Golden State Warriors: 11.19*
5) 1997 Chicago Bulls: 10.70 (Won Championship)
5) 1972 Milwaukee Bucks: 10.70 (Western Finals)
7) 1992 Chicago Bulls: 10.07 (Won Championship)
8) 2008 Boston Celtics: 9.30 (Won Championship)
9) 2013 Oklahoma City Thunder: 9.15 (Western Semifinals)
10) 1986 Boston Celtics: 9.06 (Won Championship)

[SHAQisGOAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4

'86 Celtics.

Already stated my opinion why they are #1 numerous times so I don't feel like giving another long explanation.

Damn, beautiful video, never seen it before :applause: :bowdown:



I'm a laker fan and the showtime lakers is one of the reason why I became a NBA fan which is why I rock the user name, but as far as single season teams nobody messes with the '86 Celtics.

Just look at that roster...

Bird: At his peak, Mvp, best player in the league
McHale: At his peak, top 5 player in the league
Parish: All-Star Center
DJ: Elite defensive guard, clutch, was an All-Star the year before
Ainge: Their worst starter, but averaged 15/5/5 in the PS, All-Star just 2 years later
Walton: HOF Center who was past his prime off the bench, won 6MOY

In total 5 HOF players, one top 10 player ever (Bird), another top 30-35 player ever (McHale). Their worst player in the starting 5 was Danny Ainge, a guy who made an All-Star team and played 14 years in this league. That is stacked.

Agree with everything except that McHale's peak was not in that year but in 1986-87 (before he got injured in the Playoffs), although he was already in his prime for that season... And he was not a top5 player in 1986, rather yet maybe in 1987.
I also don't know about Kevin being a top30-35 all-time player but he's definitely top50.

Plus, they also had Sichting, a tough guard, good ballhandler/passer who mostly didn't miss open mid-range shots; and Scott Wedman, a former all-star, former all-defensive, former 19 PPG scorer, in his final year then, still contributing some.



A lot of people do have the 1986 Celtics as #1 all time. Again, this being so subjective, I just prefer the 1987 Lakers. The Lakers did beat those same Celtics in both 1985 and 1987. And although defense is obviously important, you don't need an all time great D to be dominant. The 1987 Lakers could stop people when they had too. And that's all that matters to me.

Not the SAME Celtics though...

In 1985... McHale wasn't quite as good as later on, they didn't have Walton, Ainge was still developing, Maxwell "messed" them up by not properly recovering from injury, and Bird played with a severely injured elbow throughout the Playoffs and then also an injured right-hand in the Finals.

In 1987... Walton and Wedman were done, Sichting declined, team was getting older with starters logging in more minutes than ever before due to the fact that they had virtually no bench, and then in Playoffs McHale was playing with a broken foot, Parish and Ainge were not close to 100%, while they played some extremely gruelsome series (two went to 7 games just before the Finals), with Bird doing too much, already with a bad back.




Yet , you never hear Bird or Magic get stifled with these "But look who he played with!" arguments. They've had some of the most stacked rosters of all time. :wtf:

It wasn't always like that though...

When Bird arrived, the Celtics were one of the worst teams in the league, in fact a franchise falling apart... And with the same core roster as before, Larry instantly changed that with his tremendous impact; they became one of the top contenders since.

They were never close to that level before 1985-86... Shit, Bird had one of the GOAT "carry-jobs" just two years prior to that, in 1984.

Even immediately afterwards, in 1987, they weren't even touching that same level, never reaching it again or remotely close.

That team was built from the ground up, with patience, discipline, terrific work ethic and great personnel...
And with many other superstars throughout history to lead them instead of Bird? Tbh, they wouldn't have been quite as good, they wouldn't have played that type of tremendous basketball and so on; peak Bird was the centerpiece for all that, their motor, the main catalyst.

[ClipperRevival]

Question: Does a team absolutely have to win a championship to be an all time great?

People might think I'm crazy but if you look at a team like the '97 Jazz...up until they ran into the Bulls they did everything an all time great team should do. They had the MVP, another all time great player, all time great coach, solid role players, 64 wins, and went 11-3 in the first 3 rounds (beat the 56 win Lakers and 57 win Rockets).

They basically had a dream season up until Jordan's gamewinner in game 1 of the finals. I honestly think alot of the Spurs teams that we praise wouldn't be looked at any differently from that Jazz squad had they ran into a team like the Bulls. That's just how I feel.

A great team can be a victim of circumstances. Like playing against an all-time great team, which was the case for the Jazz. And yeah, the Jazz were like the Spurs in that they were very disciplined and never beat themselves. You really had to bring your A game to beat them.

[ClipperRevival]

To be fair, the '85 Celtics didn't have Walton (his rebounding, defense, passing off the bench were a big part of their success) and in '87 most of the team was injured outside of Bird. Walton missed most of the season and McHale was playing on a broken foot in the playoffs.

It's all about matchups though and although I think the Celtics were better, I think the Lakers would've given them hell. Celtics didn't have the athleticism to run with that Lakers team.

One of the reasons I prefer the 1987 Lakers over the 1986 Celtics is their ability to play any style. The Celtics lacked the athleticism to run an up tempo style while the Lakers could do that AND play a dominant, half court game.

[senelcoolidge]

1980 on..it would be the 1986 Celtics.

[SHAQisGOAT]

One of the reasons I prefer the 1987 Lakers over the 1986 Celtics is their ability to play any style. The Celtics lacked the athleticism to run an up tempo style while the Lakers could do that AND play a dominant, half court game.

Celtics' terrific overall passing game enabled them to dominate the fastbreak very well though, and not only that... They were good at creating TO's and great at turning (great) defense into instant offense, they were an extremely smart and very unselfish team, would kill ya if they caught you sleeping on the break...
Bird's most likely the GOAT outlet passer and he could do plenty of damage on the break, overall; Parish is one of the best centers ever at running the break; DJ still had some of his past great athleticism left, he was then a good passer and very smart player, finished pretty well; Walton still great at them outlet passes; Ainge was quick at going up and down the court and had good body control to finish inside; McHale was a mobile 4...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=1m19s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=1m4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=10m44s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=0m44s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=4m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m52s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=2m19s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m46s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=10m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=6m12s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=8m57s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=9m19s

Ofc that they couldn't **** with showtime LA's fastbreak (who could though?), but they had an elite fb...

And the Lakers' half-court game was great but couldn't quite compete with the Celtics'... Their main offensive half-cout weapon was probably still Kareem, at 39 years old (still very good though)...

[ClipperRevival]

Celtics' terrific overall passing game enabled them to dominate the fastbreak very well though, and not only that... They were good at creating TO's and great at turning (great) defense into instant offense, they were an extremely smart and very unselfish team, would kill ya if they caught you sleeping on the break...
Bird's most likely the GOAT outlet passer and he could do plenty of damage on the break, overall; Parish is one of the best centers ever at running the break; DJ still had some of his past great athleticism left, he was then a good passer and very smart player, finished pretty well; Walton still great at them outlet passes; Ainge was quick at going up and down the court and had good body control to finish inside; McHale was a mobile 4...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=1m19s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=1m4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=10m44s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=0m44s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=4m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m52s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4&t=2m19s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=0m46s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=10m34s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=6m12s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=8m57s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXffA9YIWIA&t=9m19s

Ofc that they couldn't **** with showtime LA's fastbreak but they had an elite fb...

And the Lakers' half-court game was great but couldn't quite compete with the Celtics'... Their main offensive half-cout weapon was probably still Kareem, at 39 years old (still very good though)...

Yeah, the consensus is the 1986 Celtics. So I can't really say much.

But as for the Lakers half court game, Magic, by 1987 was really starting to develop his own post game. Not to mention Worthy was a great iso scorer from the post. One of the quickest first steps ever when facing you up. So they definitely could beat you there. Of course not on the same level as the Celtics but I would say still elite.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Yeah, the consensus is the 1986 Celtics. So I can't really say much.

But as for the Lakers half court game, Magic, by 1987 was really starting to develop his own post game. Not to mention Worthy was a great iso scorer from the post. One of the quickest first steps ever when facing you up. So they definitely could beat you there. Of course not on the same level as the Celtics but I would say still elite.

I'd still say elite too, but yea, not quite there with those C's.

Magic was at his overall peak in 1987... He always had a post-game but it was really major by then, really punishing teams from there. And his half-court game was more than that too, he always worked in order to improved/refine his game.

Yea, Worthy was a pretty good iso scorer too... Tremendous 1st step from the triple-threat position, very quick drives/turns from the post, good turnaround J...

[24-Inch_Chrome]

The Bulls had Harper in 1995 and Kukoc in 1994 and 1995 - the Bulls' ORtg was 106.1 and 109.5, respectively, good for 14th and 10th.

But when MJ came back for a full season, it shot up to #1 all-time, 115.2.. This is despite playing 4 on 5 offensively (rodman).


You do realize that 115.2 is not the highest team ORTG ever, right? Not only that, but league ORTG average matters too.

1987 Lakers posted a 115.6 ORTG.

The Bulls' +7.6 differential relative to league average is great...but it's 1.9 ORTG points away from being the greatest ORTG based on differential.

[Pointguard]

Nice always wondered what Elo thought was the GOAT team
You mean Elmo. GS nearly lost three straight games to a one man team, with that one player shooting below 40% and they are ranked as the third best team ever...

[Pointguard]

The '87 Lakers were the best team to watch. They clicked on all cylinders. They could morph from great team ball to great individual play at a level that has never been approached. And they had that swarming defense. To the science of the game, they had all the advantages. They had three great post players - all of which were unstoppable in different ways. All three had crazy efficiency. Scott and Magic could hit threes at this time. The whole team could pass.

To me they were the best because they got more easy baskets, which is the name of the game, than any other team. They had the best fast break of any team mentioned in this thread to go along with the most potent post game for easy baskets. Great interior defender, great perimeter defender. They also were one of the best teams at adapting to other styles. Every role was fulfilled on that team. They were four players that could lead the team in scoring, and Magic was playing among the smartest ball in league history.

[Pointguard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Td5QRfzj4

'86 Celtics.

Already stated my opinion why they are #1 numerous times so I don't feel like giving another long explanation.Now that's sweet balling.

[sdot_thadon]

Man, this is easily the best thread all summer. Thanks guys.:applause: :applause:

[SHAQisGOAT]

The '87 Lakers were the best team to watch. They clicked on all cylinders. They could morph from great team ball to great individual play at a level that has never been approached. And they had that swarming defense. To the science of the game, they had all the advantages. They had three great post players - all of which were unstoppable in different ways. All three had crazy efficiency. Scott and Magic could hit threes at this time. The whole team could pass.

To me they were the best because they got more easy baskets, which is the name of the game, than any other team. They had the best fast break of any team mentioned in this thread to go along with the most potent post game for easy baskets. Great interior defender, great perimeter defender. They also were one of the best teams at adapting to other styles. Every role was fulfilled on that team. They were four players that could lead the team in scoring, and Magic was playing among the smartest ball in league history.

And Coop... He was their best 3pt shooter at that time, and Mike was absolutely on a roll for the Playoffs, 48.6% on 4 attempts per game in 29.0 MPG, over the course of 18 games.

[3ball]

For the whole 90s, these are The Only Players That Where Better Than Pippen:


Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Robinson
Ewing
Drexler
Payton
Mourning
Webber
Magic
Isiah
Bird
Penny
Grant Hill



Probably Kevin Johnson too and a few others, but otherwise, agreed.

[Young X]

A great team can be a victim of circumstances. Like playing against an all-time great team, which was the case for the Jazz. And yeah, the Jazz were like the Spurs in that they were very disciplined and never beat themselves. You really had to bring your A game to beat them.That's what people don't understand. Circumstances are big part of winning. I'm not convinced that that Jazz team wouldn't be viewed in a similar fashion to the Spurs had they gotten to face the '14 Heat instead of the GOAT team.

[97 bulls]

The NBA has always been about matchups. The only team i feel that would be good enough to matchup with the Bulls would be the 83 Sixers. The Celtics never had a true PG and the Bulls full court pressure defense would be the difference. A lesser form of the Bulls beat a lesser form of the Lakers in 91. As well as the Pistons

[ClipperRevival]

That's what people don't understand. Circumstances are big part of winning. I'm not convinced that that Jazz team wouldn't be viewed in a similar fashion to the Spurs had they gotten to face the '14 Heat instead of the GOAT team.

It can be if you have to dethrone an all-time great team to win rings. I do think the late 90's Jazz were some of the better teams to not win a ring. I could definitely see them winning rings against some of the weaker champs in history. I mean they gave the Bulls a good push in two years. If not for MJ's heroics, they might've won one, especially 1998. Without MJ's last minute heroics in game 6, game 7 is played in Utah.

[ClipperRevival]

That's what people don't understand. Circumstances are big part of winning. I'm not convinced that that Jazz team wouldn't be viewed in a similar fashion to the Spurs had they gotten to face the '14 Heat instead of the GOAT team.

Also have to mention that those Jazz dominated the ultra talented Lakers squads in 1996-97 (4-1) and 1997-98 (sweep) in the playoffs. The Lakers clearly had more talent but they weren't ready to win. The Jazz dismantled them.

[Rocketswin2013]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d4/01/09/d40109076e320539f16da6db6009020d.jpg

[Round Mound]

Probably Kevin Johnson too and a few others, but otherwise, agreed.

:no:

[necya]

imaging playoffs series with the best teams since 1980 would give some interesting series. Hard to guess the outcome for some...
i think the 83 Sixers, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, 89 Pistons and 92 Bulls would have the best chances.
But clearly the teams that i would fear the most would be the 86 Celtics and the 83 Sixers. Also the 92 Bulls team of course, that 92 MJ could do the impossible.

[Hey Yo]

Can't really say the 87' Lakers considering they didn't have any competition until the Finals. (which was the norm. for them)

Their 3 opponents before the Finals were a combined 118-128 during that reg. season.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Can't really say the 87' Lakers considering they didn't have any competition until the Finals. (which was the norm. for them)

Their 3 opponents before the Finals were a combined 118-128 during that reg. season.

39-43 Supersonics went buckwild in the Playoffs (mostly Dale Ellis) and beat the 42-40 Rockets and the 55-27 Mavericks... Then the Lakers swept them...
Would it made you feel better if it were the Lakers beating those Mavs? :rolleyes:

Even the 42-40 Warriors beat the 44-38 Jazz, 3 games to 2... Then LA stomped them.

Nuggets also had a down year and were better than their record suggested.

Not even saying that they had a hard path or something, especially when you look at their level and when compared to the Celtics on the other conference... but people overblow that whole thing out of proprotion too much.

[97 bulls]

39-43 Supersonics went buckwild in the Playoffs (mostly Dale Ellis) and beat the 42-40 Rockets and the 55-27 Mavericks... Then the Lakers swept them...
Would it made you feel better if it were the Lakers beating those Mavs? :rolleyes:

Even the 42-40 Warriors beat the 44-38 Jazz, 3 games to 2... Then LA stomped them.

Nuggets also had a down year and were better than their record suggested.

Not even saying that they had a hard path or something, especially when you look at their level and when compared to the Celtics on the other conference... but people overblow that whole thing out of proprotion too much.
Not that I disagree with you. But to be fair. Other than the 55 win Mavs. All those teams were basically of the same caliber. Some were a couple games above .500 some a couple below.

How did the 55 win Mavs loose?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Not that I disagree with you. But to be fair. Other than the 55 win Mavs. All those teams were basically of the same caliber. Some were a couple games above .500 some a couple below.

How did the 55 win Mavs loose?

