Sansterre's Top 100 Teams of All Time

[dankok8]

Those of you who lurk on RealGM probably already know about it but a user on there compiled a list of top 100 teams from 1955 and it goes until 2020.

100. The 1991 Los Angeles Lakers
99. The 2015 Cleveland Cavaliers
98. The 1975 Washington Bullets
97. The 1988 Detroit Pistons
96. The 1990 Phoenix Suns
95. The 2008 Los Angeles Lakers
94. The 2018 Houston Rockets
93. The 1995 Houston Rockets
92. The 2009 Orlando Magic
91. The 2019 Golden State Warriors
90. The 2010 Boston Celtics
89. The 2005 Detroit Pistons
88. The 1976 Golden State Warriors
87. The 2006 Miami Heat
86. The 1985 Boston Celtics
85. The 1989 Phoenix Suns
84. The 2002 Sacramento Kings
83. The 1986 Los Angeles Lakers
82. The 1969 Boston Celtics
81. The 2011 Miami Heat
80. The 1966 Boston Celtics
79. The 1973 Los Angeles Lakers
78. The 2007 Phoenix Suns
77. The 1981 Milwaukee Bucks
76. The 1989 Los Angeles Lakers
75. The 1996 Seattle SuperSonics
74. The 1992 Portland Trail Blazers
73. The 2012 San Antonio Spurs
72. The 1982 Los Angeles Lakers
71. The 1980 Boston Celtics
70. The 1959 Boston Celtics
69. The 1957 Boston Celtics
68. The 2000 Los Angeles Lakers
67. The 1974 Boston Celtics
66. The 1980 Los Angeles Lakers
65. The 2009 Denver Nuggets
64. The 1997 Utah Jazz
63. The 1984 Los Angeles Lakers
62. The 2000 Portland Trail Blazers
61. The 1962 Boston Celtics
60. The 1990 Detroit Pistons
59. The 1974 Milwaukee Bucks
58. The 1960 Boston Celtics
57. The 1982 Boston Celtics
56. The 2012 Oklahoma City Thunder
55. The 1964 Boston Celtics
54. The 2008 Boston Celtics
53. The 2005 Phoenix Suns
52. The 2010 Los Angeles Lakers
51. The 1993 Chicago Bulls
50. The 1984 Boston Celtics
49. The 1977 Portland Trail Blazers
48. The 1973 New York Knicks
47. The 2020 Boston Celtics
46. The 1981 Boston Celtics
45. The 1970 New York Knicks
44. The 1965 Boston Celtics
43. The 2017 Cleveland Cavaliers
42. The 2006 Dallas Mavericks
41. The 2011 Dallas Mavericks
40. The 2020 Los Angeles Lakers
39. The 2004 Detroit Pistons
38. The 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
37. The 2003 San Antonio Spurs
36. The 2013 Miami Heat
35. The 1996 Utah Jazz
34. The 2002 Los Angeles Lakers
33. The 1961 Boston Celtics
32. The 2010 Orlando Magic
31. The 2019 Toronto Raptors
30. The 2005 San Antonio Spurs
29. The 2016 Oklahoma City Thunder
28. The 1989 Detroit Pistons
27. The 2007 San Antonio Spurs
26. The 2016 Golden State Warriors
25. The 2019 Milwaukee Bucks
24. The 1972 Milwaukee Bucks
23. The 2016 San Antonio Spurs
22. The 1983 Philadelphia 76ers
21. The 2013 San Antonio Spurs
20. The 1972 Los Angeles Lakers
19. The 1998 Chicago Bulls
18. The 2012 Miami Heat
17. The 1999 San Antonio Spurs
16. The 2016 Cleveland Cavaliers
15. The 1967 Philadelphia 76ers
14. The 1997 Chicago Bulls
13. The 1992 Chicago Bulls
12. The 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
11. The 2009 Los Angeles Lakers
10. The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers
9. The 2015 Golden State Warriors
8. The 2001 Los Angeles Lakers
7. The 2014 San Antonio Spurs
6. The 1986 Boston Celtics
5. The 2018 Golden State Warriors
4. The 1991 Chicago Bulls
3. The 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
2. The 1996 Chicago Bulls
1. The 2017 Golden State Warriors

It's not so much about the order of the teams and I disagree with quite a few but the writeups and analysis are top notch. A very recommended read.

