My Attempt at Ranking the Greatest Teams of All Time

[dankok8]

I fiddled around with stuff and decided to rank all 69 championship teams in NBA history since the shot clock by relative Net Rating instead of MOV. Like Sansterre I assigned 35% and 65% weights to the regular season and postseason, respectively. For modern teams (1984-2023) the numbers are unadjusted and the final numbers are simply equal to 0.35*(RS rNet) + 0.65*(PS rNet).

I gave a +1 boost to teams playing just three rounds of the playoffs (1967-1983) and a +2 boost to teams playing just two rounds of the playoffs (1955-1966) because I noticed that older teams don't feature much at the top. They simply never got to beat up on minnows at the start of the playoffs the way modern teams do which hurts them quite a bit in terms of PS rNet.

The advantage of using rNet to me is that it still adjusts for opposition but isn't insensitive to pace the way MOV is. At least in theory, it should give a better list. Of course a more comprehensive analysis can be done but it's just a little fun I had here.

This is the list I got.

Top 25 Championship Teams - RS + PS Relative Net

1. 1996 Bulls +15.8 rNet
2. 2017 Warriors +15.2 rNet
3. 2001 Lakers +14.1 rNet
4. 1971 Bucks +13.8 rNet
5. 1991 Bulls +13.8 rNet
6. 1997 Bulls +12.7 rNet
7. 2014 Spurs +12.2 rNet
8. 2016 Cavaliers +12.1 rNet
9. 1986 Celtics +11.7 rNet
10. 1987 Lakers +11.5 rNet
11. 1998 Bulls +11.5 rNet
12. 2018 Warriors +11.5 rNet
13. 1992 Bulls +11.1 rNet
14. 2015 Warriors +11.1 rNet
15. 1972 Lakers +11.0 rNet
16. 2009 Lakers +10.9 rNet
17. 1961 Celtics +10.7 rNet
18. 1985 Lakers +10.6 rNet
19. 1999 Spurs +10.6 rNet
20. 1983 Sixers +10.5 rNet
21. 1973 Knicks +10.5 rNet
22. 1967 Sixers +10.5 rNet
23. 1964 Celtics +10.4 rNet
24. 1993 Bulls +10.1 rNet
25. 2012 Heat +10.0 rNet

If you have any suggestions for improvements, please post them because I want to improve the list.

I also did some additional rankings looking at offense/defense separately in the RS and PS but I'll put them in a separate post as it's too long.

[dankok8]

All Championship Teams - Regular Season Offense

1997 Bulls +7.7 rORtg
1996 Bulls +7.5 rORtg
1992 Bulls +7.3 rORtg
1987 Lakers +7.3 rORtg
1971 Bucks +7.1 rORtg
2017 Warriors +6.8 rORtg
1991 Bulls +6.7 rORtg
2013 Heat +6.5 rORtg
1985 Lakers +6.2 rORtg
1972 Lakers +6.1 rORtg
2015 Warriors +6.0 rORtg
2001 Lakers +5.4 rORtg
1988 Lakers +5.0 rORtg
2018 Warriors +5.0 rORtg
2002 Lakers +4.9 rORtg
1993 Bulls +4.9 rORtg
2021 Bucks +4.8 rORtg
1967 Sixers +4.7 rORtg
1986 Celtics +4.6 rORtg
2009 Lakers +4.5 rORtg
2016 Cavaliers +4.5 rORtg
1980 Lakers +4.2 rORtg
1956 Warriors +4.0 rORtg
2014 Spurs +3.8 rORtg
1977 Blazers +3.7 rORtg
1983 Sixers +3.6 rORtg
1982 Lakers +3.3 rORtg
2000 Lakers +3.2 rORtg
1984 Celtics +3.1 rORtg
1981 Celtics +3.1 rORtg
1989 Pistons +3.0 rORtg
2007 Spurs +2.8 rORtg
1975 Warriors +2.8 rORtg
2019 Raptors +2.7 rORtg
2008 Celtics +2.7 rORtg
2023 Nuggets +2.7 rORtg
1998 Bulls +2.6 rORtg
2011 Mavericks +2.5 rORtg
2006 Heat +2.5 rORtg
1960 Celtics +2.5 rORtg
1957 Celtics +2.2 rORtg
1973 Knicks +2.2 rORtg
2012 Heat +2.0 rORtg
2003 Spurs +2.0 rORtg
2020 Lakers +1.9 rORtg
1970 Knicks +1.9 rORtg
1990 Pistons +1.8 rORtg
1999 Spurs +1.8 rORtg
1959 Celtics +1.7 rORtg
1995 Rockets +1.5 rORtg
2005 Spurs +1.4 rORtg
2010 Lakers +1.2 rORtg
1974 Celtics +0.9 rORtg
1962 Celtics +0.9 rORtg
2022 Warriors +0.7 rORtg
1976 Celtics +0.6 rORtg
1968 Celtics +0.5 rORtg
1978 Wizards +0.4 rORtg
1958 Hawks +0.3 rORtg
1969 Celtics +0.1 rORtg
1994 Rockets -0.4 rORtg
1965 Celtics -0.4 rORtg
1966 Celtics -0.5 rORtg
1963 Celtics -0.6 rORtg
2004 Pistons -0.9 rORtg
1979 Sonics -1.1 rORtg
1955 Nationals -1.3 rORtg
1961 Celtics -1.4 rORtg
1964 Celtics -2.4 rORtg
All Championship Teams - Regular Season Defense