Those 55W's Mavs were beaten 3-1 by the 39-43 Sonics though... And LA then swept those Sonics...

They lost, mostly, because their main thing was offense - not defense - AND they couldn't really stop the damage being delivered by the Sonics' "big3", Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers and Xavier McDaniel... Those dudes went all out on that one, especially Ellis who was playing with a chip on his shoulder vs the team that had originally drafted him, then traded him away... Dale put up 29.5/8.0/3.8 on .612 TS%, dude was killing them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO4KBGEPM2E

Aguirre also didn't play to the best of his abilities at that time, can't recall if he was injured or not though. Blackman did his thing on offense though.

It was mostly a battle of great offenses, and Seattle came out on top even with the Mavs being the 2nd best ranked offense in the regular-season posting a 55-27 record.

[Hey Yo]

39-43 Supersonics went buckwild in the Playoffs (mostly Dale Ellis) and beat the 42-40 Rockets and the 55-27 Mavericks... Then the Lakers swept them...
Would it made you feel better if it were the Lakers beating those Mavs? :rolleyes:

Even the 42-40 Warriors beat the 44-38 Jazz, 3 games to 2... Then LA stomped them.

Nuggets also had a down year and were better than their record suggested.

Not even saying that they had a hard path or something, especially when you look at their level and when compared to the Celtics on the other conference... but people overblow that whole thing out of proprotion too much.
It would look like a more convincing run, no?

39 and 42 win teams beating 42 and 44 win teams, in the playoffs, doesn't get the eyebrows a raising. 39 beating a 55 does.

[SHAQisGOAT]

It would look like a more convincing run, no?

39 and 42 win teams beating 42 and 44 win teams, in the playoffs, doesn't get the eyebrows a raising. 39 beating a 55 does.

At 1st glance yea, but like I've said, they also swept through a squad that had previously beat a 55W's team (3-1).

And even with the Celtics being plagued by injuries while having just come out of two extremely gruelsome series that went to 7games vs a couple of great team... LA also won vs a 59W's team, 4-2 in the Finals.

Plus, they did what they were "supposed to do" in the post-season... Going 15-3.

[Pointguard]

And Coop... He was their best 3pt shooter at that time, and Mike was absolutely on a roll for the Playoffs, 48.6% on 4 attempts per game in 29.0 MPG, over the course of 18 games.
Thanks, I kept saying to myself I should mention Klay Thompson's father here and totally overlooked Coop. Your recall and analysis is a great addition to the board!

[Legends66NBA7]

1) 1971 Milwaukee Bucks: 11.92 (Won Championship)
2) 1996 Chicago Bulls: 11.80 (Won Championship)
3) 1972 Los Angeles Lakers: 11.65 (Won Championship)
4) 2015 Golden State Warriors: 11.19 (Won Championship)
5) 1997 Chicago Bulls: 10.70 (Won Championship)
5) 1972 Milwaukee Bucks: 10.70 (Western Finals)
7) 1992 Chicago Bulls: 10.07 (Won Championship)
8) 2008 Boston Celtics: 9.30 (Won Championship)
9) 2013 Oklahoma City Thunder: 9.15 (Western Semifinals)
10) 1986 Boston Celtics: 9.06 (Won Championship)

Higher the SRS, greater the indicator for the RS. However, the game isn't played that way in the playoffs and theres a lot of circumstances that goes through it.

[Pointguard]

The NBA has always been about matchups. The only team i feel that would be good enough to matchup with the Bulls would be the 83 Sixers. The Celtics never had a true PG and the Bulls full court pressure defense would be the difference. A lesser form of the Bulls beat a lesser form of the Lakers in 91. As well as the Pistons
1987 Lakers win the matchup game with anybody. Even Pippen isn't on the level of Worthy in the playoffs in matchups. Center and PG are a gimmie. Worthy in most situations against great teams is winning against SF's outside of Bird. Magic, Kareem and Worthy are all at least top two in the post for great teams at their positions. And only the 1986 Celtics were on their level as far as playing team ball (offensively, the Celtics were the best passing team). Few other great teams had as balanced scoring team.

The Lakers weren't near being the same team as in 1987 compared as to when they lost to the Bulls. Worthy wasn't a dominant player. Scott was injured and only scored 4.5 ppg on 28% shooting in that series. Worthy missed one game and scored 12 points in another. The other guys were all new outside of AC Green.

In fact the Bulls never faced a great team outside of Detroit (the only majority intact champions they faced) in their run. Detroit's SRS and DTRG numbers had fallen off some by the time Chicago beat them. The Lakers only faced great teams or on their way to being great: Great offensive teams and/or great defensive teams and a majority of them were champions within a few years. The best team the Bulls faced outside of Detroit was Utah which never won either. Andwould have been a second tier team in the 80's; offensively basically a 1 trick pony with a little above average defense.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Thanks, I kept saying to myself I should mention Klay Thompson's father here and totally overlooked Coop. Your recall and analysis is a great addition to the board!

Mychal was a very good addition for them... One of the main reasons he was acquired was to defend McHale, and he also brought various other things... People forget that he was the #1 pick back in 1978, in his peak was averaging like 20/11/4 on good efficiency with some good defense

Likewise :cheers:

[Odinn]

I tried to extend my list to 15;

1. Celtics 1986
2. Sixers 1983
3. Bulls 1992
4. Bulls 1996
5. Lakers 2001
6. Bucks 1971
7. Bulls 1997
8. Lakers 1972
9. Bulls 1993
10. Celtics 1965
11. Lakers 1985
12. Lakers 1987
13. Spurs 2005
14. Spurs 2014
15. Celtics 2008

HM; Sixers 1967, Knicks 1970, Lakers 1980, Celtics 1984, Bad Boys, Pistons 2004, Lakers 2010, Warriors 2015

As you can see, I rank 1987 Lakers low unlike general opinion. But I find 'em mostly overhyped. They lacked a challenging competition. That title gets recognition because it was Magic's best season.

A sidenote; it is truly hard to rank this many championship winning teams. I changed the rankings like 10 times, while even writing this post.

[Pointguard]

Mychal was a very good addition for them... One of the main reasons he was acquired was to defend McHale, and he also brought various other things... People forget that he was the #1 pick back in 1978, in his peak was averaging like 20/11/4 on good efficiency with some good defense

Likewise :cheers:

:cheers:
Wow, it makes sense that McHale part. They always had something going on with the Center and Power Forward positions (McAdoo, Mychal, AC Green and the Rambis mix) were guys I always thought were good and different which gave the Lakers a different look. Those little tweaks were sometimes the difference of a game in a series. Shows you how close Boston/Lakers were. Unfortunately, if it weren't for two greats competing, one or the other would be seen as a lot greater than they already were. Bird and Magic never get the credit on how easy they made the game for their teams, and for having the best teams (in terms of team work).

There is not much difference between great players and great teams which is why its hard to do a list like this. But SA beat Miami because of team play or passing like the 1986 Celtics - sobeit at a lower level. In the end its always about who can get the easiest baskets most often, and have great teamwork defensively to compliment it And in the 80's you saw great teams do it against each other just about every year. I think it makes it hard for me to gauge the teams of the 90's because two great teams rarely overlapped each other, or at least to the level it did in the 80's. I thought the Bulls were great because they could win consistently without a system of getting very easy baskets. The triangle is close but it didn't look as easy as Boston and the Lakers dissecting teams and getting point blank range shots.

[ClipperRevival]

I tried to extend my list to 15;

1. Celtics 1986
2. Sixers 1983
3. Bulls 1992
4. Bulls 1996
5. Lakers 2001
6. Bucks 1971
7. Bulls 1997
8. Lakers 1972
9. Bulls 1993
10. Celtics 1965
11. Lakers 1985
12. Lakers 1987
13. Spurs 2005
14. Spurs 2014
15. Celtics 2008

HM; Sixers 1967, Knicks 1970, Lakers 1980, Celtics 1984, Bad Boys, Pistons 2004, Lakers 2010, Warriors 2015

As you can see, I rank 1987 Lakers low unlike general opinion. But I find 'em mostly overhyped. They lacked a challenging competition. That title gets recognition because it was Magic's best season.

A sidenote; it is truly hard to rank this many championship winning teams. I changed the rankings like 10 times, while even writing this post.

:facepalm The Showtime Lakers lacked legit comp? Is this a joke? Sure, the WC wasn't as strong as the EC but they did have to eventually face the team that made it out of the EC. 9 finals appearances in 11 seasons and every single one of them against all time great teams. 76ers, Celtics, Pistons and Bulls. Going 5 of 9 against some of the best teams ever is no shame. And in 1991, the Lakers had no business even being in the finals.

To put the 1987 Lakers as 12th best team ever? :oldlol: You a closet Celtics fan or something? Pissed off we got you guys in 1985 and 1987?

[Odinn]

:facepalm The Showtime Lakers lacked legit comp? Is this a joke? Sure, the WC wasn't as strong as the EC but they did have to eventually face the team that made it out of the EC. 9 finals appearances in 11 seasons and every single one of them against all time great teams. 76ers, Celtics, Pistons and Bulls. Going 5 of 9 against some of the best teams ever is no shame. And in 1991, the Lakers had no business even being in the finals.

To put the 1987 Lakers as 12th best team ever? :oldlol: You a closet Celtics fan or something? Pissed off we got you guys in 1985 and 1987?
Ignorance and arrogance. My favourite duo, on this message board.

[Lakers Legend#32]

'72 Lakers

[SamuraiSWISH]

IMO, ranking championship teams since 1990

1) 1996 Bulls
2) 2008 Celtics
3) 2001 Lakers
4) 1993 Bulls
5) 1992 Bulls

6) 2012 Heat
7) 2013 Heat
8) 2000 Lakers
9) 1997 Bulls
10) 2002 Lakers

11) 1991 Bulls
12) 2010 Lakers
13) 1995 Rockets
14) 2015 Warriors
15) 2009 Lakers


16) 2014 Spurs
17) 2005 Spurs
18) 1998 Bulls
19) 2007 Spurs
20) 2011 Mavericks

21) 2003 Spurs
22) 1994 Rockets
23) 2006 Heat
24) 2004 Pistons
25) 1999 Spurs

[ClipperRevival]

Ignorance and arrogance. My favourite duo, on this message board.

Please. Everything I said is 100% fact.

FACT: Lakers made 9 finals in 11 seasons from 1980-1991.

FACT: Lakers faced an all time great team in every single one of those finals.

1980 - 76ers - W
1982 - 76ers - W
1983 - 76ers - L
1984 - Celtics - L
1985 - Celtics - W
1987 - Celtics - W
1988 - Pistons - W
1989 - Pistons - L
1991 - Bulls - L

Thanks for playing though.

[Pointguard]

Please. Everything I said is 100% fact.

FACT: Lakers made 9 finals in 11 seasons from 1980-1991.

FACT: Lakers faced an all time great team in every single one of those finals.

1980 - 76ers - W
1982 - 76ers - W
1983 - 76ers - L
1984 - Celtics - L
1985 - Celtics - W
1987 - Celtics - W
1988 - Pistons - W
1989 - Pistons - L
1991 - Bulls - L

Thanks for playing though.
I don't think he's serious because they beat his number one team the year before and after his pick of the best team... kind of undermines his whole premise. I can understand someone having the 1986 Celtics above the Lakers but you can't say the Laker team is overrated because of lack of comp.

[Ray22]

1) '96 Bulls
2) '86 Celtics
3) '87 Lakers

[Psileas]

I don't think he's serious because they beat his number one team the year before and after his pick of the best team... kind of undermines his whole premise. I can understand someone having the 1986 Celtics above the Lakers but you can't say the Laker team is overrated because of lack of comp.

Whoever claims so would be a hypocrite to have the '86 Celtics at #1. Their own playoff competition wasn't anywhere near historical, either.

[Marchesk]

1987 Lakers win the matchup game with anybody.

Not sure they do against the 83 76ers. Maybe depth wise, but not the starters.

[Marchesk]

1) '96 Bulls
2) '86 Celtics
3) '87 Lakers

'83 Sixers belong in that group. Not sure why they get overlooked.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers weren't near being the same team as in 1987 compared as to when they lost to the Bulls. Worthy wasn't a dominant player. Scott was injured and only scored 4.5 ppg on 28% shooting in that series. Worthy missed one game and scored 12 points in another. The other guys were all new outside of AC Green.
That's why I stated that they were a lesser form. Worthy was still the same player. He was 29,
avg the highest PPG of his career in 91. He was still in his prime. And the 91 Bulls were nowhere near the Bulls best team either. And again. The Bulls beat those Piston and Laker squads convincingly. 4-0 and 4-1.


In fact the Bulls never faced a great team outside of Detroit (the only majority intact champions they faced) in their run.
I could pick apart any of those alltime great 80s teams championships. Like the Bulls, they all best lesser versions of their best team. Point blank. You really wanna go down that road?


Detroit's SRS and DTRG numbers had fallen off some by the time Chicago beat them. Oh come on. You're really reaching here. The Pistons core was in their prime when Chicago beat them.


The Lakers only faced great teams or on their way to being great: Great offensive teams and/or great defensive teams and a majority of them were champions within a few years. The best team the Bulls faced outside of Detroit was Utah which never won either. Andwould have been a second tier team in the 80's; offensively basically a 1 trick pony with a little above average defense.
So you penalize the Bulls for not losing. That's the most ridiculous notion that pro 80s con 90s types like to use.

[Odinn]

Please. Everything I said is 100% fact.

FACT: Lakers made 9 finals in 11 seasons from 1980-1991.

FACT: Lakers faced an all time great team in every single one of those finals.

1980 - 76ers - W
1982 - 76ers - W
1983 - 76ers - L
1984 - Celtics - L
1985 - Celtics - W
1987 - Celtics - W
1988 - Pistons - W
1989 - Pistons - L
1991 - Bulls - L

Thanks for playing though.
The thing is Lakers wouldn't be playing in 9 finals if they were in the East. They only did have to beat 1 good team to get the title unlike Eastern teams.

1980 and 1982 Sixers all-time great team? That's something new. You exaggerate things to help your claim. Sure, they were tough. But all-time great team? 2005 Heat were better than those 2 versions of Sixers ffs.

There isn't a single person with healthy logic would claim 2007 Spurs > 2005 Spurs. In 2007, Spurs had better regular season SRS, point differential, they only lost 4 games in the playoffs. Duncan was possibly better in 2007 due to injuries in 2005. But there's not a sane person would claim 2007 SAS > 2005 SAS.

In 1987, the Western competition was weaker than the average of the 80s. They faced a team with less than .500 in regular season at the Conference Finals.

And accused as hypocrite?
1st rounds; 37W Nuggets (-1.14 srs) / 30W Bulls (-3.12 srs)
2nd rounds; 42W Warriors (-2.54 srs) / 50W Hawks (2.59 srs)
C Finals; 39W Sonics (0.08 srs) / 57W Bucks (8.69 srs)
NBA Finals; 59W Celtics (6.57 srs) / 51W Rockets (2.10 srs)

Average SRS of 87 Lakers' opponents; 0.743
Average SRS of 86 Celtics' opponents; 2.565

Sure, 87 Celtics were tougher than 86 Rockets but Bird wasn't at his 100% due to injuries, and also Celtics as an entire team suffered from injuries, they were basically benchless in the playoffs.
But you guys seriously won't give credit 86 Bucks and 86 Hawks as competition?..

You are the guys that are hypocrite. You guys just see what you wanna see.


Like I said; Ignorance and arrogance. Nice combo you guys have.

[Legends66NBA7]

'83 Sixers belong in that group. Not sure why they get overlooked.