Link: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241

[ArbitraryWater]

The 2 Mavs teams right behind each other is interesting

[ArbitraryWater]

The 2009 Lakers as 11th best team ever is ABSURD

[Xiao Yao You]

'83 Sixers at 15? Most dominating team I saw and in the middle of the Laker and Celtics rivalry

[RRR3]

How are the 13 Spurs ahead of a team they lost to?

[Xiao Yao You]

can't quit me!

[SATAN]

LeBron faced tougher competition than MJ.

[dankok8]

His algorithm for the rankings weighs playoff SRS pretty heavily so teams that have good point differential (MOV) in the playoffs over better teams tend to get the high rankings. That's how for instance the 2013 Spurs got ahead of the 2013 Heat. Because they beat a few tougher teams in the West and by way bigger margins than the Heat beat their opposition and then they ended up losing the Finals despite outscoring the Heat. And I can follow the reasoning. You can argue that the 2013 Spurs were the better team and got unlucky to lose the series. It's not crazy.

Like I said, his write-ups are really great even if you disagree with the rankings.

[RRR3]

His algorithm for the rankings weighs playoff SRS pretty heavily so teams that have good point differential (MOV) in the playoffs over better teams tend to get the high rankings. That's how for instance the 2013 Spurs got ahead of the 2013 Heat. Because they beat a few tougher teams in the West and by way bigger margins than the Heat beat their opposition and then they ended up losing the Finals despite outscoring the Heat. And I can follow the reasoning. You can argue that the 2013 Spurs were the better team and got unlucky to lose the series. It's not crazy.

Like I said, his write-ups are really great even if you disagree with the rankings.
Meh. That series is over much quicker if Wade wasn't playing injured the entire playoffs.

[dankok8]

Meh. That series is over much quicker if Wade wasn't playing injured the entire playoffs.

For sure. Healthy Heat were the best team but that's a hypothetical.

[MrFonzworth]

can't quit me!

:roll:

[Manny98]

Not a terrible list outside of the 09 Lakers being way too high

2017 Warriors are definitely the GOAT team

[dankok8]

The 2009 Lakers were a 65-win +7.11 SRS team that then proceeded to run over everyone in the playoffs.

Round 1: Utah Jazz (+2.3), won 4-1, by +9.2 points per game (+11.5 SRS eq)
Round 2: Houston Rockets (+6.0), won 4-3, by +7.3 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+10.3), won 4-2, by +3.7 points per game (+14.0 SRS eq)
Round 4: Orlando Magic (+9.3), won 4-1, by +9.4 points per game (+18.7 SRS eq)

There aren't that many teams better than them in history. I'd probably have them a little lower but they kind of run under the radar.

They were really good.

[Xiao Yao You]

The 2009 Lakers were a 65-win +7.11 SRS team that then proceeded to run over everyone in the playoffs.

Round 1: Utah Jazz (+2.3), won 4-1, by +9.2 points per game (+11.5 SRS eq)
Round 2: Houston Rockets (+6.0), won 4-3, by +7.3 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+10.3), won 4-2, by +3.7 points per game (+14.0 SRS eq)
Round 4: Orlando Magic (+9.3), won 4-1, by +9.4 points per game (+18.7 SRS eq)

There aren't that many teams better than them in history. I'd probably have them a little lower but they kind of run under the radar.

They were really good.

Sixers lost one game in the playoffs in '83. Less games then but you can't say their competition wasn't top notch in the middle of the Lakers/Celtics rivalry

[SouBeachTalents]

The 2009 Lakers were a 65-win +7.11 SRS team that then proceeded to run over everyone in the playoffs.

Round 1: Utah Jazz (+2.3), won 4-1, by +9.2 points per game (+11.5 SRS eq)
Round 2: Houston Rockets (+6.0), won 4-3, by +7.3 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+10.3), won 4-2, by +3.7 points per game (+14.0 SRS eq)
Round 4: Orlando Magic (+9.3), won 4-1, by +9.4 points per game (+18.7 SRS eq)

There aren't that many teams better than them in history. I'd probably have them a little lower but they kind of run under the radar.