1964 Celtics -8.7 rDRtg
2008 Celtics -8.6 rDRtg
2004 Pistons -7.5 rDRtg
2005 Spurs -7.3 rDRtg
1999 Spurs -7.2 rDRtg
1965 Celtics -7.2 rDRtg
2007 Spurs -6.5 rDRtg
1963 Celtics -6.3 rDRtg
1962 Celtics -6.1 rDRtg
1970 Knicks -6.0 rDRtg
2000 Lakers -5.9 rDRtg
1996 Bulls -5.9 rDRtg
1961 Celtics -5.5 rDRtg
1998 Bulls -5.3 rDRtg
1994 Rockets -4.9 rDRtg
2022 Warriors -4.9 rDRtg
2017 Warriors -4.8 rDRtg
1986 Celtics -4.6 rDRtg
1990 Pistons -4.6 rDRtg
1969 Celtics -4.6 rDRtg
1966 Celtics -4.5 rDRtg
2012 Heat -4.4 rDRtg
1972 Lakers -4.4 rDRtg
2020 Lakers -4.3 rDRtg
1997 Bulls -4.3 rDRtg
2015 Warriors -4.2 rDRtg
2014 Spurs -4.2 rDRtg
1973 Knicks -4.2 rDRtg
2003 Spurs -3.9 rDRtg
2010 Lakers -3.9 rDRtg
1983 Sixers -3.8 rDRtg
1992 Bulls -3.7 rDRtg
1979 Sonics -3.7 rDRtg
1960 Celtics -3.7 rDRtg
2009 Lakers -3.6 rDRtg
1971 Bucks -3.6 rDRtg
1959 Celtics -3.5 rDRtg
2019 Raptors -3.3 rDRtg
1984 Celtics -3.2 rDRtg
1989 Pistons -3.1 rDRtg
2002 Lakers -2.8 rDRtg
1968 Celtics -2.8 rDRtg
1967 Sixers -2.8 rDRtg
1991 Bulls -2.7 rDRtg
1981 Celtics -2.7 rDRtg
1955 Nationals -2.7 rDRtg
1974 Celtics -2.6 rDRtg
1957 Celtics -2.5 rDRtg
2011 Mavericks -2.2 rDRtg
2013 Heat -2.1 rDRtg
2016 Cavaliers -1.9 rDRtg
1993 Bulls -1.9 rDRtg
1987 Lakers -1.8 rDRtg
2006 Heat -1.7 rDRtg
1976 Celtics -1.6 rDRtg
1977 Blazers -1.5 rDRtg
1980 Lakers -1.4 rDRtg
1982 Lakers -1.4 rDRtg
2018 Warriors -1.0 rDRtg
1985 Lakers -0.9 rDRtg
1995 Rockets -0.8 rDRtg
1988 Lakers -0.8 rDRtg
2021 Bucks -0.8 rDRtg
1958 Hawks -0.8 rDRtg
2023 Nuggets -0.6 rDRtg
1978 Wizards -0.4 rDRtg
1975 Warriors -0.3 rDRtg
1956 Warriors +0.1 rDRtg
2001 Lakers +1.8 rDRtg
All Championship Teams - Postseason Offense

2001 Lakers +12.2 rORtg
2016 Cavaliers +11.4 rORtg
2017 Warriors +11.4 rORtg
1991 Bulls +11.0 rORtg
1987 Lakers +10.5 rORtg
1985 Lakers +9.8 rORtg
1956 Warriors +9.2 rORtg
1993 Bulls +8.9 rORtg
2000 Lakers +8.7 rORtg
1973 Knicks +8.5 rORtg
2012 Heat +8.4 rORtg
1986 Celtics +8.2 rORtg
2013 Heat +8.2 rORtg
1988 Lakers +7.8 rORtg
1995 Rockets +7.7 rORtg
2014 Spurs +7.7 rORtg
1996 Bulls +7.7 rORtg
1982 Lakers +7.4 rORtg
2011 Mavericks +7.3 rORtg
2010 Lakers +6.9 rORtg
1958 Hawks +6.7 rORtg
2018 Warriors +6.5 rORtg
1984 Celtics +6.4 rORtg
2009 Lakers +6.4 rORtg
1969 Celtics +6.4 rORtg
1959 Celtics +6.3 rORtg
1980 Lakers +6.2 rORtg
2022 Warriors +6.0 rORtg
1992 Bulls +6.0 rORtg
2023 Nuggets +6.0 rORtg
1983 Sixers +5.9 rORtg
1989 Pistons +5.7 rORtg
2002 Lakers +5.5 rORtg
1997 Bulls +5.4 rORtg
1998 Bulls +5.4 rORtg
2020 Lakers +4.9 rORtg
2005 Spurs +4.7 rORtg
1966 Celtics +4.6 rORtg
1961 Celtics +4.6 rORtg
1971 Bucks +4.5 rORtg
1981 Celtics +4.4 rORtg
1994 Rockets +4.2 rORtg
2015 Warriors +4.1 rORtg
1968 Celtics +4.0 rORtg
1955 Nationals +3.8 rORtg
1999 Spurs +3.5 rORtg
1978 Wizards +3.5 rORtg
2008 Celtics +3.3 rORtg
1967 Sixers +3.3 rORtg
1965 Celtics +2.8 rORtg
2006 Heat +2.7 rORtg
1957 Celtics +2.6 rORtg
1974 Celtics +2.4 rORtg
1972 Lakers +2.3 rORtg
2007 Spurs +2.2 rORtg
1977 Blazers +2.1 rORtg
2003 Spurs +1.8 rORtg
2019 Raptors +1.7 rORtg
1990 Pistons +1.7 rORtg
1963 Celtics +1.6 rORtg
1970 Knicks +1.5 rORtg
1975 Warriors +1.4 rORtg
1960 Celtics +0.9 rORtg
1962 Celtics +0.9 rORtg
2021 Bucks +0.5 rORtg
1979 Sonics +0.4 rORtg
1976 Celtics -0.2 rORtg
2004 Pistons -0.8 rORtg
1964 Celtics -2.9 rORtg
All Championship Teams - Postseason Defense