Could one make the argument that the 83 Sixers are the best team from the 80's ?

[OldSchoolBBall]

I have to go with the '86 Celts.

[Pointguard]

Not sure they do against the 83 76ers. Maybe depth wise, but not the starters.
That Philly team was a team on a mission. But the starters didn't have a dependable shot between them. The Lakers shot better from the field/line, and had a much more dependable post game, had a more versatile offense, got easier baskets, passed better, shot better from the field, and am pretty sure the defense was better. The 76ers played with purpose and peaked that year, and had they kept it up another year then I would have trusted it wasn't an adrenaline flow. I still have them as all time great team. But they lacked some key elements a great team needs.


Moses would have taken Kareem.
Worthy takes Doc
Magic takes Toney
Scott/Cooper over Cheeks
Bobby Jones over AC Green despite his superior numbers in the PS.

Lakers superior bench and team play overall.

[Pointguard]

That's why I stated that they were a lesser form. Worthy was still the same player. He was 29,
avg the highest PPG of his career in 91. He was still in his prime. And the 91 Bulls were nowhere near the Bulls best team either. And again. The Bulls beat those Piston and Laker squads convincingly. 4-0 and 4-1.
Worthy scored 24 points I think in the first two games. But checked out after that. He was hurt and 12 points and a no show isn't the same. His name was big game James not Lame Game James.



I could pick apart any of those alltime great 80s teams championships. Like the Bulls, they all best lesser versions of their best team. Point blank. You really wanna go down that road?
I don't know what you are saying but you know that if chose a road I am willing to go down it. That Laker team was not a version of the '87 one. It was totally different with a different less experienced team that ran a different system will less skilled players, and wasn't healthy.


Oh come on. You're really reaching here. The Pistons core was in their prime when Chicago beat them.
I said several times that they were great but I don't think they were at their peak. Good defensive teams exert a lot of energy and have trouble winning three times in a row. See the later Pisston's teams, Celtics, Indiana and Knicks's in the 90's.



So you penalize the Bulls for not losing. That's the most ridiculous notion that pro 80s con 90s types like to use.

I had said,


The Lakers only faced great teams or on their way to being great: Great offensive teams and/or great defensive teams and a majority of them were champions within a few years. The best team the Bulls faced outside of Detroit was Utah which never won either. Andwould have been a second tier team in the 80's; offensively basically a 1 trick pony with a little above average defense.

Your response doesn't make sense. I certainly never said anything about the Bulls not losing or even suggesting that. Now the Bulls didn't face great teams. In 88 the Lakers faced what might have been the best Utah team ever. I know they never had another series where Stockton was getting 19/16 and Malone 29/12 with the third wheel getting 20ppg. Nor has their fourth wheel ever approached 15.5 ppg. So it does make it harder to gauge the greatness without being tested beyond their first year.

[97 bulls]

Worthy scored 24 points I think in the first two games. But checked out after that. He was hurt and 12 points and a no show isn't the same. His name was big game James not Lame Game James.

Worthy played in four games during the 91 Finals. Each 40 minutes or more. Was he hurt? Sure. So was Jordan. He had a problem with his toe that made it painful to plant and cut.


I don't know what you are saying but you know that if chose a road I am willing to go down it. That Laker team was not a version of the '87 one. It was totally different with a different less experienced team that ran a different system will less skilled players, and wasn't healthy.
If thats the case then they all were different. No team is exactly the same from one season to another. But for the most part the core was the same. Magic, Jabaar(an old Jabaar mind you) Worthy, Green, Cooperal, and Scott were the core from the 87 team. I feel replacing Jabaar with the additon of Sam Perkins and Divac was a slight improvement. They missed Cooper. But I dont think Cooper swings that series that much.


I said several times that they were great but I don't think they were at their peak. Good defensive teams exert a lot of energy and have trouble winning three times in a row. See the later Pisston's teams, Celtics, Indiana and Knicks's in the 90's.
The Pistons were beat by a better team. Indiana and the Knicks never even won a championship much less three. The Bulls did win three straight twice. But that's just how good they were.




Your response doesn't make sense. I certainly never said anything about the Bulls not losing or even suggesting that. Now the Bulls didn't face great teams. In 88 the Lakers faced what might have been the best Utah team ever. I know they never had another series where Stockton was getting 19/16 and Malone 29/12 with the third wheel getting 20ppg. Nor has their fourth wheel ever approached 15.5 ppg. So it does make it harder to gauge the greatness without being tested beyond their first year.
You can't compare stats across eras bro. That's not a slippery slope, thats a cliff. If you do, then you must feel that the Bad Boy Pistons would be a middle of the pack team defensively by late 90s standards. Even with that Utah team. The team that took the Lakers to seven games were one of best defensive teams. And the team the Bulls beat were one of the best offensive teams.

I dont know how you can measure how good the teams the Bulls beat were. They all had excellent records. Two players playing at a hall of fame level. Two very good players after that etc. Definitely not based on stats. Cuz the 80s stats were inflated.

[poido123]

Dat Celtics team from the 80s.

[Pointguard]

Worthy played in four games during the 91 Finals. Each 40 minutes or more. Was he hurt? Sure. So was Jordan. He had a problem with his toe that made it painful to plant and cut.
Worthy sucked and was useless after the third game he got 12 points...



If thats the case then they all were different. No team is exactly the same from one season to another. But for the most part the core was the same. Magic, Jabaar(an old Jabaar mind you) Worthy, Green, Cooperal, and Scott were the core from the 87 team. I feel replacing Jabaar with the additon of Sam Perkins and Divac was a slight improvement. They missed Cooper. But I dont think Cooper swings that series that much.
Great teams usually have champions, flow, great intuition with each other, knowledge of the game, dependable post player(s), dependable shooting, harmony and great defense. You obviously don't know this. Worthy and Scott were injured too bad to contribute positively after the third game. So the core is gone.



The Pistons were beat by a better team. Indiana and the Knicks never even won a championship much less three. The Bulls did win three straight twice. But that's just how good they were.
Are you sleep deprived? You are proving my point.



You can't compare stats across eras bro. That's not a slippery slope, thats a cliff. If you do, then you must feel that the Bad Boy Pistons would be a middle of the pack team defensively by late 90s standards. Even with that Utah team. The team that took the Lakers to seven games were one of best defensive teams. And the team the Bulls beat were one of the best offensive teams.
That team that took the Lakers was one of their best offensive Utah teams offensively as well. They never clicked like that again. You didn't need stats to see that they flowed better than they did when they played the Bulls or other teams. Thurl Bailey and Hansen were clicking with Malone and Stockton better than any team that faced the Bulls. I know their ORTG wasn't much during '88 but their main players were way more prolific than they were 9 years later. Most good defensive teams can beat a one trick pony. In 1998 the Jazz played 11 players. But in the playoffs Only Karl Malone averaged over 12ppg. In '88 the fourth best player averaged over 15ppg. Stockton averaged 8 assist per game in the playoffs in '98. In '88 against the Lakers he averaged more than double that. You can't beat great teams like that. And he only rocked 11 ppg in the playoffs in '98 as the second highest scorer on the team. That's really bad. But they were number one in ORTG that year because the league was crap that year.

Its the same era if its the same players doing a very similar system and still winning. Era's don't change every ten years.


I dont know how you can measure how good the teams the Bulls beat were. They all had excellent records. Above you trashed the teams I was upping. I don't need to do what you already did. Excellent records are not an indicator of great competition. The Bulls were a great team. But the 90's wasn't the 80's by a large margin.


Two players playing at a hall of fame level. Two very good players after that etc. Definitely not based on stats. Cuz the 80s stats were inflated.
You can visually see that the Celtics and Lakers were a better oiled machine than the Bulls. Their passing was on a whole different level. Their post game was on a whole different level. Their running game was on a whole different level. They got easier baskets. They didn't depend on one on one for offense. They had a much more balanced attack. They played a more varied offense with more weapons. They shot better from the field.

[97 bulls]

Worthy sucked and was useless after the third game he got 12 points...

Again. What's the point Michael Jordan was injured to. How many teams did the Lakers habe the benefit of beating while injured? And again the Bulls smashed.the Lakers. The only close games were 1 and 3.


Great teams usually have champions, flow, great intuition with each other, knowledge of the game, dependable post player(s), dependable shooting, harmony and great defense.
The 91 Lakers didnt have this???? Wtf???


Worthy and Scott were injured too bad to contribute positively after the third game. So the core is gone.
The Bulls were up in the series 3-1 when Scott and Worthy went down. Why do pro Lakers guys try to put out a narrative that the Bulls and Lakers were tied 2-2 then Scott and Worthy went down. Or that they missed the entire championship. Get this through your head.... they missed one ONE 1 UNO game. Inuries happen. Just Like 88 vs the Pistons when Thomas went down with the sprained ankle, or 87 when Mchale played witj a fractured foot and Walton, didnt play, or 85 when Larry Bird got hurt. Or, or, you beat A VERSION of a great team like the Lakers did in 80 and 82 when they beat a Sixer team without Moses Malone. You shouldn't even begin to fix your mouth (or hand since we're typing) to talk about injuries. The Laker more than benefited from inuries to competition. But even more heres the huge difference. All those other series were close. The Bulls were up 3-1 when Worthy and Scott went down. With two shots to win in Chicago. That's that cliff I alluded to.


Are you sleep deprived? You are proving my point.
Maybe I am. Because what you said didn't make much sense. You were talking about why teams like the Knicks and Pacers couldn't win three straight Championships. If that wasn't your point please clarify.



That team that took the Lakers was one of their best offensive Utah teams offensively as well. They never clicked like that again. You didn't need stats to see that they flowed better than they did when they played the Bulls or other teams. Thurl Bailey and Hansen were clicking with Malone and Stockton better than any team that faced the Bulls. I know their ORTG wasn't much during '88 but their main players were way more prolific than they were 9 years later. Most good defensive teams can beat a one trick pony. In 1998 the Jazz played 11 players. But in the playoffs Only Karl Malone averaged over 12ppg. In '88 the fourth best player averaged over 15ppg. Stockton averaged 8 assist per game in the playoffs in '98. In '88 against the Lakers he averaged more than double that. You can't beat great teams like that. And he only rocked 11 ppg in the playoffs in '98 as the second highest scorer on the team. That's really bad. But they were number one in ORTG that year because the league was crap that year.
Again. You can't compare stats across eras. Like I told you, how can you explain that statistically, the Bad Boy Pistons, would be a middle of the pack defense if put in the 90s. The league was played different. Teams ran more. Focused on offense more. It was just difderent. And sure you can say "the league sucked" because offense wasnt as prevalent. But I could say the 80s sucked because they played no defense. Im not saying eliminate stats, but take them in context for goodness sake.


Its the same era if its the same players doing a very similar system and still winning. Era's don't change every ten years.
You just tried to show how different the 88 Jazz were when compared to the 97 and 98 version. Come on bro. You're one of the better posters on here. You're letting me down. 10 years is an eternity in the NBA. Even most hardcore pro 80s fan acknowledge that the 80s and 90s were different.


Above you trashed the teams I was upping. I don't need to do what you already did. Excellent records are not an indicator of great competition. The Bulls were a great team. But the 90's wasn't the 80's by a large margin.

Again, you just finished stating that not much changes in 10 years. Now the 90s and 80s are different by a large margin????? WTF



You can visually see that the Celtics and Lakers were a better oiled machine than the Bulls. Their passing was on a whole different level. Their post game was on a whole different level. Their running game was on a whole different level. They got easier baskets. They didn't depend on one on one for offense. They had a much more balanced attack. They played a more varied offense with more weapons. They shot better from the field.
Even if I concede what you say as being true (it isn't), why do the Bulls have yo win like the Lakers and Celtics???? The Bulls won with a suffocating defense and an outstanding offensive system and Jordan. And how much more successful could the Lakers and Celtics style have been? They repeatedly lost to teams they shouldn't have. Especially the Celtics. The Bulls NEVER lost with Homecourt advantage. Set the record for most wins in a season, have the second most wins in a season, led the league in offense I believe 5 times, I mean damn, that aint a well oiled machine??????

And before you bring up expansion. Don't forget that the Bulls won three championships playing in a league with the same amount of teams as the late 80s Showtime Lakers and Bad Boy Pistons. And even won 55 games without their best player. How did the Lakers fair in 92 when Magic left????

[1987_Lakers]

And before you bring up expansion. Don't forget that the Bulls won three championships playing in a league with the same amount of teams as the late 80s Showtime Lakers and Bad Boy Pistons. And even won 55 games without their best player. How did the Lakers fair in 92 when Magic left????

Showtime Lakers won all their titles in a league with fewer teams than the first 3 peat bulls. Just a fact.

[1987_Lakers]

Even if I concede what you say as being true (it isn't), why do the Bulls have yo win like the Lakers and Celtics???? The Bulls won with a suffocating defense and an outstanding offensive system and Jordan. And how much more successful could the Lakers and Celtics style have been? They repeatedly lost to teams they shouldn't have. Especially the Celtics. The Bulls NEVER lost with Homecourt advantage. Set the record for most wins in a season, have the second most wins in a season, led the league in offense I believe 5 times, I mean damn, that aint a well oiled machine??????

The 6 title Bulls (replacing Celtics with Bulls) never had to go against the showtime Lakers, early-mid 80's Sixers, & the '87-'90 Pistons, those are all all-time great teams.

Chicago finally beat Detroit in '91 when the Pistons only won 50 games, they were done as a team, Chicago never beat a team like the teams I just mentioned. NEVER!

Bulls set the record for most wins in a season when the NBA was flooded with expansion teams, the NBA added like 6 teams in a 7 year span. The elite teams at that time weren't as close to being as dominant as the 80's teams.

[Psileas]

The thing is Lakers wouldn't be playing in 9 finals if they were in the East. They only did have to beat 1 good team to get the title unlike Eastern teams.

1980 and 1982 Sixers all-time great team? That's something new. You exaggerate things to help your claim. Sure, they were tough. But all-time great team? 2005 Heat were better than those 2 versions of Sixers ffs.

These are practically the same teams that Celtics' fans use as evidence of the toughness of the Eastern playoffs. By not recognizing their value, you only do a disservice to the whole "Eastern fatigue" argument.


And accused as hypocrite?
1st rounds; 37W Nuggets (-1.14 srs) / 30W Bulls (-3.12 srs)
2nd rounds; 42W Warriors (-2.54 srs) / 50W Hawks (2.59 srs)
C Finals; 39W Sonics (0.08 srs) / 57W Bucks (8.69 srs)
NBA Finals; 59W Celtics (6.57 srs) / 51W Rockets (2.10 srs)

Average SRS of 87 Lakers' opponents; 0.743
Average SRS of 86 Celtics' opponents; 2.565

Sure, 87 Celtics were tougher than 86 Rockets but Bird wasn't at his 100% due to injuries, and also Celtics as an entire team suffered from injuries, they were basically benchless in the playoffs.
But you guys seriously won't give credit 86 Bucks and 86 Hawks as competition?..

You are the guys that are hypocrite. You guys just see what you wanna see.


Like I said; Ignorance and arrogance. Nice combo you guys have.

So, this is a 1.8 SRS difference between the claimed as GOAT team and a team that is accused of having a historically weak playoff schedule (although they had already won 65 games in the r.s without huge efforts and had posted an 18-4 record against the East). Comparing their playoff schedule to the '87 Lakers' and only finding it modestly tougher isn't that impressive as long as the Lakers are accused of having it easy. So, yeah, however you cut it, in an all-time context, the '86 Celtics didn't quite carry such a heavy load in the playoffs themselves and this should count against their own case.