They were really good.
Ran everybody over? They lost 7 times, needed 7 games to beat the Rockets without Yao, and were a play away from losing 1-2 more times in the Finals. That was not even close to some dominant playoff run.

[John8204]

Not a terrible list outside of the 09 Lakers being way too high

2017 Warriors are definitely the GOAT team

The better "team" was the 2015 Warriors that didn't have Durant.

The GOAT team is once again the 89' Pistons that crushed Larry, MJ, and Magic

[Xiao Yao You]

The better "team" was the 2015 Warriors that didn't have Durant.

The GOAT team is once again the 89' Pistons that crushed Larry, MJ, and Magic

Sixers lost 1 game and swept the defending champs in the finals

[ShawkFactory]

The better "team" was the 2015 Warriors that didn't have Durant.

The GOAT team is once again the 89' Pistons that crushed Larry, MJ, and Magic

Larry was hurt in 89. Played 6 games. Magic was also hurt in the finals.

The 17 warriors would beat the 15 one in 5 games tops. It doesn’t matter that in 15 they were a better “team”, whatever that means.

[SouBeachTalents]

The better "team" was the 2015 Warriors that didn't have Durant.

The GOAT team is once again the 89' Pistons that crushed Larry, MJ, and Magic
This is retarded.

The '89 Pistons also didn't play Bird & Magic missed a lot of the series. So just wrong, in every conceivable way.

[rmt]

I strongly disagree with the Spurs’ order of teams on this list:
1. 2005 - strongest, most versatile championship team
2. 2007 - championship team next closest to big 3 peak/prime
3. 2014
4. 1999
5. 2003

2006 -a very, very close 1B (tie really) - stupid Manu foul
2004 - a not close 2B
2013 - a close 3B - Duncan better (than 2014) and Kawhi not quite ready as 2014

[Smook A.]

So much wrong with that list

- 09 Lakers at #11 is laughable
- 97 Bulls should be higher
- 96 Bulls should be #1
- If the 2016 Thunder are at #29 then the 2018 Rockets should be a lot higher than #94. Very inconsistent list
- 95 Rockets should be higher. How the hell are the 94 Rockets not on there?
- 09 Nuggets at #65??

This list actually sucks

[dankok8]

Ran everybody over? They lost 7 times, needed 7 games to beat the Rockets without Yao, and were a play away from losing 1-2 more times in the Finals. That was not even close to some dominant playoff run.

Just because they went 7 games with the Rockets doesn't mean they didn't eviscerate them. They won the series by an average of 7.3 points/game with every win a comfortable one. The Magic they beat by 9.4 points/game. It was a very dominant run.

Again I'd probably have them near the bottom of the top 20 but they were a great team.

[ShawkFactory]

So much wrong with that list

- 09 Lakers at #11 is laughable
- 97 Bulls should be higher
- 96 Bulls should be #1
- If the 2016 Thunder are at #29 then the 2018 Rockets should be a lot higher than #94. Very inconsistent list
- 95 Rockets should be higher. How the hell are the 94 Rockets not on there?
- 09 Nuggets at #65??

This list actually sucks

Didn’t even notice that last one :lol

The 09 nuggets above the 80 and 00 lakers?! Two championship teams with several of the greatest players ever? Makes sense.

Actually just looked at the whole list. There’s not a single team 66-100 that wouldn’t be favored over those nuggets.

[SouBeachTalents]

Just because they went 7 games with the Rockets doesn't mean they didn't eviscerate them. They won the series by an average of 7.3 points/game with every win a comfortable one. The Magic they beat by 9.4 points/game. It was a very dominant run.

Again I'd probably have them near the bottom of the top 20 but they were a great team.
The Celtics beat the Hawks by worse in '08 and nobody props them up for that series. Series margin of victories can be misleading, the Lakers destroyed the Magic in the opening and clinching game, but were literally a play away from losing 3 straight. I'm not disputing they were a great team, but claiming that was a dominant playoff run is just plainly false.