1964 Celtics -12.4 rDRtg
2004 Pistons -11.8 rDRtg
1971 Bucks -9.5 rDRtg
1996 Bulls -9.4 rDRtg
1990 Pistons -8.8 rDRtg
2003 Spurs -8.7 rDRtg
2019 Raptors -8.6 rDRtg
2021 Bucks -8.3 rDRtg
1998 Bulls -8.0 rDRtg
1999 Spurs -7.9 rDRtg
2018 Warriors -7.9 rDRtg
1997 Bulls -7.7 rDRtg
2015 Warriors -7.5 rDRtg
2001 Lakers -7.5 rDRtg
1972 Lakers -7.4 rDRtg
1967 Sixers -7.2 rDRtg
2014 Spurs -6.8 rDRtg
1974 Celtics -6.7 rDRtg
2007 Spurs -6.6 rDRtg
1961 Celtics -6.5 rDRg
1989 Pistons -6.2 rDRtg
2009 Lakers -6.0 rDRtg
2006 Heat -5.8 rDRtg
2008 Celtics -5.8 rDRtg
2017 Warriors -5.8 rDRtg
1960 Celtics -5.8 rDRtg
1979 Sonics -5.7 rDRtg
1981 Celtics -5.6 rDRtg
1977 Blazers -5.4 rDRtg
1992 Bulls -5.2 rDRtg
1991 Bulls -5.1 rDRtg
1986 Celtics -4.9 rDRtg
1975 Warriors -4.8 rDRtg
1983 Sixers -4.8 rDRtg
1962 Celtics -4.8 rDRtg
2002 Lakers -4.7 rDRtg
1994 Rockets -4.5 rDRtg
1976 Celtics -4.4 rDRtg
2011 Mavericks -4.3 rDRtg
2005 Spurs -4.2 rDRtg
2022 Warriors -4.2 rDRtg
1970 Knicks -4.1 rDRtg
2020 Lakers -4.0 rDRtg
2016 Cavaliers -3.8 rDRtg
2012 Heat -3.5 rDRtg
1965 Celtics -3.5 rDRtg
2023 Nuggets -3.3 rDRtg
1993 Bulls -3.0 rDRtg
1957 Celtics -2.9 rDRtg
1985 Lakers -2.7 rDRtg
1973 Knicks -2.6 rDRtg
1982 Lakers -2.6 rDRtg
1966 Celtics -2.5 rDRtg
2013 Heat -2.3 rDRtg
1978 Wizards -2.3 rDRtg
1987 Lakers -2.3 rDRtg
1968 Celtics -2.1 rDRtg
1980 Lakers -2.0 rDRtg
1963 Celtics -2.0 rDRtg
2010 Lakers -1.8 rDRtg
1995 Rockets -1.6 rDRtg
1959 Celtics -1.6 rDRtg
1969 Celtics -0.6 rDRtg
1984 Celtics -0.5 rDRtg
1955 Nationals +0.1 rDRtg
2000 Lakers +0.8 rDRtg
1988 Lakers +1.8 rDRtg
1958 Hawks +3.0 rDRtg
1956 Warriors +3.1 rDRtg

[Dbrog]

Damn dude this is awesome and looks like a bunch of work. That top10 alrdy looks much better than that realgm guy. What is rNet and MOV? I'm unfamiliar with those

[Xiao Yao You]

'83 Sixers rolling through the playoffs in the middle of the Lakers and Celtics rivalry and still forgotten by today's stat nerds :facepalm

[NBAGOAT]

Methodology looks good mostly along with lost but idk about the +1 and +2. In older eras you have less teams in the league. The 8th best team in a 16 team league is just as average as the 16th best team in 30 team league. So even if Celtics played only 3 rds in the 60s, they weren’t playing a strong team in 1st rd usually. Also by your logic those teams should get a boost in rs net rtg since they have more bottom tier teams to beat on but you didn’t give those teams that

Older teams aren’t on there because league had more parity up til 60s and even 60s Celtics weren’t as dominant as later great teams.

[r0drig0lac]

:applause::applause:

[SouBeachTalents]

‘83 Sixers below the ‘99 Spurs is pretty indefensible.

[dankok8]

Damn dude this is awesome and looks like a bunch of work. That top10 alrdy looks much better than that realgm guy. What is rNet and MOV? I'm unfamiliar with those

Sansterre is a legend man. His writeups are insanely good and those are more informative than the rankings. Thanks for the kind words.

rNet is relative net rating. You get it by taking rORtg (offensive rating relative to opponent defense) and subtracting the rDRtg (defensive rating relative to opponent offense), In essence you get a metric that adjusts for the level of opponent and also inherently adjusts for pace because it's per 100 possessions.

The problem with MOV which is just a simple point difference (team - opponent) is that it doesn't correct for pace.