[97 bulls]

Showtime Lakers won all their titles in a league with fewer teams than the first 3 peat bulls. Just a fact.
Semantics. There was expansion in 88. The Lakers played just as many games against expansion teams as the Bulls did iirc. And the Pistons played the same amount as well and same amount of teams. The 94 Bulls won 55 games without Jordan. Theres no doubt in my mind that they win 70+ with him and a fourth championship.

[97 bulls]

The 6 title Bulls (replacing Celtics with Bulls) never had to go against the showtime Lakers, early-mid 80's Sixers, & the '87-'90 Pistons, those are all all-time great teams.

Chicago finally beat Detroit in '91 when the Pistons only won 50 games, they were done as a team, Chicago never beat a team like the teams I just mentioned. NEVER!

Bulls set the record for most wins in a season when the NBA was flooded with expansion teams, the NBA added like 6 teams in a 7 year span. The elite teams at that time weren't as close to being as dominant as the 80's teams.
The Pistons won 50 games because their best player missed half the season. Had Thomas played the whole season. Theyd push 60.

[Pointguard]

Again. What's the point Michael Jordan was injured to. How many teams did the Lakers habe the benefit of beating while injured? And again the Bulls smashed.the Lakers. The only close games were 1 and 3.

You are saying that its same core when Worthy and Scott are averaging 11ppg combined! You are missing 30ppg from the starting core. No Cooper and Kareem. With Ac Greene less productive as well. So the basic core outside of Magic is operating at about 75% less over five games and you are saying its the same core... A team is very different at 20% (or 1 player but you are some how missing a four player difference).



The Bulls were up in the series 3-1 when Scott and Worthy went down. Why do pro Lakers guys try to put out a narrative that the Bulls and Lakers were tied 2-2 then Scott and Worthy went down. Both were injured and totally off their game in game 4. Worthy, who was much better off than Scott, ws s at about 40% of himself in game one.


Maybe I am. Because what you said didn't make much sense. You were talking about why teams like the Knicks and Pacers couldn't win three straight Championships. If that wasn't your point please clarify.
Great defensive teams don't have long battery life or face medical issues. The Pistons had already peaked.


Again. You can't compare stats across eras. Like I told you, how can you explain that statistically, the Bad Boy Pistons, would be a middle of the pack defense if put in the 90s. The league was played different. Teams ran more. Focused on offense more.
For Utah it was the same system and era. A very strong two man attack in a pick and role system. The same primary pieces was a constant. The stronger support pieces were obviously in '88. But there were more pieces in "98. The second best player rarely ever averages only 11 points per game in the playoffs on a championship team. Amazingly this was the best ortg team in the league. Malone's game was worse than in '88 as well by eye test and almost every metric.


It was just difderent. And sure you can say "the league sucked" because offense wasnt as prevalent. But I could say the 80s sucked because they played no defense. Im not saying eliminate stats, but take them in context for goodness sake.
There were more great defensive teams in the 80's too. More great passing teams. Better rebounding teams too.


You just tried to show how different the 88 Jazz were when compared to the 97 and 98 version. Come on bro. You're one of the better posters on here. You're letting me down. 10 years is an eternity in the NBA. Even most hardcore pro 80s fan acknowledge that the 80s and 90s were different. An eternity... its Karl Malone not Moses! Its a two man core that didn't change much. Why would the same system be more effective at a later date when its main pieces got significantly weaker and the main supporting pieces were also weaker? The answer is on the competition.

[97 bulls]

You are saying that its same core when Worthy and Scott are averaging 11ppg combined! You are missing 30ppg from the starting core. No Cooper and Kareem. With Ac Greene less productive as well. So the basic core outside of Magic is operating at about 75% less over five games and you are saying its the same core... A team is very different at 20% (or 1 player but you are some how missing a four player difference).
Both were injured and totally off their game in game 4. Worthy, who was much better off than Scott, ws s at about 40% of himself in game one.
Great defensive teams don't have long battery life or face medical issues. The Pistons had already peaked.

For Utah it was the same system and era. A very strong two man attack in a pick and role system. The same primary pieces was a constant. The stronger support pieces were obviously in '88. But there were more pieces in "98. The second best player rarely ever averages only 11 points per game in the playoffs on a championship team. Amazingly this was the best ortg team in the league. Malone's game was worse than in '88 as well by eye test and almost every metric.

There were more great defensive teams in the 80's too. More great passing teams. Better rebounding teams too.
An eternity... its Karl Malone not Moses! Its a two man core that didn't change much. Why would the same system be more effective at a later date when its main pieces got significantly weaker and the main supporting pieces were also weaker? The answer is on the competition.
You keep rehashing points I've alreasy refuted. So go in a.different direction. If you penalize the Bulls for beating an injured Lakers team etc. How can you defend the Showtime Lakers when they:

Beat an injured Piston team in 88. And mind you the Pistons were up 3-2 and were leading when Thomas went down. Unlike Chicago who were up 2-1 and already comfortably beating the Lakers when Scott and Worthy went down.

Beat an injured Celtics squad in 87. You talk about Worthy and.Scott, well Mchale played with a fractured foot and Walton didnt play. Along with a few more injured players.

Beat an injured Celtic squad in 85. Remeber, Bird hurt his shooting hand punching a guy in a bar fight.

Beat a Sixer team that didnt have Moses Malone.

Please explain this away. If those Lakers were better and you penalize the Bulls for beating an injured squad, then surely you hold a team you feel better to a higher standard right????

[jayfan]

Here are rankings for the top thirty teams according to Elo Ratings:


Rank Season Team Peak Mean End Composite Elo
1 '95-96 Chicago Bulls 1853 1770 1823 1815
2 '96-97 Chicago Bulls 1811 1792 1802 1802
3 '14-15 GS Warriors 1822 1745 1822 1796
4 '85-86 Boston Celtics 1816 1735 1801 1784
5 '08-09 LA Lakers 1790 1726 1790 1769
6 '91-92 Chicago Bulls 1782 1759 1762 1768
7 '97-98 Chicago Bulls 1788 1719 1785 1764
8 '90-91 Chicago Bulls 1785 1693 1785 1755
9 '88-89 Detroit Pistons 1788 1675 1788 1750
10 '82-83 Phila 76ers 1777 1731 1739 1749
11 '12-13 Miami Heat 1774 1715 1754 1748
12 '13-14 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1764 1742
13 '08-09 Cle Cavaliers 1765 1708 1742 1738
14 '84-85 LA Lakers 1764 1680 1764 1736
15 '96-97 Utah Jazz 1764 1693 1748 1735
16 '66-67 Phila 76ers 1755 1715 1733 1734
17 '97-98 Utah Jazz 1766 1695 1737 1733
18 '71-72 LA Lakers 1753 1717 1726 1732
19 '09-10 Orlando Magic 1782 1669 1744 1732
20 '00-01 LA Lakers 1779 1634 1779 1731
21 '02-03 SA Spurs 1757 1674 1757 1730
22 '86-87 LA Lakers 1750 1699 1740 1730
23 '04-05 SA Spurs 1771 1719 1696 1729
24 '98-99 SA Spurs 1756 1674 1756 1728
25 '03-04 SA Spurs 1764 1696 1719 1726
26 '11-12 SA Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
27 '99-00 LA Lakers 1779 1703 1690 1724
28 '71-72 Mil Bucks 1741 1711 1718 1723
29 '70-71 Mil Bucks 1757 1687 1725 1723
30 '01-02 LA Lakers 1738 1684 1738 1720


Wait...this list has the '04 Spurs above the '04 Pistons?

:wtf:

:coleman:

[JellyBean]

1987 Lakers squad

[Pointguard]

You keep rehashing points I've alreasy refuted. So go in a.different direction. If you penalize the Bulls for beating an injured Lakers team etc. How can you defend the Showtime Lakers when they:

Beat an injured Piston team in 88. And mind you the Pistons were up 3-2 and were leading when Thomas went down. Unlike Chicago who were up 2-1 and already comfortably beating the Lakers when Scott and Worthy went down.

Beat an injured Celtics squad in 87. You talk about Worthy and.Scott, well Mchale played with a fractured foot and Walton didnt play. Along with a few more injured players.

Beat an injured Celtic squad in 85. Remeber, Bird hurt his shooting hand punching a guy in a bar fight.

Beat a Sixer team that didnt have Moses Malone.

Please explain this away. If those Lakers were better and you penalize the Bulls for beating an injured squad, then surely you hold a team you feel better to a higher standard right????
Wow. Worthy was their leading scorer and low post presence. Scott was their best shooter. When 2/3rds of your championship core is well below 60% of its production, stop acting like its nothing. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is all about you saying it was the same core. You have to be crazy to suggest this.

[97 bulls]

Wow. Worthy was their leading scorer and low post presence. Scott was their best shooter. When 2/3rds of your championship core is well below 60% of its production, stop acting like its nothing. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is all about you saying it was the same core. You have to be crazy to suggest this.
Worthy and Scott played in Game 1, Game 2, Game, 3 and Game 4. The Bulls won in 5. Worthy did sprain his ankle three weeks prior then reinjured it in game 4. Scott got hurt late in game 4. But the Bulls had that game well in hand by the time he went down. I dont see how you can put soooo much emphasis on them missing one game. Of a series they never had a chance of winning. But then say im crazy for drawing a parallel between the Lakers.mising Scott and Worthy, and the other teams missing Isaiah Thomas, Moses Malone and Larry Bird and Kevin Mchale injuries are OK???? And let's not forget that Jordan was playing hurt as well.

Now you called me crazy right? What's so crazy about my comparison?.

[1987_Lakers]

Worthy and Scott played in Game 1, Game 2, Game, 3 and Game 4. The Bulls won in 5. Worthy did sprain his ankle three weeks prior then reinjured it in game 4. Scott got hurt late in game 4.

Sidney Moncrief played games 2, 3, & 4 in the ECF vs Boston in 1986, yet you never forget to bring up how Boston played an injured Moncrief during that time, Horace Grant MISSED games 2, 3, & 4 vs Chicago in the '96 ECF but of course you will choose to ignore that.

Be consistent with your arguments.

[1987_Lakers]

Semantics. There was expansion in 88. The Lakers played just as many games against expansion teams as the Bulls did iirc. And the Pistons played the same amount as well and same amount of teams. The 94 Bulls won 55 games without Jordan. Theres no doubt in my mind that they win 70+ with him and a fourth championship.

There was expansion in the '88-'89 season, by that time the Showtime Lakers had already won all of their 5 titles, to say the Lakers played just as many games against expansion teams as the Bulls did is flat out FALSE, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan when the elite teams were dropping in talent, who was stacked in 1994? The Knicks didn't have much offensive fire power, the Rockets won a title with Hakeem and a bunch of role players, the Pacers made the ECF who's best player was Reggie Miller... a 20 ppg player who couldn't play defense.:oldlol:

Once Horace Grant left the Bulls after '94, the Bulls win total dropped to under 50, the same Horace Grant who missed 3 games in the '96 ECF vs your Bulls

[juju151111]

There was expansion in the '88-'89 season, by that time the Showtime Lakers had already won all of their 5 titles, to say the Lakers played just as many games against expansion teams as the Bulls did is flat out FALSE, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan when the elite teams were dropping in talent, who was stacked in 1994? The Knicks didn't have much offensive fire power, the Rockets won a title with Hakeem and a bunch of role players, the Pacers made the ECF who's best player was Reggie Miller... a 20 ppg player who couldn't play defense.:oldlol:

Once Horace Grant left the Bulls after '94, the Bulls win total dropped to under 50, the same Horace Grant who missed 3 games in the '96 ECF vs your Bulls
That Pistons team were the same in 91. Isiah came back from his injury way before playoffs. They still couldn't even win one game. The bulls were far superior by 91

[97 bulls]

Sidney Moncrief played games 2, 3, & 4 in the ECF vs Boston in 1986, yet you never forget to bring up how Boston played an injured Moncrief during that time, Horace Grant MISSED games 2, 3, & 4 vs Chicago in the '96 ECF but of course you will choose to ignore that.

Be consistent with your arguments.
I am consistent. Im not using inuries as an excuse. If you think that then allow me to clarify. The Bulls benefited from playing injured teams as well. Cedric Ceballos misses the 93 NBA Finals. Im sure he would've helped them vs the Bulls. Nate McMillan missed the 96 Finals. It happens.

I don't penalize teams for beating injured teams. Injuries are a part of the game. But turn about is fair play. Dont put an asterisk next to the Bulls championships if your favorite yeam benefited from the same circumstance.

The fact is, and I've said this before, none of great 80s teams faced each other at full strength so to speak. They beat VERSIONS of what was considered their best squads. The Piston and Laker teams the Bulls beat are no different. Why do you guys overlook this inconvenient truth??????

[Smoke117]

The 86 Celtics.

[97 bulls]

There was expansion in the '88-'89 season, by that time the Showtime Lakers had already won all of their 5 titles, to say the Lakers played just as many games against expansion teams as the Bulls did is flat out FALSE, the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan when the elite teams were dropping in talent, who was stacked in 1994? The Knicks didn't have much offensive fire power, the Rockets won a title with Hakeem and a bunch of role players, the Pacers made the ECF who's best player was Reggie Miller... a 20 ppg player who couldn't play defense.:oldlol:

Once Horace Grant left the Bulls after '94, the Bulls win total dropped to under 50, the same Horace Grant who missed 3 games in the '96 ECF vs your Bulls
The 1990 Lakers won 63 games playing in the a league that had the same amount of teams as the Bulls in 94 when they won 55. Again. You don't think the Bulls push for 70 with Jorran, an upgrade at PF in Rodman, and Toni Kukoc with a little more experience like 96????? You're being unreasonable. And that blows you expansion nonsense out of the water.

Sure the Bulls won less games in 95. They lost Grant and Jordan. How well would the Celtics have done if the lost Bird and Parish???? We got to see a snippet in 89 when they won 42 games without Bird. In an expansion year no.less. remove Parish and they probably win 30 games.

[1987_Lakers]

The 1990 Lakers won 63 games playing in the a league that had the same amount of teams as the Bulls in 94 when they won 55. Again. You don't think the Bulls push for 70 with Jorran, an upgrade at PF in Rodman, and Toni Kukoc with a little more experience like 96????? You're being unreasonable. And that blows you expansion nonsense out of the water.

Sure the Bulls won less games in 95. They lost Grant and Jordan. How well would the Celtics have done if the lost Bird and Parish???? We got to see a snippet in 89 when they won 42 games without Bird. In an expansion year no.less. remove Parish and they probably win 30 games.

The Lakers by 1990 were already without Kareem, put say '85 Kareem on that Lakers team do they push to 70 wins also? I really don't want an answer because all of this is just speculation.

The Celtics and Lakers played in a tougher league, by 1994 and on you had teams with one superstar and a bunch of role players competing for titles, that would have never happened in the mid 80's.

Just take a look at the 1984 NBA Finals & 1994 NBA Finals

'84 Finals featured 8 HOF players in Magic, Kareem, Worthy, McAdoo, Bird, Parish, McHale, & DJ

'94 Finals featured just 2 HOF players in Hakeem & Ewing.

From 1988 to 1995 the NBA added 6 teams, you can't add that many teams in such a short period of time and not have elite teams effected by it, Detroit Bad Boys lost Rick Mahorn because of expansion, when the talent pool is spread out to more teams it makes the stronger teams a bit weaker, it's really common sense, and it's a big reason why the Bulls won 70+ games, their competition wasn't as strong.