[ShawkFactory]

Just because they went 7 games with the Rockets doesn't mean they didn't eviscerate them. They won the series by an average of 7.3 points/game with every win a comfortable one. The Magic they beat by 9.4 points/game. It was a very dominant run.

Again I'd probably have them near the bottom of the top 20 but they were a great team.

Yes definitely a great team but not better than the 87 one. Wild that they ranked 09 ahead.

[Axe]

This is retarded.

The '89 Pistons also didn't play Bird & Magic missed a lot of the series. So just wrong, in every conceivable way.
Lol he makes those goofy ass takes at times. :oldlol:

[dankok8]

The Celtics beat the Hawks by worse in '08 and nobody props them up for that series. Series margin of victories can be misleading, the Lakers destroyed the Magic in the opening and clinching game, but were literally a play away from losing 3 straight. I'm not disputing they were a great team, but claiming that was a dominant playoff run is just plainly false.

Celtics crushed the Hawks. You'll never hear me criticize them for that.

In the 2009 Finals, the Lakers were +25, +5, -4, +8 and +13 if you look at each game. That isn't remotely close. You could re-do that series ten times and Lakers would win all ten times.

[ArbitraryWater]

The 2009 Lakers were a 65-win +7.11 SRS team that then proceeded to run over everyone in the playoffs.

Round 1: Utah Jazz (+2.3), won 4-1, by +9.2 points per game (+11.5 SRS eq)
Round 2: Houston Rockets (+6.0), won 4-3, by +7.3 points per game (+13.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+10.3), won 4-2, by +3.7 points per game (+14.0 SRS eq)
Round 4: Orlando Magic (+9.3), won 4-1, by +9.4 points per game (+18.7 SRS eq)

There aren't that many teams better than them in history. I'd probably have them a little lower but they kind of run under the radar.

They were really good.


They absolutey did not.

You smoking that good stuff?

They neary ost to the Rockets and Nuggets and that 5-game series against Orlando was tied to 2 OT wins in which the Magic had chances to win both games at the buzzer.

[ArbitraryWater]

Celtics crushed the Hawks. You'll never hear me criticize them for that.

In the 2009 Finals, the Lakers were +25, +5, -4, +8 and +13 if you look at each game. That isn't remotely close. You could re-do that series ten times and Lakers would win all ten times.


Who tf in their right mind would come away with OT wins as +5 an +8 like they werent tied after 4 quarters and several crazy events from losing BOTH games?

Insane mental gymnastics.


Yeah lets just skip all that and just look at the final score.

[Wally450]

86 Celtics at 6 lol.
They're at worst 3.

[iamgine]

What's going on in 2009 and 2010?


92. The 2009 Orlando Magic
65. The 2009 Denver Nuggets
38. The 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
11. The 2009 Los Angeles Lakers


90. The 2010 Boston Celtics
52. The 2010 Los Angeles Lakers
32. The 2010 Orlando Magic


4 teams in one year?

2010 Orlando Magic?

What happened here?

[Jacks3]

09 Lakers should be higher. Ben Taylor's healthy SRS has them at +9.0, which is one of the highest in history, and they rank top ten all-time in average ELO rating, peak ELO rating, and ending ELO rating. They also had a 12.5 SRS in the postseason and the Kobe/Pau/Odom trio had the highest net rating of any trio of the post Jordan era outside of peak Warriors. They were utterly dominant.

[SaltyMeatballs]

What's going on in 2009 and 2010?


92. The 2009 Orlando Magic
65. The 2009 Denver Nuggets
38. The 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
11. The 2009 Los Angeles Lakers


90. The 2010 Boston Celtics
52. The 2010 Los Angeles Lakers
32. The 2010 Orlando Magic


4 teams in one year?

2010 Orlando Magic?

What happened here?

I didn't even notice this at first. What the **** are these teams doing on that list? :oldlol:

[SouBeachTalents]

What's going on in 2009 and 2010?


92. The 2009 Orlando Magic
65. The 2009 Denver Nuggets
38. The 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
11. The 2009 Los Angeles Lakers


90. The 2010 Boston Celtics
52. The 2010 Los Angeles Lakers
32. The 2010 Orlando Magic


4 teams in one year?

2010 Orlando Magic?

What happened here?
2016 has 4 in the top 30.