'83 Sixers rolling through the playoffs in the middle of the Lakers and Celtics rivalry and still forgotten by today's stat nerds

Eh... they never played the Celtics and the Lakers were injured missing both Worthy and McAdoo IIRC. They were dominant no doubt but they weren't a historical juggernaut like a top 10 team or something.


Methodology looks good mostly along with lost but idk about the +1 and +2. In older eras you have less teams in the league. The 8th best team in a 16 team league is just as average as the 16th best team in 30 team league. So even if Celtics played only 3 rds in the 60s, they weren’t playing a strong team in 1st rd usually. Also by your logic those teams should get a boost in rs net rtg since they have more bottom tier teams to beat on but you didn’t give those teams that

Older teams aren’t on there because league had more parity up til 60s and even 60s Celtics weren’t as dominant as later great teams.

Good points here. It's hard to correct for those teams not playing one or two more early rounds. Generally it would boost their rNet in the playoffs if they did though. Just as an example, the Celtics in 1962 played the Warriors (3rd best team with Wilt/Arizin/Gola) and then the Lakers (2nd best team with Baylor/West). If they had another round against Detroit or Cincinnati you better believe their rNet would look better.


‘83 Sixers below the ‘99 Spurs is pretty indefensible.

The 83 Sixers were more talented but the 99 Spurs were just as dominant. I too would lean to the 83 Sixers being better just based on talent alone. The data simply doesn't support the 1983 Sixers being way higher like top 10. How would you explain it?

[Xiao Yao You]

Sansterre is a legend man. His writeups are insanely good and those are more informative than the rankings. Thanks for the kind words.

rNet is relative net rating. You get it by taking rORtg (offensive rating relative to opponent defense) and subtracting the rDRtg (defensive rating relative to opponent offense), In essence you get a metric that adjusts for the level of opponent and also inherently adjusts for pace because it's per 100 possessions.

The problem with MOV which is just a simple point difference (team - opponent) is that it doesn't correct for pace.


Eh... they never played the Celtics and the Lakers were injured missing both Worthy and McAdoo IIRC. They were dominant no doubt but they weren't a historical juggernaut like a top 10 team or something.



Good points here. It's hard to correct for those teams not playing one or two more early rounds. Generally it would boost their rNet in the playoffs if they did though. Just as an example, the Celtics in 1962 played the Warriors (3rd best team with Wilt/Arizin/Gola) and then the Lakers (2nd best team with Baylor/West). If they had another round against Detoir or Cincinnati you better believe their rNet would look better.



The 83 Sixers were more talented but the 99 Spurs were just as dominant. I too would lean to the 83 Sixers being better just based on talent alone. How would you explain it?

The defending champs got swept. They had plenty of talent without their 3rd option and backup center. Lost 1 game in the playoffs

[dankok8]

Ok let's quickly compare the 1983 Sixers vs. 1999 Spurs.

1983 Sixers

Regular Season: +7.4 Net (+3.6 rORtg, -3.8 rDRtg)

ECSF vs. Knicks: +8.2 rNet (+9.4 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Bucks: +9.0 rNet (+5.0 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Lakers: +15.2 rNet (+4.4 rORtg, -10.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +10.7 rNet (+5.9 rORtg, -4.8 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+7.4) + 0.65(+10.7) + 1 = +10.5 rNet

I added +1 to the Sixers because they never played a 1st round which would have likely boosted their PS differential.

1999 Spurs

Regular Season: +9.0 rNet (+1.8 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Wolves: +7.8 rNet (+1.1 rORtg, -6.7 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Lakers: +12.1 rNet (+2.3 rORtg, -9.8 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Blazers: +19.9 rNet (+10.0 rORtg, -9.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Knicks: +6.9 rNet (+1.4 rORtg, -5.5 rDRtg)

Postseason: +11.4 rNet (+3.5 rORtg, -7.9 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+9.0) + 0.65(+11.4) = +10.6 rNet

Eh I see these two teams as comparable. Sixers being much better offensively and Spurs much better defensively. Spurs with a better regular season but Sixers with a very slightly better postseason after adjustment. Neither team was really pushed in the postseason so we don't know how much they could have improved if there was a need to.

The Sixers did step up their game and sweep the Lakers but the 1983 Lakers were injured in the Finals (no Worthy and McAdoo/Nixon missing games) and they weren't even that good to begin with compared to other 80's Lakers teams. So that context kind of neuters the edge. The argument against the Spurs is the lockout shortened season. Some players showed up out of shape plus Knicks were missing Ewing in the Finals and although they did play well without Patrick they were just a paper tiger. Ditto for the Lakers who had prime Shaq and a cast that would win 3 rings but they weren't at their best yet. The Blazers weren't great but pretty good and the Spurs creamed them. Still it felt like a slightly weak season.

[Xiao Yao You]

Ok let's quickly compare the 1983 Sixers vs. 1999 Spurs.

1983 Sixers

Regular Season: +7.4 Net (+3.6 rORtg, -3.8 rDRtg)

ECSF vs. Knicks: +8.2 rNet (+9.4 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Bucks: +9.0 rNet (+5.0 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Lakers: +15.2 rNet (+4.4 rORtg, -10.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +10.7 rNet (+5.9 rORtg, -4.8 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+7.4) + 0.65(+10.7) + 1 = +10.5 rNet

I added +1 to the Sixers because they never played a 1st round which would have likely boosted their PS differential.