The only reason why the 80's had more dominant teams than the 90's is because the league was smaller, expansion ruined the 90's of having those classic NBA Finals where each team had 3 HOF players on each side.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers by 1990 were already without Kareem, put say '85 Kareem on that Lakers team do they push to 70 wins also? I really don't want an answer because all of this is just speculation.

The Celtics and Lakers played in a tougher league, by 1994 and on you had teams with one superstar and a bunch of role players competing for titles, that would have never happened in the mid 80's.

Just take a look at the 1984 NBA Finals & 1994 NBA Finals

'84 Finals featured 8 HOF players in Magic, Kareem, Worthy, McAdoo, Bird, Parish, McHale, & DJ

'94 Finals featured just 2 HOF players in Hakeem & Ewing.

From 1988 to 1995 the NBA added 6 teams, you can't add that many teams in such a short period of time and not have elite teams effected by it, Detroit Bad Boys lost Rick Mahorn because of expansion, when the talent pool is spread out to more teams it makes the stronger teams a bit weaker, it's really common sense, and it's a big reason why the Bulls won 70+ games, their competition wasn't as strong.

The only reason why the 80's had more dominant teams than the 90's is because the league was smaller, expansion ruined the 90's of having those classic NBA Finals where each team had 3 HOF players on each side.
You Jordan/Jabaar comparison is a bad one. The Bulls lost Jordan in his prime abruptly. Jabaar retired. You have a warped sense of reasoning.

And your way of calling players hall of famers???? They were playing at a hall of fame level during the time in question. Walton was not playing at a hall of fame level in 86. Mcadoo wasnt either. Neither was Jabbar by the late 80s. Robert Parish was on the 97 Bulls Roster and he made the hall of fame. But I wouldn't count him

And I dont see your argument as far as the amount of Hofers on a team. The Bulls smoked the Piston in 91. They had 3 legit hofers playing at a hall of fame level. The Bulls had two. The 97 and 98 Finals had 5 hall of famers. Seven with coaches. And when Kukoc gets in.

And as I've stated before. Sure the league added a lot of teams over a short period. But the NBA had grown. There was more talent to chose from. And there had begun to be an influx of takent from overseas. As well.

[97 bulls]

I have a question 87 Lakers. Your biggest argument against the Bulls is always expansion. So. See as how the human population grows, and the the NBA started taking players from overseas. You think that had no effect?

[1987_Lakers]

You Jordan/Jabaar comparison is a bad one. The Bulls lost Jordan in his prime abruptly. Jabaar retired. You have a warped sense of reasoning.

And your way of calling players hall of famers???? They were playing at a hall of fame level during the time in question. Walton was not playing at a hall of fame level in 86. Mcadoo wasnt either. Neither was Jabbar by the late 80s. Robert Parish was on the 97 Bulls Roster and he made the hall of fame. But I wouldn't count him

And I dont see your argument as far as the amount of Hofers on a team. The Bulls smoked the Piston in 91. They had 3 legit hofers playing at a hall of fame level. The Bulls had two. The 97 and 98 Finals had 5 hall of famers. Seven with coaches. And when Kukoc gets in.

And as I've stated before. Sure the league added a lot of teams over a short period. But the NBA had grown. There was more talent to chose from. And there had begun to be an influx of takent from overseas. As well.

I was using Jabbar to get sense how the "real" showtime Lakers would have done in the expansion era.

I don't know why you used Walton in your example, I said 1984 not 86, Kareem in 1984 made the All-NBA First team in '84 and won Finals MVP a year later, he was still HOF level.

Rodman was coming off the bench in those postseason games in '97 or '98, he wasn't HOF level, and sorry to say this, but Kukoc will never make the HOF.

The NBA did not have a bunch of talent to choose from, that is why you still had old teams that had players from the 80's competing for titles in the mid-late 90's.

[1987_Lakers]

I have a question 87 Lakers. Your biggest argument against the Bulls is always expansion. So. See as how the human population grows, and the the NBA started taking players from overseas. You think that had no effect?

It's not really an argument against the Bulls, but just the NBA during the 90's. I believe the NBA in the early 90's was pretty strong, you had a bunch of superstars and strong teams, but by the mid-late 90's expansion ruined it, you didn't have alot of up and coming players due to weak drafts and so of course adding all those teams and seeing little superstar talent coming out of college hurt the quality of teams in the league, the Bulls were the only super team, rest of the NBA not so much.

Of course the '96 draft helped alot and you had guys like Garnett & Duncan in other drafts, but those players developed by the time MJ left Chicago and overseas players really started coming in and having huge impact during the 00's not the 90's. During the 90's pretty much every superstar or All-Star in the league was American, that changed in the 00's.

[97 bulls]

I was using Jabbar to get sense how the "real" showtime Lakers would have done in the expansion era.

I don't know why you used Walton in your example, I said 1984 not 86, Kareem in 1984 made the All-NBA First team in '84 and won Finals MVP a year later, he was still HOF level.

Rodman was coming off the bench in those postseason games in '97 or '98, he wasn't HOF level, and sorry to say this, but Kukoc will never make the HOF.

The NBA did not have a bunch of talent to choose from, that is why you still had old teams that had players from the 80's competing for titles in the mid-late 90's.
But even stilk it depends on the team. Forget names. Look at how they played. Like you're trying to do with Rodman (and ill get to that). Whenever the best 80s Lakers team is discussed, it always a question of the depth of the 85 team, who had extremley young players like Scott and Worthy, and extremely old players like Mcadoo and Wilks. Vs the 87 team that had prime Worthy, Scott, Magic, and Green. But had an older past his prime Jabaar. And this is what I mean by Hall of Fame level. Worthy wasn't playing at a hall of fame level in 85. Jabaar wasnt in 87.

Back in Rodman. I don't see why he wasn't playing at Hall of Fame level. He wa still one of the best defenders in the league and led the league in rebounding all three years with Chicago. So what if he didn't start. He always finished games. He shut down Malone in 98. And he was hurt in 97.

Kukoc will get into the Hall of Fame as an international player. Compare his career to anyone overseas. And I do believe his role on the Bulls stunted his personal career. He could've been so much more.

[juju151111]

I am consistent. Im not using inuries as an excuse. If you think that then allow me to clarify. The Bulls benefited from playing injured teams as well. Cedric Ceballos misses the 93 NBA Finals. Im sure he would've helped them vs the Bulls. Nate McMillan missed the 96 Finals. It happens.

I don't penalize teams for beating injured teams. Injuries are a part of the game. But turn about is fair play. Dont put an asterisk next to the Bulls championships if your favorite yeam benefited from the same circumstance.

The fact is, and I've said this before, none of great 80s teams faced each other at full strength so to speak. They beat VERSIONS of what was considered their best squads. The Piston and Laker teams the Bulls beat are no different. Why do you guys overlook this inconvenient truth??????
Exactly the pistons beat Lakers without scott and magic in 89.

[97 bulls]

It's not really an argument against the Bulls, but just the NBA during the 90's. I believe the NBA in the early 90's was pretty strong, you had a bunch of superstars and strong teams, but by the mid-late 90's expansion ruined it, you didn't have alot of up and coming players due to weak drafts and so of course adding all those teams and seeing little superstar talent coming out of college hurt the quality of teams in the league, the Bulls were the only super team, rest of the NBA not so much.

Of course the '96 draft helped alot and you had guys like Garnett & Duncan in other drafts, but those players developed by the time MJ left Chicago and overseas players really started coming in and having huge impact during the 00's not the 90's. During the 90's pretty much every superstar or All-Star in the league was American, that changed in the 00's.
What was wrong with the players drafted in the late 80s and early 90s???? Those were the players that would take over the helm.

And the 90s had plenty of European player. Granted not as many ans today, but much.more than the 80s. Radja, Kukoc, Seikley, Petrovic, Marcelonisus (I butchered his name) to name a few. They made up that depth you're referring to. Cuz people like you always claim there was a lack of depth right?

And you still didnt answer my question..... How can the constant exoansion of the human population, and the influx of European talent not make up for the added teams????? Its simple math right???? More players to chose for more teams.
If the available roster spots increased by 5%, but the available takent increased by 7-8, wouldn't that mean it was tougher to get into the NBA in the 90s???

[1987_Lakers]

What was wrong with the players drafted in the late 80s and early 90s???? Those were the players that would take over the helm.

And the 90s had plenty of European player. Granted not as many ans today, but much.more than the 80s. Radja, Kukoc, Seikley, Petrovic, Marcelonisus (I butchered his name) to name a few. They made up that depth you're referring to. Cuz people like you always claim there was a lack of depth right?

And you still didnt answer my question..... How can the constant exoansion of the human population, and the influx of European talent not make up for the added teams????? Its simple math right???? More players to chose for more teams.
If the available roster spots increased by 5%, but the available takent increased by 7-8, wouldn't that mean it was tougher to get into the NBA in the 90s???

It's not rocket science man, look at the teams competing and winning titles in the 80's and compare them to the 90's elite teams.

You had 4 legendary teams in the 80's...
Showtime Lakers
Celtics
'83 Sixers who only lost 1 game in the playoffs
'87-'89 Pistons

Where were the legendary teams in the 90's besides Chicago?

The Knicks didn't have an offense
The Suns didn't have a defense
The Pacers best player was Reggie Miller
Orlando was a very talented team, but were young and got swept by HOU

The only team that did win anything were the Rockets which was made up of Hakeem and a bunch or role players.

[Pointguard]

Worthy and Scott played in Game 1, Game 2, Game, 3 and Game 4. The Bulls won in 5. Worthy did sprain his ankle three weeks prior then reinjured it in game 4. Scott got hurt late in game 4. But the Bulls had that game well in hand by the time he went down. I dont see how you can put soooo much emphasis on them missing one game. Of a series they never had a chance of winning. But then say im crazy for drawing a parallel between the Lakers.mising Scott and Worthy, and the other teams missing Isaiah Thomas, Moses Malone and Larry Bird and Kevin Mchale injuries are OK???? And let's not forget that Jordan was playing hurt as well.

Now you called me crazy right? What's so crazy about my comparison?.
Byron Scott averaged 5 points per game the first three games, and less than that the next two. And you are acting like he got hurt in game 4. You think he was healthy in the first three games. Were you listening to the games on the radio? Worthy scored 12 points in game THREE and missed like crazy. The series was 2-1 before he fell off. What is wrong with you?

Am I totally confusing you with the percentages. When a player is below 50% of production he's not himself. Scott was at 25% and Worthy was about 45%. I don't care about the other teams because you are using it as an escape valve.

[kennethgriffin]

comparing stats/records isnt the way to compare team strengths between eras



its obvious theres no way any teams in history can beat the ultra stacked 80s lakers or celtics


one of those 2 teams is the best ever



jordan had a stacked team in comparison to other 90s teams. but his team aint sh*t when you factor in that the 80s lakers might one day have 6 hall of famers


1985 champion lakers =

Magic Johnson HOF
Kareem Abdul Jabbar HOF
Bob Mcadoo HOF
James Worthy HOF
Jamaal Wilkes HOF
Michael Cooper ( future HOF defensive legend )

ontop of them. they had

16ppg byron scott
basketball genius's kurt rhambis and mitch kupchak

and pat riley as head coach


nobody is beating them .. period



they BEAT a celtic team in the finals with

Larry Bird = HOF
dennis johnson = HOF
robert parish = HOF
kevin mchale = HOF
danny ainge = allstar
cedric maxwell = FMVP





1985 lakers = greatest team of all time

beginning of magics peak
ending of kareems peak
most HOFers


period

nuff said

shut it down

[Suguru101]

1987 Lakers weren't even the best Laker team. 1982 and 1985 >

Kareem was a shell of himself in 87.

[97 bulls]

It's not rocket science man, look at the teams competing and winning titles in the 80's and compare them to the 90's elite teams.

You had 4 legendary teams in the 80's...
Showtime Lakers
Celtics
'83 Sixers who only lost 1 game in the playoffs
'87-'89 Pistons

Where were the legendary teams in the 90's besides Chicago?

The Knicks didn't have an offense
The Suns didn't have a defense
The Pacers best player was Reggie Miller
Orlando was a very talented team, but were young and got swept by HOU

The only team that did win anything were the Rockets which was made up of Hakeem and a bunch or role players.
Ok. And in the 90s, you had three legendary teams in the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls. Is it the Bulls fault that they were the end all be all???? I mean the 80s had two teams dominate that era. The Celtics and Lakers. The 90s had one. I dont see much of a difference.

And i cant answer how Stockton and Malone would look with two championships on their resume. But again, what kind of logic says that a team is better if they lose every so often????
The Bulls kicked ass.

[97 bulls]

Byron Scott averaged 5 points per game the first three games, and less than that the next two. And you are acting like he got hurt in game 4. You think he was healthy in the first three games. Were you listening to the games on the radio? Worthy scored 12 points in game THREE and missed like crazy. The series was 2-1 before he fell off. What is wrong with you?

Am I totally confusing you with the percentages. When a player is below 50% of production he's not himself. Scott was at 25% and Worthy was about 45%. I don't care about the other teams because you are using it as an escape valve.
Yes. He got hurt in game four. He ran into Bill Cartwright and hurt his shoulder. He played bad in the other game because the Bulls put the clamps on his ass.

And no your not confusing me. If a player is producing at a rate that is much lower than normal, especially key players, then its gonna effect the outcome of the game. The question is WHY???? Why did Byron Scott play like garbage in games 1-4??? Maybe you need to credit the Bulls defense. Or maybe it was his having to check Jordan. Either way, he wasn't hurt. Until late in game four. Or if he was, it was not whag made him miss game 5. Maybe he had a nagging injury. But again, that's the NBA. All players are hurt and nursing some ailment.

[97 bulls]

its obvious theres no way any teams in history can beat the ultra stacked 80s lakers or celtics
Lol. But they were beaten. Multiple times. How do you explain the Lakers losing to the Rockets in 86??? Or the Suns in 90???

The Celtics never played ultra talented squads in the Championship. People like to call the 94 Rockets and Knicks one man teams what were the 81 Rockets???? Moses Malone and good role players. The 86 Rocket Hakeem Olajuwan and good role players. Or the Lakers when they had key players injured (since thats sometimg thats held against the Bulls).

[kennethgriffin]

1987 Lakers weren't even the best Laker team. 1982 and 1985 >

Kareem was a shell of himself in 87.

82 and 87 arent even close to 85



1985 champion lakers =

Magic Johnson HOF
Kareem Abdul Jabbar HOF
Bob Mcadoo HOF
Jamaal Wilkes HOF
Michael Cooper ( future HOF defensive legend )
16ppg byron scott
James worthy HOF


1982 champion lakers =

Magic Johnson HOF
Kareem Abdul Jabbar HOF
Bob Mcadoo HOF
Jamaal Wilkes HOF
Michael Cooper ( future HOF defensive legend )
Norm Nixon


1987 champion lakers =

Magic Johnson HOF
Kareem skeleton
james worthy HOF
byron scott
AC green
michael cooper ( future HOF defensive legend )



???? its not even remotely close

[1987_Lakers]

Ok. And in the 90s, you had three legendary teams in the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls. Is it the Bulls fault that they were the end all be all???? I mean the 80s had two teams dominate that era. The Celtics and Lakers. The 90s had one. I dont see much of a difference.

And i cant answer how Stockton and Malone would look with two championships on their resume. But again, what kind of logic says that a team is better if they lose every so often????
The Bulls kicked ass.

I'm not taking anything away from the Bulls, I'm just simply stating there were more dominant teams in the 80's and weaker title contenders in the 90's due to expansion.