[ShawkFactory]

I didn't even notice this at first. What the **** are these teams doing on that list? :oldlol:

I mean the Cavs won 66 games so they definitely deserve to be top 100. I’d probably bump them down a bit from 38 but only 13 teams have ever won more games in the RS.

[RRR3]

I mean the Cavs won 66 games so they definitely deserve to be top 100. I’d probably bump them down a bit from 38 but only 13 teams have ever won more games in the RS.
They won 66 games because they had peak LeBron James back when he went 100% all year long.

[ShawkFactory]

They won 66 games because they had peak LeBron James back when he went 100% all year long.

Is that supposed to be an argument against them?

[RRR3]

Is that supposed to be an argument against them?
Kind of. I don't think LeBron by himself makes a team all-time great, even 2009 LeBron. You rely that much one player on both ends, it's a recipe for disaster. Also can't be depending on Mo Williams to be a championship number two.

[dankok8]

The Cavs lost to the Magic in 2009 because of terrible defense. Their offense with Mo Williams was fine.

[RRR3]

The Cavs lost to the Magic in 2009 because of terrible defense. Their offense with Mo Williams was fine.
Mo Williams averaged 18.3 PPG on 50.5 TS% in that series. Truly spectacular stuff from a second option.

[dankok8]

Mo Williams averaged 18.3 PPG on 50.5 TS% in that series. Truly spectacular stuff from a second option.

The Cavs offense was +8.7 rORtg in that series which is excellent. They lost because their defense was +4.1 rDRtg which is really terrible.

[RRR3]

The Cavs offense was +8.7 rORtg in that series which is excellent. They lost because their defense was +4.1 rDRtg which is really terrible.
LeBron averaged almost 40 PPG on elite efficiency, I would hope their offense was good. Point is Mo shit himself.

[dankok8]

LeBron averaged almost 40 PPG on elite efficiency, I would hope their offense was good. Point is Mo shit himself.

Again...

Their offense was excellent. They lost because their defense let them down big time.

[Dbrog]

How are the 13 Spurs ahead of a team they lost to?

Cause advanced stats are the only thing that matters...duh. All of realgm knows that

[ArbitraryWater]

What's going on in 2009 and 2010?


92. The 2009 Orlando Magic
65. The 2009 Denver Nuggets
38. The 2009 Cleveland Cavaliers
11. The 2009 Los Angeles Lakers


90. The 2010 Boston Celtics
52. The 2010 Los Angeles Lakers
32. The 2010 Orlando Magic


4 teams in one year?

2010 Orlando Magic?

What happened here?


thats hilarious

league was piss poor at the time, prob inflated their numbers

[Baller234]

Lol, how are there so many spots separating teams that won back to back championships?

The 96 bulls were that much better than tha 97 Bulls? Lol, it was literally the same team. If anything the 97 team had the benefit of experience.

[JBSptfn]

Having that BS 2001 Fluker team over any of the 80's Laker teams is beyond reprehensible. The 00-02 Flukers wouldn't even get out of the first round in the 80's.

The real list:

1. 86 Celtics
2. 62 Celtics
3. 83 Sixers
4. 87 Lakers
5. 85 Lakers
6. 67 Sixers
7. 89 Pistons

The Bulls aren't up there because they won in a watered-down league. The 00-02 Flukers were a BS joke that won titles on the back of the officials. I wouldn't have any of their teams in the top 200 ever.

[dankok8]

Sansterre's formula does underrate teams from the 60's and 70's. With 2-3 playoff rounds, those teams have less time to build up their oSRS which is what the ranking formula heavily depends on. The fact that none of Russell's Celtics are in the top 30 is a bit weird. 1972 Lakers probably look a lot better too if they had a 1st round to beat up on some minnow by 20 points/game... :lol

I would venture a guess that late 90's and early 00's teams are also a bit underrated because that was an era of very low pace. It's tough to generate a large point differential when the pace is lower. Perhaps a better formula would use Net Rating which is normalized per 100 possessions instead of MOV/SRS but the problem with Net Rating is that it's only available for every series since 1974 IIRC. It can be calculated prior to 1974 by taking total playoff numbers but errors probably increase.