1999 Spurs

Regular Season: +9.0 rNet (+1.8 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Wolves: +7.8 rNet (+1.1 rORtg, -6.7 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Lakers: +12.1 rNet (+2.3 rORtg, -9.8 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Blazers: +19.9 rNet (+10.0 rORtg, -9.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Knicks: +6.9 rNet (+1.4 rORtg, -5.5 rDRtg)

Postseason: +11.4 rNet (+3.5 rORtg, -7.9 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+9.0) + 0.65(+11.4) = +10.6 rNet

Eh I see these two teams as comparable. Sixers being much better offensively and Spurs much better defensively. Spurs with a better regular season but Sixers with a very slightly better postseason after adjustment. Neither team was really pushed in the postseason so we don't know how much they could have improved if there was a need to.

The Sixers did step up their game and sweep the Lakers but the 1983 Lakers were injured in the Finals (no Worthy and McAdoo/Nixon missing games) and they weren't even that good to begin with compared to other 80's Lakers teams. So that context kind of neuters the edge. The argument against the Spurs is the lockout shortened season. Some players showed up out of shape plus Knicks were missing Ewing in the Finals and although they did play well without Patrick they were just a paper tiger. Ditto for the Lakers who had prime Shaq and a cast that would win 3 rings but they weren't at their best yet. The Blazers weren't great but pretty good and the Spurs creamed them. Still it felt like a slightly weak season.

compressed scheduled killed the aging Jazz. Asterisk for the Spurs

[Phoenix]

The only Bulls team I would take the 91 version over is 98 when they were on their last legs. No way they were better than 92, 93 at the least. I'll have a think about 97.

[WhiteKyrie]

The only Bulls team I would take the 91 version over is 98 when they were on their last legs. No way they were better than 92, 93 at the least. I'll have a think about 97.

93 team is mad underrated for a variety of reasons. After a certain point, this list feels like a toss up

[SouBeachTalents]

The only Bulls team I would take the 91 version over is 98 when they were on their last legs. No way they were better than 92, 93 at the least. I'll have a think about 97.
I’m surprised you feel that way. I consider ‘91, as many do, to be Jordan’s peak, Pippen had his best playoff run that year and they ran roughshod through the playoffs, dropping a single game between the Pistons & Lakers.

The ‘92 & ‘93 teams looked much more vulnerable in the playoffs, and by ‘96 & ‘97 Jordan was still (obv) great, but not nearly as dominant. Outside of ‘96 I’d want to play the ‘91 team last, and even that would be close.

[Phoenix]

I’m surprised you feel that way. I consider ‘91, as many do, to be Jordan’s peak, Pippen had his best playoff run that year and they ran roughshod through the playoffs, dropping a single game between the Pistons & Lakers.

The ‘92 & ‘93 teams looked much more vulnerable in the playoffs, and by ‘96 & ‘97 Jordan was still (obv) great, but not nearly as dominant. Outside of ‘96 I’d want to play the ‘91 team last, and even that would be close.

91 was Jordan's peak, so was 92 and Pippen was a year older/better in 92 but a bit down in 93. Grant was better in 92 and 93 than 91, ditto for someone like BJ who by 93 was an upgrade over the aging Paxson. The 92 Bulls looked more vulnerable but I would argue they faced tougher teams across the playoffs than they did in 91 and had an extra layer of experience and poise from winning it all the prior year. That 92 and 93 Knicks team and 93 Suns may have won the title if you dropped them into 91 in place of the Bulls. They were legit championship level teams in the wrong place and time.

I suppose where I'm coming from, 91 Bulls may have been more dominant than the 93 version relative to the rest of the league, but if you matched up 91 and 93 Bulls I think I'd lean towards the latter, same for 92. Jordan wasn't 'quite' as dynamic in 93 compared to 91 but he was more experienced, had complete control over the game by then and Pippen/Grant/BJ were better and more experienced as said earlier. Of course you have to take a measure of 'fatigue' into account with Jordan/Pippen coming off the Olympics, but I'm not sure that sways the favor to 91. It's a 7 game series one way or another.

I may be off on 97, giving it a little more thought.

[Phoenix]

93 team is mad underrated for a variety of reasons. After a certain point, this list feels like a toss up

Probably because that team had the worst record of all the Bulls championship teams. But they were the only version of that dynasty with the key players all in their peak/prime range, especially guys like BJ and Horace complimenting MJ and Pippen. I still consider 91 Pippen to 'pre-peak' as that didn't really hit until MJ left, ditto for Grant. BJ was like 2 years in the league. And on the other end, once you get to 96 MJ is end of prime and Pippen is end of peak. For me 93 was the sweet spot for where all those guys were in their careers at that point. I've been on record as saying that potentially the best Bulls team would have been if MJ stuck around in 94, with rookie Kukoc and the other roster upgrades, with what Pip/Grant/BJ were at that point. It was the best team that never was.

[Wally450]

86 Celtics below the 2016 Cavs. Nice.

[dankok8]

The 1991 Bulls were absolutely terrifying. The 61-21 record and +9.4 Net is nice but they got a lot better as the season progressed. They went 29-7 with an insane +11.7 Net after the All-Star break and then proceeded to pulverize everyone in the playoffs with +16.1 rNet. Honestly I'm with SouBeach that I'd probably only take the 1996 Bulls ahead of them and even that's close. Because the 1991 Bulls played with such ferocity... they weren't going to be denied. Although push comes to shove I find all of 1991, 1992, 1996 and 1997 pretty close.