'83 Sixers
'84 & '86 Celtics
'85 & '87 Lakers
'89 Pistons

Those are 6 all-time great teams all in 1 decade, Celtics had to battle against the Sixers, Lakers, & Pistons throughout the decade, teams that are considered all-time greats by everyone, did the Bulls have to play teams like this year after year after year? I'm just saying the competition was tougher in the 80's than it was in the 90's.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. But they were beaten. Multiple times. How do you explain the Lakers losing to the Rockets in 86??? Or the Suns in 90???

The Celtics never played ultra talented squads in the Championship. People like to call the 94 Rockets and Knicks one man teams what were the 81 Rockets???? Moses Malone and good role players. The 86 Rocket Hakeem Olajuwan and good role players. Or the Lakers when they had key players injured (since thats sometimg thats held against the Bulls).

The Lakers weakness was that they can get beat up inside at times, considering they didn't have a legit big man other than Kareem and by that point Kareem was a no show on defense all the time and couldn't rebound, what better team to expose that than the Rockets, who had one of the greatest frontlines of all time and the original "twin towers" in Hakeem & Sampson? The NBA is about matchups.

Celtics never played talented squads in the championship? The Celtics played the showtime Lakers 3 times in the Finals, a team that is considered one of the most talented in History, come on man.:oldlol:

'86 Rockets were not ultra talented, but like I said they had one of the best frontlines in NBA History.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers weakness was that they can get beat up inside at times, considering they didn't have a legit big man other than Kareem and by that point Kareem was a no show on defense all the time and couldn't rebound, what better team to expose that than the Rockets, who had one of the greatest frontlines of all time and the original "twin towers" in Hakeem & Sampson? The NBA is about matchups.
AND AGAIN. I TOLD YOU. THE ROCKETS FRONTLINE WASN'T GREAT. RALPH SAMPSON WAS TALL (THUS THE NAME "TWIN TOWERS") BUT HE WAS ALWAYS CONSIDERED SOFT. BESIDES THE LAKERS BEAT THE CELTICS TWO OUT OF THREE TIMES. AND THEYRE CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE GREATEST FRONTLINE EVER. THE ROCKETS GAVE THE LAKERS PROBLEMS CUZ THEY HAD BIG GUARDS TO MATCH UP WITJ MAGIC AND COOOER.

Celtics never played talented squads in the championship? The Celtics played the showtime Lakers 3 times in the Finals, a team that is considered one of the most talented in History, come on man.:oldlol:
I SAID THEY NEVER PLAYED "ULTRA TALENTED" TEAMS. GET IT RIGHT. THE 84 LAKERS WERE VERY GOOD. BUT AS WAS THE CASE WITH 85, THEY HAD EXTREMELY YOUNG AND EXTREMELY OLD PLAYERS SURROUNDING MAGIC AND JABAAR. AND THE CELTICS LIKE THE BULLS BEAT A VERSION OF THE MOST TALENTED LAKERS. NOT THE BEST. AND TRUTH BE TOLD, THE LAKERS BEAT THEMSELVES IN 84.

'86 Rockets were not ultra talented, but like I said they had one of the best frontlines in NBA History.
The Utah Jazz had one of the hest 1-2 punches in history and yet you refuse to acknowledge them. And you call me biased. Geeze

[juju151111]

The Utah Jazz had one of the hest 1-2 punches in history and yet you refuse to acknowledge them. And you call me biased. Geeze
He basically trying to fault the Bulls for beating everybody. Something the Celtics and Lakers couldn't do. The Utah Jazz was a great team especially the late 90s version. They were dominating great teams. They demolished the stack Lakers squad.

[Showtime80']

It basically goes like this children:

The 90's was the era when Jordan along with the second tier of 80's superstars got to feast on a new younger, fundamentally challenged, selfish, ego driven unfocused generation that came into the league earlier that decade.

People forget that Drexler, Stockton, Malone, Ewing, Barkley and Hakeem had PLENTY of years in the 80's to make their mark but who was blocking them?!? The first tear of 80's superstars in Magic, Kareem, Bird, Isiah and Dr J. What happened when these guys went away, all of a sudden the second tear that I mentioned started racking up championships, Final appearances and MVP's!!! Coincidence?!?

Put the 90's Bulls in the 80's does ANYBODY honestly think they win even three titles?!?

In the 80's you needed teams with 3 to 4 all-star caliber players and deep benches to win titles, what did you need in the 90's? One or two potent scoring options surrounded by friggin role players!!!

The 1994 Rockets are possibly one of the thinnest and limited lineups to EVER win a title yet they not only did it one year the REPEATED in 1995!!! Those teams don't sniff a title in the 80's!

90's lineups were not as good or deep as the ones from the 80's!

[97 bulls]

He basically trying to fault the Bulls for beating everybody. Something the Celtics and Lakers couldn't do. The Utah Jazz was a great team especially the late 90s version. They were dominating great teams. They demolished the stack Lakers squad.
Exactly. There was nothing wrong with the teams the Bulls beat.

It all comes down to this... nobody ever call the 91 Bulls their best team. Its always the 96/97 Bulls that won 72 and 69 games and occasionally the 92 Bulls. The 91 Bulls SMACKLEDORFED the Pistons and Lakers.

Sure the Lakers missed Jabaar. But he was a shell of himself even by 87. And the Lakers got a good replacement for him in Vlade Divac and Sam Perkins. They more than made up the 17/6 that Jabaar gave the Lakers in 87. Granted they missed Cooper. But I doubt he swings that series that much. Worthy was hurt but so was Jordan.

Then there's the 85 Team. Jabaar was much better but Worthy and Scott were green.

The Bulls beat the Pstons in a sweep and the only difference between the 91 team and the 89/90 teams was Rick Mahorn. He alone is gonna change that series??? HELL NO&!&!!!!

ITs a pick your poison type thing.

[ShaqTwizzle]

yet they not only did it one year the REPEATED in 1995!!!

The 95 team was different.
That squad had Peak Hakeem, Prime Drexler, Mario Elie, young Horry and excellent roleplayers like Smith & Cassell.
Was a very solid squad.

[Showtime80']

Let's not forget about the Bulls main competition in the East for most of the 90's, the New York friggin Knicks lead by another second tear 80's player, Patrick Ewing along with John Starks?!?!? Let me say that name again, JOHN STARKS!!!! A guy that would've been coming off the bench for ANY of the 80's title teams was the second best player on that team!

The 90's Knicks were a piss poor imitation of the Bad Boys without the talent, brains and FIRST TEAR LEADER! Nothing more nothing less!

But again that's all you needed in the 90's to compete for the title for MULTIPLE YEARS!!!

Don't get me wrong, the 80's generation of players including the second tier I just mentioned are still the best and represent the greatest period in NBA history but within that generation there are levels and the guys the Bulls competed against were not at the level of Magic, Bird and Isiah in their primes!

[Showtime80']

Jesus Christ!!! The 1995 Rockets were far from dominant winning only 47 games and Clyde's peak came and went in 1992 my friend!!! That squad would've gotten murdered by any of the 80's teams let alone the one man 1994 team!

You needed LESS talent to win titles in the 90's, that is a fact!!! Look up the lineups and compare them to those of the 80's and come back to me!

[Pointguard]

Yes. He got hurt in game four. He ran into Bill Cartwright and hurt his shoulder. He played bad in the other game because the Bulls put the clamps on his ass.

And no your not confusing me. If a player is producing at a rate that is much lower than normal, especially key players, then its gonna effect the outcome of the game. The question is WHY???? Why did Byron Scott play like garbage in games 1-4??? Maybe you need to credit the Bulls defense. Or maybe it was his having to check Jordan. Either way, he wasn't hurt. Until late in game four. Or if he was, it was not whag made him miss game 5. Maybe he had a nagging injury. But again, that's the NBA. All players are hurt and nursing some ailment.
They both were no where near their playing levels, Scott couldn't dribble right, the entire series. Worthy apparently ruined his career trying to play thru whatever he was playing through as he only had one decent season after that and we never saw the great first step anymore. I NEVER said it takes away from a Bulls' greatness either. I just said its not the same core. Nobody looked at that ' 90 Laker team and said it ever had, at full strength, the flow, passing, maturity, cohesion, great post options, shooting, fast break execution or champion pedigree of the '87 team or the Celtic '86 team.

[Pointguard]

Jesus Christ!!! The 1995 Rockets were far from dominant winning only 47 games and Clyde's peak came and went in 1992 my friend!!! That squad would've gotten murdered by any of the 80's teams let alone the one man 1994 team!

You needed LESS talent to win titles in the 90's, that is a fact!!! Look up the lineups and compare them to those of the 80's and come back to me!
This.
And this was in the heart of the six championships. Two man and one man teams won the entire decade. Hakeem won two by himself but never getting to 48 wins in a season, a Rookie lead SA team and thank goodness for that Piston team which was really a team that came out of the 80's. Utah, was the second best team of that decade and they would be fodder in the 1980's.

But this isn't my problem with the Bulls as being the best team.

1)A good team looks like a Great TEAM, first and foremost.
2)You see their system.
3)You see EASY baskets.
4)You see them utilize FIVE options.
5)You see other teams scrambling to compensate.
6)You see baskets AT THE RIM.
7)You see how each player contributes to the whole.
8)You see the skill sets blend in with one another seamlessly.
9)You see the power of each position enhanced.
10)You see the brilliance of the decision makers
11)You see how their dept contributes
12)You see great passing,
13)You see an inside out game.
14)You see elite defense.
15)You see help defense.
16)You see at least two unstoppable players - the more the better.
17)You have more than 1 rebounder or 1 great rebounder
18)You see skilled shooters.
19)You see few weaknesses as a team.
20)You see team cohesion.
21)You see bold players ready for any situation. (Clutch players in a variety of ways).
22)You see great execution all the way around.


Of course I didn't cover everything, maybe we can make a comprehensive list, but I really think the 87Lakers and 86Celtics, easily have the best mix of these items. Where they might have 75% of that list, on the runner up teams.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

This.
And this was in the heart of the six championships. Two man and one man teams won the entire decade. Hakeem won two by himself but never getting to 48 wins in a season, a Rookie lead SA team and thank goodness for that Piston team which was really a team that came out of the 80's. Utah, was the second best team of that decade and they would be fodder in the 1980's.

But this isn't my problem with the Bulls as being the best team.

1)A good team looks like a Great TEAM, first and foremost.
2)You see their system.
3)You see EASY baskets.
4)You see them utilize FIVE options.
5)You see other teams scrambling to compensate.
6)You see baskets AT THE RIM.
7)You see how each player contributes to the whole.
8)You see the skill sets blend in with one another seamlessly.
9)You see the power of each position enhanced.
10)You see the brilliance of the decision makers
11)You see how their dept contributes
12)You see great passing,
13)You see an inside out game.
14)You see elite defense.
15)You see help defense.
16)You see at least two unstoppable players - the more the better.
17)You have more than 1 rebounder or 1 great rebounder
18)You see skilled shooters.
19)You see few weaknesses as a team.
20)You see team cohesion.
21)You see bold players ready for any situation. (Clutch players in a variety of ways).


Of course I didn't cover everything, maybe we can make a comprehensive list, but I really think the 87Lakers and 86Celtics, easily have the best mix of these items. Where they might have 75% of that list, on the runner up teams.


that looks alot more like a blueprint of a perfect team.

imo, hypothetically we will see the greatest team of all time in around 2025.

hoping simmons goes to NO somehow.

[Pointguard]

that looks alot more like a blueprint of a perfect team.

imo, hypothetically we will see the greatest team of all time in around 2025.

hoping simmons goes to NO somehow.
Haha, should I add super versatile smart athletic freaks to the list?

[97 bulls]

Let's not forget about the Bulls main competition in the East for most of the 90's, the New York friggin Knicks lead by another second tear 80's player, Patrick Ewing along with John Starks?!?!? Let me say that name again, JOHN STARKS!!!! A guy that would've been coming off the bench for ANY of the 80's title teams was the second best player on that team!

The 90's Knicks were a piss poor imitation of the Bad Boys without the talent, brains and FIRST TEAR LEADER! Nothing more nothing less!

But again that's all you needed in the 90's to compete for the title for MULTIPLE YEARS!!!

Don't get me wrong, the 80's generation of players including the second tier I just mentioned are still the best and represent the greatest period in NBA history but within that generation there are levels and the guys the Bulls competed against were not at the level of Magic, Bird and Isiah in their primes!
I never thought Starks was the Knicks best player. He was their second best scorer. But their seocnd best player was Charkes Oakley.

You know why you feel guys like Barkley, Malone/Stockton, Drexler, Ewing, were "second tier"? Because they never won a championship. Well, Drexler did. Add two Championships to those guys resume and any of them would be considered top 10.

And for the life of me, I can't see what was wrong with the teams the Bulls beat.
91 they mollywomped the Pistons and Lakers.

92 they beat the Blazers. A team that was considered the best team in the league as far as talent going back 90. And a Knicks team that featured Ewing, Oakley, G. Wilkins, Mark Jackson, and McDaniel.

93 They beat the Suns with Barkley, K. Johnson, Marjle, Chambers. And mind you the Suns were a 50 win team when theh acquired Barkley.

96 They beat the Magic with Shaq, Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott. And the Sonics who had Kemp, Payton, Shrempf, Hawkins, Chambers, and Perkins.

In 97 they faced teams with 44, 56, 61, and 64 wins. I believe thats the best win percentage ever.

Were those teams really any worse than the 40 win Rockets that made it to the Finals or the 86 Rockets, or the 80 and 82 Sixers? Thats 4 teams right there. They lost to the Pistons in 6 and 7 hard fought series in 89 and 90. And that was when they were a one man team because Pippen and Grant were young.

Too many points to try to claim that the 80s had all this talent but the 90s didn't

[97 bulls]

Jesus Christ!!! The 1995 Rockets were far from dominant winning only 47 games and Clyde's peak came and went in 1992 my friend!!! That squad would've gotten murdered by any of the 80's teams let alone the one man 1994 team!

You needed LESS talent to win titles in the 90's, that is a fact!!! Look up the lineups and compare them to those of the 80's and come back to me!
Clyde Drexler was still one of the best players in the league when he joined the Rockets

[97 bulls]

They both were no where near their playing levels, Scott couldn't dribble right, the entire series. Worthy apparently ruined his career trying to play thru whatever he was playing through as he only had one decent season after that and we never saw the great first step anymore. I NEVER said it takes away from a Bulls' greatness either. I just said its not the same core. Nobody looked at that ' 90 Laker team and said it ever had, at full strength, the flow, passing, maturity, cohesion, great post options, shooting, fast break execution or champion pedigree of the '87 team or the Celtic '86 team.
This isnt shootaround PG. Scott and Worthy actually had guys guarding them maybe that's why they underperformed.

[Pointguard]

This isnt shootaround PG. Scott and Worthy actually had guys guarding them maybe that's why they underperformed.
Scott was a two time champion by then, he doesn't just stop taking shots and visually look disabled to a large degree. It wasn't defense that did that. The Bulls weren't playing Worthy any different. So no, I'm not saying it was the defense.

[97 bulls]

Scott was a two time champion by then, he doesn't just stop taking shots and visually look disabled to a large degree. It wasn't defense that did that. The Bulls weren't playing Worthy any different. So no, I'm not saying it was the defense.
Well. He didnt wasn't injured til late in game 4.

[1987_Lakers]

The Utah Jazz had one of the hest 1-2 punches in history and yet you refuse to acknowledge them. And you call me biased. Geeze

That was probably the best team Chicago faced throughout their championship runs, Malone was winning MVPs and while Stockton was past his prime, but still one of the top PGs in the league, Hornacek was also aging but was a solid 3rd option. But once you got past those 3 players who exactly did Utah have?? Greg Ostertag was an average center at BEST and Bryon Russell was just an average player in this league, both of those guys were starters on that Utah team and the Jazz didn't have any dynamic player off the bench either.

Are you really going to sit here and say that Utah team was as talented or good as the early-mid 80's Sixers, showtime Lakers, or Bad Bay Pistons all teams that Boston had to play year after year???

Utah was a very good team, but come on....look at their roster, they obviously weren't as talented as the top teams in the 80's, it's right in front of your face, stop denying the truth.

[1987_Lakers]

I'm gonna use 1985 as an example here, in the ECF Boston faced the Sixers, you want to know how Philly looked as a team that year????

- Moses Malone (Averaged 24/13, one of the leagues best players)
- C. Barkley (A rookie here, but averaged 15/11 in the playoffs that year)
- J. Erving (Still averaging 20/5/3, All-Star)
- A. Toney (One of the top SGs in the league, ask Boston about him)
- M. Cheeks (One of the top PGs in the league, All-Defensive Team)
- B. Jones (One of the top 6th men in the league, All-Defensive Team)

Boston played this team and beat them in the ECF in 1985, tell me....what team did Chicago play throughout the 90's that was as talented as this particular Sixers squad???? Are you really going to compare a Utah team who had Ostertag and B. Russell as their starters to this team?

The point of this post is not to discredit the Bulls, my original point in this topic was to show the elite teams in the 80's were superior to the elite teams of the 90's.

[97 bulls]

That was probably the best team Chicago faced throughout their championship runs, Malone was winning MVPs and while Stockton was past his prime, but still one of the top PGs in the league, Hornacek was also aging but was a solid 3rd option. But once you got past those 3 players who exactly did Utah have?? Greg Ostertag was an average center at BEST and Bryon Russell was just an average player in this league, both of those guys were starters on that Utah team and the Jazz didn't have any dynamic player off the bench either.

Are you really going to sit here and say that Utah team was as talented or good as the early-mid 80's Sixers, showtime Lakers, or Bad Bay Pistons all teams that Boston had to play year after year???

Utah was a very good team, but come on....look at their roster, they obviously weren't as talented as the top teams in the 80's, it's right in front of your face, stop denying the truth.
I feel Seattle was the most talented team the Bulls faced after the Pistons and Lakers. But talent doesnt mean much if your playing a better team. Look at the 04 Olympics. How many of those European teams were more talented than the US team? How did that go?

[97 bulls]

I'm gonna use 1985 as an example here, in the ECF Boston faced the Sixers, you want to know how Philly looked as a team that year????

- Moses Malone (Averaged 24/13, one of the leagues best players)
- C. Barkley (A rookie here, but averaged 15/11 in the playoffs that year)
- J. Erving (Still averaging 20/5/3, All-Star)
- A. Toney (One of the top SGs in the league, ask Boston about him)
- M. Cheeks (One of the top PGs in the league, All-Defensive Team)
- B. Jones (One of the top 6th men in the league, All-Defensive Team)

Boston played this team and beat them in the ECF in 1985, tell me....what team did Chicago play throughout the 90's that was as talented as this particular Sixers squad???? Are you really going to compare a Utah team who had Ostertag and B. Russell as their starters to this team?

The point of this post is not to discredit the Bulls, my original point in this topic was to show the elite teams in the 80's were superior to the elite teams of the 90's.
The 85 Sixers were a talented team. My rebuttal would be the 61 win 98 Lakers. They had four Allstars. The Jazz swept them. Then the Bulls beat the Jazz with Pippen playing hurt the last two games. And the Lakers would eventually go on to win 3 straight championships. With a team that was nowhere near as talented as the 97 and 98 squads.

Look at the 01 Sixers. Best record, MVP, DPOY, COY, 6th man of the year. They lost in 5 to the Lakers.

Ill always take a great team over great talent.

[juju151111]

I'm gonna use 1985 as an example here, in the ECF Boston faced the Sixers, you want to know how Philly looked as a team that year????

- Moses Malone (Averaged 24/13, one of the leagues best players)
- C. Barkley (A rookie here, but averaged 15/11 in the playoffs that year)
- J. Erving (Still averaging 20/5/3, All-Star)
- A. Toney (One of the top SGs in the league, ask Boston about him)
- M. Cheeks (One of the top PGs in the league, All-Defensive Team)
- B. Jones (One of the top 6th men in the league, All-Defensive Team)

Boston played this team and beat them in the ECF in 1985, tell me....what team did Chicago play throughout the 90's that was as talented as this particular Sixers squad???? Are you really going to compare a Utah team who had Ostertag and B. Russell as their starters to this team?

The point of this post is not to discredit the Bulls, my original point in this topic was to show the elite teams in the 80's were superior to the elite teams of the 90's.
A rookie fat Charles, aging Erving with his best years way behind him. Pls they even loss the year before in 84.

Shaq,Penny,grant and what about the 93 suns team that won 62 games with their second best player missing 32 games. They would of been pushing 68 wins if kj wasn't injured.

[1987_Lakers]

The 85 Sixers were a talented team. My rebuttal would be the 61 win 98 Lakers. They had four Allstars. The Jazz swept them. Then the Bulls beat the Jazz with Pippen playing hurt the last two games. And the Lakers would eventually go on to win 3 straight championships. With a team that was nowhere near as talented as the 97 and 98 squads.

Look at the 01 Sixers. Best record, MVP, DPOY, COY, 6th man of the year. They lost in 5 to the Lakers.

Ill always take a great team over great talent.

Lakers were an inexperienced team that had Kobe as a 19 year old averaging 15 a game, their second leading scorer Eddie Jones was a known playoff choker. That was a talented team no doubt, but too young to really win anything. Once Shaq peaked, Kobe turned into a superstar and Phil Jackson was brought in they started winning.

'01 Sixers is a bad example, nobody looks at that team in amazement of their talent, lol.

[97 bulls]

Lakers were an inexperienced team that had Kobe as a 19 year old averaging 15 a game, their second leading scorer Eddie Jones was a known playoff choker. That was a talented team no doubt, but too young to really win anything. Once Shaq peaked, Kobe turned into a superstar and Phil Jackson was brought in they started winning.

'01 Sixers is a bad example, nobody looks at that team in amazement of their talent, lol.
Lol. This is YOUR argument 87. Your big on talent. Well there you go. That Laker team was extremely talented and still got smoked. It amazing how you move the goalpost.

And like JuJu stated. The Sixers looked good on paper. But they had guys that were on their last leg or extremly young like Charles Barkley.

I got another question for you to not answer. The Milwaukee Bucks had the third best record in the 80s after the Lakers and Celtics. How many hall of famers do they have??????

[Straight_Ballin]

Can we add some context to this mess of a best team list? Are we really going to vote against a team that MJ is on in a finals series when it's been proven that MJ never loses if he has a team good enough that year to make it to the finals? There's no odds in the world that you could give me that I would bet against Jordan in a finals series and neither would anyone else that saw him play live.

[97 bulls]

Can we add some context to this mess of a best team list? Are we really going to vote against a team that MJ is on in a finals series when it's been proven that MJ never loses if he has a team good enough that year to make it to the finals? There's no odds in the world that you could give me that I would bet against Jordan in a finals series and neither would anyone else that saw him play live.
This is true. Jordan is the 899lbs gorilla in the room. He single handedly kept the Bulls competitive in two of the three games vs the Celtics in 86. Or to be more precise, a games and a half. And he wasn't even at his best.

Now let's upgrade, better yet drastically upgrade every position for the Bulls.

And the Celtics, Lakers, and even Sixers lost to teams they had NOOOOO business losing to. The Bulls NEVER LOST. At least when they should've.

[Straight_Ballin]

There's just zero evidence saying Jordan would ever lose in the finals. He really did believe that he could not lose when in the finals. Just put yourself in his shoes with that mindset.

[juju151111]

This is true. Jordan is the 899lbs gorilla in the room. He single handedly kept the Bulls competitive in two of the three games vs the Celtics in 86. Or to be more precise, a games and a half. And he wasn't even at his best.

Now let's upgrade, better yet drastically upgrade every position for the Bulls.

And the Celtics, Lakers, and even Sixers lost to teams they had NOOOOO business losing to. The Bulls NEVER LOST. At least when they should've.
:applause: The freaking 1989 Bulls took the Pistons to 6 games and barley won because Pip played 1 min. That Bulls team had a wayyyyyyy inferior Pippen,Grant,Paxton etc..... They won by 3. Then The 1990 Pistons got taken to 7 games andf Pip migraine saved them along with everybody stinking. So let me get this straight A vastly superior Mj in 91 or 92,with a Vastly experience Pip couldn't beat them pls.

In 86 Mj was playing the Celtics with a Raw team.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. This is YOUR argument 87. Your big on talent. Well there you go. That Laker team was extremely talented and still got smoked. It amazing how you move the goalpost.

And like JuJu stated. The Sixers looked good on paper. But they had guys that were on their last leg or extremly young like Charles Barkley.

Ya, gloating a Lakers team who's #2 scorer was choker Eddie Jones, you are really going to compare that to the '85 Sixers team?:oldlol:



I got another question for you to not answer. The Milwaukee Bucks had the third best record in the 80s after the Lakers and Celtics. How many hall of famers do they have??????

One in Sidney Moncrief (He will get in soon), but there is a reason why they never even reached a Finals, Boston & Philly were much more talented teams than Milwaukee.

[1987_Lakers]

This is true. Jordan is the 899lbs gorilla in the room. He single handedly kept the Bulls competitive in two of the three games vs the Celtics in 86. Or to be more precise, a games and a half. And he wasn't even at his best.

You are going to ignore what happened in '87? An improved MJ averaging 37 ppg once again went up against Boston in the first round, this time Boston was depleted, broken leg McHale and no bench, what happened? Boston swept Chicago again.:oldlol:

[juju151111]

You are going to ignore what happened in '87? An improved MJ averaging 37 ppg once again went up against Boston in the first round, this time Boston was depleted, broken leg McHale and no bench, what happened? Boston swept Chicago again.:oldlol:
Are you dumb they are surpose to sweep them. Bulls were vastly inferior. The question is will they sweep a prime Mj in 92 along with prime pip and Grant.

[Young X]

@1987_Lakers

Explain why the '86 Celtics lost 2 games to the Rockets?

[juju151111]

@1987_Lakers

Why did the '86 Celtics lose 2 games to the Rockets?
:lol :roll: Because they had Alltime great in Hakeem and he actually had somewhat decent help. Something Mj didn't have until the 90s. The 90s bulls>>>>>>86 Rockets

[97 bulls]

Ya, gloating a Lakers team who's #2 scorer was choker Eddie Jones, you are really going to compare that to the '85 Sixers team?
You was the one screaming about talent. Everyone agrees that that Laker team was ultra talented.




One in Sidney Moncrief (He will get in soon), but there is a reason why they never even reached a Finals, Boston & Philly were much more talented teams than Milwaukee.
Lol. Im not saying I disagree, but he's been retired for almost 30 years.

Either way, my point is that for all your hissy fitting about how great the 80s was and how you had to have at least three hall of famers to be successful, the third most successful team in the 80s doesn't even have one hall of famer currently. Think about that. I guarantee you Patrick Ewing is gonna be a first ballot hall of famer.

[Mr Feeny]

You are going to ignore what happened in '87? An improved MJ averaging 37 ppg once again went up against Boston in the first round, this time Boston was depleted, broken leg McHale and no bench, what happened? Boston swept Chicago again.:oldlol:

Are you thick? Did you expect that garbage Bulls team to take a game? You don't win single handedly. I cant say I'm surprised that a Lakers fan doesn't seem to understand this particular point. Go back to your "5>2" posts.

[1987_Lakers]

@1987_Lakers

Explain why the '86 Celtics lost 2 games to the Rockets?

The series wasn't as close as the 4-2 result indicates, it was kind of like the 2008 Finals. Celtics blew out Houston in the first 2 games and in game 6 Boston was up by 30 points at one point, it would have been 4-1 if it wasn't for the 2-3-2 format. Also a small note, Boston lost one if its best bench players Scott Wedman in the previous series to an injury.

[Mr Feeny]

Can we add some context to this mess of a best team list? Are we really going to vote against a team that MJ is on in a finals series when it's been proven that MJ never loses if he has a team good enough that year to make it to the finals? There's no odds in the world that you could give me that I would bet against Jordan in a finals series and neither would anyone else that saw him play live.

Jordan never lost with home-court advantage. Never. In his career. Think about that.

[Mr Feeny]

The series wasn't as close as the 4-2 result indicates, it was kind of like the 2008 Finals. Celtics blew out Houston in the first 2 games and in game 6 Boston was up by 30 points at one point, it would have been 4-1 if it wasn't for the 2-3-2 format. Also a small note, Boston lost one if its best bench players Scott Wedman in the previous series to an injury.

Oh, dear.

[1987_Lakers]

Either way, my point is that for all your hissy fitting about how great the 80s was and how you had to have at least three hall of famers to be successful, the third most successful team in the 80s doesn't even have one hall of famer currently. Think about that. I guarantee you Patrick Ewing is gonna be a first ballot hall of famer.

Did the Bucks even come close to sniffing a title during the 80's? No.

In the 90's you had teams like Houston with Hakeem and role players winning titles, Knicks with Ewing and role players making the finals & the freaking Indiana Pacers who's best player was a 20 PPG shooting guard who didn't play defense coming within 1 game of reaching the Finals in 3 different seasons.(94, 95, & 98):oldlol:

Stuff like that didn't happen in the 80's.

[1987_Lakers]

Jordan never lost with home-court advantage. Never. In his career. Think about that.

He played weaker teams, deal with it.

[Mr Feeny]

He played weaker teams, deal with it.

That's your opinion. Deal with it. You're Lakers got slapped several times while facing weaker teams (both 80's and the Shaq lead teams).

And that 1987 would get wrecked by the 90's Bulls much worse than the 2004 Lakers got wrecked by the 2004 Pistons.

[juju151111]

Did the Bucks even come close to sniffing a title during the 80's? No.

In the 90's you had teams like Houston with Hakeem and role players winning titles, Knicks with Ewing and role players making the finals & the freaking Indiana Pacers who's best player was a 20 PPG shooting guard who didn't play defense coming within 1 game of reaching the Finals in 3 different seasons.(94, 95, & 98):oldlol:

Stuff like that didn't happen in the 80's.
Bro The 98 Pacers played better team defense then the 86 Celtics. If the Rockets in 86 can stl two gms why can't the vastly superior 96 bulls stl the series.

[1987_Lakers]

That's your opinion. Deal with it.

That's a fact, deal with it.

[Mr Feeny]

Did the Bucks even come close to sniffing a title during the 80's? No.

In the 90's you had teams like Houston with Hakeem and role players winning titles, Knicks with Ewing and role players making the finals & the freaking Indiana Pacers who's best player was a 20 PPG shooting guard who didn't play defense coming within 1 game of reaching the Finals in 3 different seasons.(94, 95, & 98):oldlol:

Stuff like that didn't happen in the 80's.
No, instead you had a horrific Bucks squad having the 3rd best record of the decade and a team comprised of a baby Jordan and nothing more giving the best 80's team of all time (the 86 celtics) more trouble than any team being swept possibly can.

The 93 Sunshine, 94 Rockets and 97-98 Jazz would all be serious threats in the 80's, like it or not.

[juju151111]

What team is better. 96 Bulls or the 86 Rockets.