86 Celtics below the 2016 Cavs. Nice.

LOL

Surprised no one mentioned the 2016 Cavs being that high. They cruised in the regular season but they absolutely annihilated the (weak) East teams and beat the Warriors. Their 15.2 rNet in the playoffs is 5th on the list. That's how they got to 8th overall. And I mean it's not that crazy considering the 2001 Lakers who also cruised in the regular season and crushed it in the playoffs are even higher!

[Phoenix]

I Spock-eyebrowed the 2016 Cavs over 86 Celtics as well ( and the 87 Lakers!) but my brain got hooked on how the Bulls teams were ranked.

[WhiteKyrie]

Probably because that team had the worst record of all the Bulls championship teams. But they were the only version of that dynasty with the key players all in their peak/prime range, especially guys like BJ and Horace complimenting MJ and Pippen. I still consider 91 Pippen to 'pre-peak' as that didn't really hit until MJ left, ditto for Grant. BJ was like 2 years in the league. And on the other end, once you get to 96 MJ is end of prime and Pippen is end of peak. For me 93 was the sweet spot for where all those guys were in their careers at that point. I've been on record as saying that potentially the best Bulls team would have been if MJ stuck around in 94, with rookie Kukoc and the other roster upgrades, with what Pip/Grant/BJ were at that point. It was the best team that never was.

Burn out from 2 seasons and Olympics
Scottie played poorly
First team to attempt a 3 peat in modern era
1993 is arguable peak NBA type season
Saw the best from every team, every night

But they also

Beat 2x 60+ win teams
Beat the best offensive team (Suns)
Beat the best defensive team (Knicks)
Came back from down 0-2 to NY

Nuance and detail prove they were far from the worst Bulls championship team. They improved the roster with Paxson coming off the bench for veteran leadership and shooting. BJ ascending to a superior starting PG with better penetration, spot up shooting and especially defender at the PG position.

1993 Bulls were very impressive. If removing their lackluster and coasting 57 win regular season record. A season where Scottie underperformed and seemed wore out post back to back runs and Olympics.

It’s over simplified and remedial saying they were the worst Bulls team. If Scottie didn’t selfishly sit out half the season in 1998, that team wins over 70 easily, yet struggles in a 7 game series vs an underrated Indiana squad either way.

Regular season record is usually the most overrated thing ever. 2016 Cavs are better than their regular season record. 2016 Warriors are worse than their regular season record. No one in their right mind is claiming 2016 GSW > 2017 w/ KD GSW. But the 2016 team won 6 more games.

All that matters is teams that win rings, how they win their rings and the competition faced.

1993 Pippen is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Horace Grant is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 BJ is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Jordan is prime, season or two AFTER peak

Besides what they could’ve been in 1994, that Bulls team was at their best talent wise. Even more so than 1996.

[Phoenix]

Burn out from 2 seasons and Olympics
Scottie played poorly
First team to attempt a 3 peat in modern era
1993 is arguable peak NBA type season
Saw the best from every team, every night

But they also

Beat 2x 60+ win teams
Beat the best offensive team (Suns)
Beat the best defensive team (Knicks)
Came back from down 0-2 to NY

Nuance and detail prove they were far from the worst Bulls championship team. They improved the roster with Paxson coming off the bench for veteran leadership and shooting. BJ ascending to a superior starting PG with better penetration, spot up shooting and especially defender at the PG position.

1993 Bulls were very impressive. If removing their lackluster and coasting 57 win regular season record. A season where Scottie underperformed and seemed wore out post back to back runs and Olympics.

It’s over simplified and remedial saying they were the worst Bulls team. If Scottie didn’t selfishly sit out half the season in 1998, that team wins over 70 easily, yet struggles in a 7 game series vs an underrated Indiana squad either way.

Regular season record is usually the most overrated thing ever. 2016 Cavs are better than their regular season record. 2016 Warriors are worse than their regular season record. No one in their right mind is claiming 2016 GSW > 2017 w/ KD GSW. But the 2016 team won 6 more games.

All that matters is teams that win rings, how they win their rings and the competition faced.

1993 Pippen is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Horace Grant is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 BJ is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Jordan is prime, season or two AFTER peak

Besides what they could’ve been in 1994, that Bulls team was at their best talent wise. Even more so than 1996.

Yep, no arguments from me on those points.

[dankok8]

Burn out from 2 seasons and Olympics
Scottie played poorly
First team to attempt a 3 peat in modern era
1993 is arguable peak NBA type season
Saw the best from every team, every night

But they also

Beat 2x 60+ win teams
Beat the best offensive team (Suns)
Beat the best defensive team (Knicks)
Came back from down 0-2 to NY

Nuance and detail prove they were far from the worst Bulls championship team. They improved the roster with Paxson coming off the bench for veteran leadership and shooting. BJ ascending to a superior starting PG with better penetration, spot up shooting and especially defender at the PG position.

1993 Bulls were very impressive. If removing their lackluster and coasting 57 win regular season record. A season where Scottie underperformed and seemed wore out post back to back runs and Olympics.

It’s over simplified and remedial saying they were the worst Bulls team. If Scottie didn’t selfishly sit out half the season in 1998, that team wins over 70 easily, yet struggles in a 7 game series vs an underrated Indiana squad either way.

Regular season record is usually the most overrated thing ever. 2016 Cavs are better than their regular season record. 2016 Warriors are worse than their regular season record. No one in their right mind is claiming 2016 GSW > 2017 w/ KD GSW. But the 2016 team won 6 more games.

All that matters is teams that win rings, how they win their rings and the competition faced.

1993 Pippen is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Horace Grant is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 BJ is prime, season off from PEAK
1993 Jordan is prime, season or two AFTER peak

Besides what they could’ve been in 1994, that Bulls team was at their best talent wise. Even more so than 1996.

Margin of victory matters too though. The 1993 Bulls were the least dominant of their teams. Most of their playoff games against the Knicks and Suns were close.

Their depth was the worst of all their title teams. Cartwright was barely playable at this point and from Sansterre's write up everyone except Jordan, Pippen and Grant was probably a net negative on that team. So when they went to the 2nd unit, they really suffered. The 1993 title run was the biggest carry job by MJ of all their runs.

What you wrote sounds good but doesn't match what we actually saw. They definitely cruised in the regular season so I can take that with a grain of salt but in the playoffs, they were the most vulnerable Bulls title team by some distance.

[NBAGOAT]

Margin of victory matters too though. The 1993 Bulls were the least dominant of their teams. Most of their playoff games against the Knicks and Suns were close.

Their depth was the worst of all their title teams. Cartwright was barely playable at this point and from Sansterre's write up everyone except Jordan, Pippen and Grant was probably a net negative on that team. So when they went to the 2nd unit, they really suffered. The 1993 title run was the biggest carry job by MJ of all their runs.

What you wrote sounds good but doesn't match what we actually saw. They definitely cruised in the regular season so I can take that with a grain of salt but in the playoffs, they were the most vulnerable Bulls title team by some distance.

Yep here’s sansterres write up https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2029872&p=87111282#p87111282. He’s pretty convincing with his breakdown and one thing you have to remember is when you do relative net rating in the playoffs you’re looking at how other teams played in the playoffs only. Doesn’t matter how many wins Knicks and suns had in the regular season, they weren’t that impressive in the playoffs in 93. Guessing bulls opponents in previous years were more dominant.

[Im Still Ballin]

2004 Detroit and 2008 Boston. Great defense.

[Phoenix]

Margin of victory matters too though. The 1993 Bulls were the least dominant of their teams. Most of their playoff games against the Knicks and Suns were close.

Their depth was the worst of all their title teams. Cartwright was barely playable at this point and from Sansterre's write up everyone except Jordan, Pippen and Grant was probably a net negative on that team. So when they went to the 2nd unit, they really suffered. The 1993 title run was the biggest carry job by MJ of all their runs.

What you wrote sounds good but doesn't match what we actually saw. They definitely cruised in the regular season so I can take that with a grain of salt but in the playoffs, they were the most vulnerable Bulls title team by some distance.

Those Knicks and Suns were among the best teams they faced though, over their run. I mean it makes sense to me that they were more or less dominant depending on the competition. If we can table the numbers for a second, how dominant do you think the 91 and 93 Bulls are respectively if you swapped them? Meaning, how dominant is the 93 Bulls in 91? What happens if you put the 91 Bulls in 93? Are they beating the Knicks and Suns easier than the 93 team?

[ArbitraryWater]

We have to say though, whie it makes the ist a ot harder, there are many non-tite teams that are better than tite teams.

[Phoenix]

We have to say though, whie it makes the ist a ot harder, there are many non-tite teams that are better than tite teams.

This is true.

[dankok8]

Those Knicks and Suns were among the best teams they faced though, over their run. I mean it makes sense to me that they were more or less dominant depending on the competition. If we can table the numbers for a second, how dominant do you think the 91 and 93 Bulls are respectively if you swapped them? Meaning, how dominant is the 93 Bulls in 91? What happens if you put the 91 Bulls in 93? Are they beating the Knicks and Suns easier than the 93 team?

Eh I wouldn't say that the 93 Knicks and Suns are better than say the 92 Knicks and Blazers. It's definitely in the same ballpark and the 92 team was more convincing. The 91 team faced a weaker opponent in the ECF so it's tougher to compare but their Finals was still the most dominant and the 91 Lakers were very good.


We have to say though, whie it makes the ist a ot harder, there are many non-tite teams that are better than tite teams.

What is the best non-title team to you and where would you place them approximately?

I think for me, similar to Sansterre's list, I don't see any non-title teams cracking the top 20.

[1987_Lakers]

I think for me, similar to Sansterre's list, I don't see any non-title teams cracking the top 20.

You can make a great case for the '68 Sixers, '85 Celtics, & '16 Warriors possibly cracking the top 20.

[1987_Lakers]

'83 Sixers at #20 seems extremely low.

Kind of a forgotten team because the Lakers-Celtics dominated that era, but that was a dominant team, won 65 games, only lost 1 game in the playoffs. They basically had 5 all-stars on that team, with Moses being the best player in the NBA at the time.

Edit: Seeing the '67 Sixers at only #22 is weird too. They were named the GOAT team by the NBA in 1980.

[tpols]

86 Celtics below the 2016 Cavs. Nice.


In any metric to ever exist there's gonna be outliers and that one barely even happened. The 2016 Cavs though destroyed the eastern conference which probably inflated their numbers here. Either way with LeBron and Kyrie going nuts and their unbelievable 3pt shooting they were pretty formidable.

That top 5 though is rock solid.

72 win Bulls
GOAT Warriors with KD in their 1st year
Shaq Kobe Lakers
Kareem Oscar Bucks
MJ Bulls in their 1st title year

Looks about right.