[juju151111]

No, instead you had a horrific Bucks squad having the 3rd best record of the decade and a team comprised of a baby Jordan and nothing more giving the best 80's team of all time (the 86 celtics) more trouble than any team being swept possibly can.

The 93 Sunshine, 94 Rockets and 97-98 Jazz would all be serious threats in the 80's, like it or not.
Exactly raw hakeem stole two games from them

[Mr Feeny]

Bro The 98 Pacers played better team defense then the 86 Celtics. If the Rockets in 86 can stl two gms why can't the vastly superior 96 bulls stl the series.

He's doesn't seem to know what he's saying, the poor guy:oldlol:
The 96 Bulls team would almost certainly beat any team in the 80's. They'd struggle with the 86 Celtics but probably be good enough to put them away in 6.

[Mr Feeny]

What team is better. 96 Bulls or the 86 Rockets.

Seriously??? The 96 Bulls be a country mile! How is this a question???

[Young X]

The series wasn't as close as the 4-2 result indicates, it was kind of like the 2008 Finals. Celtics blew out Houston in the first 2 games and in game 6 Boston was up by 30 points at one point, it would have been 4-1 if it wasn't for the 2-3-2 format. Also a small note, Boston lost one if its best bench players Scott Wedman in the previous series to an injury.Yeah but the '08 finals featured 2 great teams going at it. Can't say the same thing for the '86 Finals. Celtics had no business losing twice to that Rockets team.

I agree with you that the Celtics are if not greatest than the 2nd greatest team but you guys always talk down about the Bulls' competition while acting like the Lakers/Celtics of the 80's constantly faced great teams when they didn't. The best versions of those teams ('86 and '87) both faced mostly underwhelming competition in the playoffs.

The Bulls actually faced better teams in the playoffs than either of them. Factoring in injuries, '96 Sonics alone are better than any team the '86 Celtics or '87 Lakers faced.

[1987_Lakers]

Bro The 98 Pacers played better team defense then the 86 Celtics. If the Rockets in 86 can stl two gms why can't the vastly superior 96 bulls stl the series.

WTF are you talking about? I can refute this post so easily.

"If the '92 Knicks took the Bulls to 7 games why can't the vastly superior '86 Celtics stl the series"

"If the '96 Sonics took the '96 Bulls to 6 games why can't the vastly superior '87 Celtics stl the series"

Learn to debate.

[Mr Feeny]

WTF are you talking about? I can refute this post so easily.

"If the '92 Knicks took the Bulls to 7 games why can't the vastly superior '86 Celtics stl the series"

"If the '96 Sonics took the '96 Bulls to 6 games why can't the vastly superior '87 Celtics stl the series"

Learn to debate.

It's really simple. The 96 Sonics and 92 Knicks were better teams than baby Hakeem's 86 Rockets. Take your own advice and learn to debate.

[Mr Feeny]

Yeah but the '08 finals featured 2 great teams going at it. Can't say the same thing for the '86 Finals. Celtics had no business losing twice to that Rockets team.

I agree with you that the Celtics are if not greatest than the 2nd greatest team but you guys always talk down about the Bulls' competition while acting like the Lakers/Celtics of the 80's constantly faced great teams when they didn't. The best versions of those teams ('86 and '87) both faced mostly underwhelming competition in the playoffs.

The Bulls actually faced better teams in the playoffs than either of them. Factoring in injuries, '96 Sonics alone are better than any team the '86 Celtics or '87 Lakers faced.

Pretty much this. Your last statement his the nail on the head.
The 96 Bulls faced NY, Orlando and Seattle. It was remarkable.

[juju151111]

WTF are you talking about? I can refute this post so easily.

"If the '92 Knicks took the Bulls to 7 games why can't the vastly superior '86 Celtics stl the series"

"If the '96 Sonics took the '96 Bulls to 6 games why can't the vastly superior '87 Celtics stl the series"

Learn to debate.
I never said the 86 Celtics can't win you dip shit. My point Your the one saying the Bulls faced weaker competition trying to make it seem like that will favor the Celtics winning. The Celtics never faced a defense like the 93 Knicks either. The 96 Sonics was a deep team too numnuts. And the 90s knicks is one of the greatest defensive teams ever when pat riley took over all the way up to 2000 they were top 5 defense

[Mr Feeny]

I never said the 86 Celtics can't win you dip shit. My point Your the one saying the Bulls faced weaker competition trying to make it seem like that will favor the Celtics winning. The Celtics never faced a defense like the 93 Knicks either. The 96 Sonics was a deep team too numnuts

I thought he was talking about the 92 Knicks. If he was talking about the 93 Knicks then he's more deluded than I thought. That team would cream the 2000 and 2003-2004 Lakers teams as well as ATLEAST battle the 87 Lakers to a standstill.

[1987_Lakers]

Celtics had no business losing twice to that Rockets team.

I agree with you that the Celtics are if not greatest than the 2nd greatest team but you guys always talk down about the Bulls' competition while acting like the Lakers/Celtics of the 80's constantly faced great teams when they didn't. The best versions of those teams ('86 and '87) both faced mostly underwhelming competition in the playoffs.

Do some research on that Rockets team and look up Ralph Sampson, you might be surprised, that was a team that many experts had dominating the West after 1986, but Sampson got hurt and some players on that team ended up having drug problems.

And you missed the point of our whole argument, my sole and only point was that there were more elite teams in the 80's than there were in the 90's, which is a fact, some posters here are simply twisting my words and think I'm implying that the Bulls faced weak competition, which they didn't. Boston throughout the 80's faced much stronger competition than the 90's Bulls, this shouldn't be debated.

[1987_Lakers]

Pretty much this. Your last statement his the nail on the head.
The 96 Bulls faced NY, Orlando and Seattle. It was remarkable.

A New York team that won 47 games, real impressive:oldlol:

An Orlando team that was without Horace Grant, real impressive.:oldlol:

[juju151111]

I thought he was talking about the 92 Knicks. If he was talking about the 93 Knicks then he's more deluded than I thought. That team would cream the 2000 and 2003-2004 Lakers teams as well as ATLEAST battle the 87 Lakers to a standstill.
Yea he did say the 92 Knicks. My mistake. This guy trying to downplay the 90s knicks. 93 Knicks is one of the greatest defensive team in modern bb (1980 forward

[1987_Lakers]

I never said the 86 Celtics can't win you dip shit. My point Your the one saying the Bulls faced weaker competition trying to make it seem like that will favor the Celtics winning. The Celtics never faced a defense like the 93 Knicks either. The 96 Sonics was a deep team too numnuts. And the 90s knicks is one of the greatest defensive teams ever when pat riley took over all the way up to 2000 they were top 5 defense


Do the Bad Boy Pistons ring a bell dip shit? And the Knicks were offensively challenged.

[juju151111]

A New York team that won 47 games, real impressive:oldlol:

An Orlando team that was without Horace Grant, real impressive.:oldlol:
A garbage hawks team, Bulls with Mj coming from a foit injury and not in his prime, and raw hakeem who took two games from them : becks with their best player injured

[1987_Lakers]

A garbage hawks team, Bulls with Mj coming from a foit injury and not in his prime, and raw hakeem who took two games from them : becks with their best player injured

Throughout the 80's Boston faced....

Philly: Dr. J, Moses, Barkley, Toney, Cheeks, Jones

LA: Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, McAdoo

Detroit: Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Dantley

You lose, thanks for playing.

[juju151111]

Do the Bad Boy Pistons ring a bell dip shit? And the Knicks were offensively challenged.
Bro are you freaking retarded. The 93 Knicks can be argued has the best defensive team in the modern era. The 87 pistons wasn't better then 88,89,90 pistons defensivly fir obvious reasons (Dennis rodman emerging. Celtics got spanked in 88 and got lucky in 87 because Isiah got hyped abd wasn't paying attention.

[Mr Feeny]

Do the Bad Boy Pistons ring a bell dip shit? And the Knicks were offensively challenged.

You do realise that when you're here calling him dipshit, it just makes you sound wound up. Looks like he has you all riled up and beat. Resort to insults and ad hominems. That's what all clueless Kobe stans revert to when they're out of arguments.

[Mr Feeny]

Bro are you freaking retarded. The 93 Knicks can be argued has the best defensive team in the modern era. The 87 pistons wasn't better then 88,89,90 pistons defensivly fir obvious reasons (Dennis rodman emerging. Celtics got spanked in 88 and got lucky in 87 because Isiah got hyped abd wasn't paying attention.

Wait for him to Google that. I'm convinced he doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

[1987_Lakers]

Bro are you freaking retarded. The 93 Knicks can be argued has the best defensive team in the modern era. The 87 pistons wasn't better then 88,89,90 pistons defensivly fir obvious reasons (Dennis rodman emerging. Celtics got spanked in 88 and got lucky in 87 because Isiah got hyped abd wasn't paying attention.

Bad Boy Pistons were still better as a team than New York, The Knicks couldn't even win a title when MJ left and lost to Hakeem and role players in the Finals.:oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

You do realise that when you're here calling him dipshit, it just makes you sound wound up. Looks like he has you all riled up and beat. Resort to insults and ad hominems. That's what all clueless Kobe stans revert to when they're out of arguments.

Um, he called me a dip shit in a previous post, if anything I got him riled up. Nice try though:oldlol:

[Mr Feeny]

Bad Boy Pistons were still better as a team than New York, The Knicks couldn't even win a title when MJ left and lost to Hakeem and role players in the Finals.:oldlol:

1- Hakeem was THAT damn good and when surrounded by a decent cast wins. He would have beaten the 87 Lakers with his 94 Rockets.
2- 94 Knicks weren't as good as the 92-93 Knicks just as the 87 pistons wasn't yet nearly as good as the 89-90 pistons.

[juju151111]

Throughout the 80's Boston faced....

Philly: Dr. J, Moses, Barkley, Toney, Cheeks, Jones

LA: Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, McAdoo

Detroit: Isiah, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Dantley

You lose, thanks for playing.
You seem mad bro. Thise same pistons team were getting taken to 6 and 7 games before Pippen and Grant matured by the young bulls.If they were so good why was those 90s scrubs Mj,pip,grant taking to 7 games

[Mr Feeny]

Um, he called me a dip shit in a previous post, if anything I got him riled up. Nice try though:oldlol:

Any way you spin it, he has you shook. Nobody has to try anything. You're melting down in a public forum. Get a grip.

[juju151111]

Bad Boy Pistons were still better as a team than New York, The Knicks couldn't even win a title when MJ left and lost to Hakeem and role players in the Finals.:oldlol:
Didn't a raw Hakeem steal 2 games from you guys. Prime Hakeem probably do better

[1987_Lakers]

1- Hakeem was THAT damn good and when surrounded by a decent cast wins. He would have beaten the 87 Lakers with his 94 Rockets.
2- 94 Knicks weren't as good as the 92-93 Knicks just as the 87 pistons wasn't yet nearly as good as the 89-90 pistons.

If he Hakeem was that good he should beaten Boston in '86 considering he had Ralph Sampson (19-11-4 player), Sampson was better than any of that '94 Rockets supporting cast.

[Mr Feeny]

A garbage hawks team, Bulls with Mj coming from a foit injury and not in his prime, and raw hakeem who took two games from them : becks with their best player injured

Yet another gem by a man who didn't watch the series. Bulls were up 30 or so while Rodman slapped Grant around and held him to 0,0,1,0,0 before Grant got injured. In fact, the Magic played significantly better AFTER Grant left. Rodman had made it a point to embarass Grant and had done just that. Beating Penny, Shaq and Co was brilliant, yes.

The 2001 Lakers and their poultry 57 wins were not impressive. Let's use your logic. That team would get killed by any of the Miami lebron teams.

[Mr Feeny]

If he Hakeem was that good he should beaten Boston in '86 considering he had Ralph Sampson (19-11-4 player), Sampson was better than any of that '94 Rockets supporting cast.

One player isn't a supporting cast. His 86 team was garbage and he still took 2 games from the 86 a Celtics. The 94 Rockets beat the 86 Celtics and probably sweep the 87 Lakers.

"Deal with it", Kobe stan.

[juju151111]

If he Hakeem was that good he should beaten Boston in '86 considering he had Ralph Sampson (19-11-4 player), Sampson was better than any of that '94 Rockets supporting cast.
Difference is his supporting cast didn't get scared of the moment. I don't think the 94 team wou beat the 86 Celtics. The 95 team through with Clyde would be tough.

[1987_Lakers]

Didn't a raw Hakeem steal 2 games from you guys. Prime Hakeem probably do better

Didn't the offensively challenged Knicks take the Bulls to 7 games in '92? '86 Celtics would have swept.

[1987_Lakers]

One player isn't a supporting cast. His 86 team was garbage and he still took 2 games from the 86 a Celtics. The 94 Rockets beat the 86 Celtics and probably sweep the 87 Lakers.

"Deal with it", Kobe stan.

86 Rockets > 94 Rockets

Hakeem & Sampson one of the GOAT frontlines. Deal with it.

[Mr Feeny]

86 Rockets > 94 Rockets

Hakeem & Sampson one of the GOAT frontlines. Deal with it.

94 Rockets > 87 Lakers. Deal with it.

[Mr Feeny]

Didn't the offensively challenged Knicks take the Bulls to 7 games in '92? '86 Celtics would have swept.

Didn't MJ and scrubs challenge 86 Celtics? 96 Bulls would sweep.

[juju151111]

Didn't the offensively challenged Knicks take the Bulls to 7 games in '92? '86 Celtics would have swept.
Doubt that they don't have pat riley or the knicks pistons like defensive attack. I also don't think Rockets can beat the 86 Celtics. 95 Rockets maybe or the 96 Magic maybe. Shit even the 96 Seattle is better then any team the 86 Celtics faced that playoffs

[1987_Lakers]

Nice trolling guys.:oldlol:

[Mr Feeny]

Nice trolling guys.:oldlol:

Glad to see you melt down :rockon:

[97 bulls]

Hey 87 i got another point to make. Think about the 97 Rockets roster. Olajuwan, Drexler, Kevin Willis, Elie, and Barkley. The Jazz beat them. Whats so different between that team and the 85 Sixers????

[1987_Lakers]

Hey 87 i got another point to make. Think about the 97 Rockets roster. Olajuwan, Drexler, Kevin Willis, Elie, and Barkley. The Jazz beat them. Whats so different between that team and the 85 Sixers????

Houston was a very old team, all past their prime, but Hakeem & Barkley were still playing on very high levels and Drexler was an All-Star, the problem was the rest of the supporting cast wasn't very impressive, Rockets had a rookie starting PG in Maloney who only lasted 6 years in the NBA and played under 300 career games and they had no dynamic bench player. The difference is the '85 Sixers were a more rounded team, they had legit starters in every position and Bobby Jones off the bench, Sixers had better mix of experience and youth and more well rounded talent.

The main problem with the Rockets was their old age and lack of supporting cast.

[97 bulls]

Houston was a very old team, all past their prime, but Hakeem & Barkley were still playing on very high levels and Drexler was an All-Star, the problem was the rest of the supporting cast wasn't very impressive, Rockets had a rookie starting PG in Maloney who only lasted 6 years in the NBA and played under 300 career games and they had no dynamic bench player. The difference is the '85 Sixers were a more rounded team, they had legit starters in every position and Bobby Jones off the bench, Sixers had better mix of experience and youth and more well rounded talent.

The main problem with the Rockets was their old age and lack of supporting cast.
Why does age matter???? They were producing. I mean come on do the situations have to be EXACTLY the same? Neither had much of a bench. The Rockets had Willis the Sixers had Jones