[Phoenix]

Eh I wouldn't say that the 93 Knicks and Suns are better than say the 92 Knicks and Blazers. It's definitely in the same ballpark and the 92 team was more convincing. The 91 team faced a weaker opponent in the ECF so it's tougher to compare but their Finals was still the most dominant and the 91 Lakers were very good.




What are you basing that on? The 93 Knicks were the number 1 defensive team in 93( 2nd in 92), 5th in SRS in 93 compared to 7th in 92, 5th in Net Rtg in 93 vs 6th in 92. Other than Off Rtg, the stats you're using to rank these teams has the 93 Knicks slightly ahead of the 92 version. I haven't looked into the Phoenix/Blazers comparison, but MJ needed to go even more apeshit against Phoenix than he did the Blazers. Which, on one hand, you used that line of reasoning to say the 93 Bulls needed more of a carry job thus being weaker, on the other hand it pointed to how potent the Suns were that he needed to drop 41ppg to beat them and the margins of victory weren't large.

That 91 finals series also might have been a bit more competitive if Worthy was healthy the whole way through. Alot lined up for the 91 Bulls, not to discount their achievement but neither the 91 Pistons or Lakers were the peak versions of those teams.

[Xiao Yao You]

'83 Sixers at #20 seems extremely low.

Kind of a forgotten team because the Lakers-Celtics dominated that era, but that was a dominant team, won 65 games, only lost 1 game in the playoffs. They basically had 5 all-stars on that team, with Moses being the best player in the NBA at the time.

Edit: Seeing the '67 Sixers at only #22 is weird too. They were named the GOAT team by the NBA in 1980.

best team I saw. Rolled through the playoffs and swept the defending champs

[Phoenix]

'83 Sixers at #20 seems extremely low.

Kind of a forgotten team because the Lakers-Celtics dominated that era, but that was a dominant team, won 65 games, only lost 1 game in the playoffs. They basically had 5 all-stars on that team, with Moses being the best player in the NBA at the time.

Edit: Seeing the '67 Sixers at only #22 is weird too. They were named the GOAT team by the NBA in 1980.

I understand the formula being used but obviously the standard of the league isn't the same every year. Some teams rNet would lower or raise if they were placed in difference seasons. Like, the Bulls team in the GOAT conversation has usually been the 96 team, but I don't recall 91 ever being considered above the 86 Celtics/87 Lakers. My mind can't wrap around those latter teams being that low.

[1987_Lakers]

My mind can't wrap around the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers being that low. Like, I understand the formula being used but obviously the standard of the league isn't the same every year. Some teams rNet would lower or raise if they were placed in difference seasons.

Yea, '86 Celtics were my GOAT team until the '17 Warriors came along. '87 Lakers should be in the top 5 at least. Very hard to imagine not having those 80's Lakers/Celtics teams in the top 5, both squads were pretty stacked. The '87 Lakers in particular weren't as stacked with talent compared to their '82 & '85 teams, but they were pretty dominant, Magic & Worthy were basically at their peak.

[dankok8]

You can make a great case for the '68 Sixers, '85 Celtics, & '16 Warriors possibly cracking the top 20.

The 68 Sixers and 85 Celtics wouldn't come close to the top 20.

Let's look at the 16 Warriors because they would seem to have a shot...

2016 Warriors

Regular Season: +10.7 Net (+8.1 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Rockets: +19.4 rNet (+4.5 rORtg, -14.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Blazers: +5.2 rNet (+9.3 rORtg, +4.1 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Thunder: +6.5 rNet (+2.2 rORtg, -4.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Cavaliers: +5.8 rNet (+4.0 rORtg, -1.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +8.7 rNet (+4.2 rORtg, -4.5 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+10.7) + 0.65(+8.7) = +9.4 rNet

Note that their regular season is really really good but not overwhelming. They would be 7th among all the title teams in regular season net rating. And then in the postseason they just weren't that good. The decent but not good +8.7 rNet for the playoffs is heavily boosted by the 1st round against a bad Rockets team. In the last three rounds they played at +5.2, +6.5 and +5.8 rNet which in most years wouldn't even win you a title. A whopping 44 title teams have a better postseason rNet than the 2016 Warriors.

Their total +9.4 rNet would not put them in the top 25 where all teams are +10.0 rNet or better. They would probably land around #30 all-time.


'83 Sixers at #20 seems extremely low.

Kind of a forgotten team because the Lakers-Celtics dominated that era, but that was a dominant team, won 65 games, only lost 1 game in the playoffs. They basically had 5 all-stars on that team, with Moses being the best player in the NBA at the time.

Edit: Seeing the '67 Sixers at only #22 is weird too. They were named the GOAT team by the NBA in 1980.

I already went through the 83 Sixers on the first page. Neither their regular season nor the postseason were that dominant.



1983 Sixers

Regular Season: +7.4 Net (+3.6 rORtg, -3.8 rDRtg)

ECSF vs. Knicks: +8.2 rNet (+9.4 rORtg, +1.2 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Bucks: +9.0 rNet (+5.0 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Lakers: +15.2 rNet (+4.4 rORtg, -10.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +10.7 rNet (+5.9 rORtg, -4.8 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+7.4) + 0.65(+10.7) + 1 = +10.5 rNet

I added +1 to the Sixers because they never played a 1st round which would have likely boosted their PS differential.

Older teams especially from the 60's definitely feel underrated on this list. The 1967 Sixers are a good mention.

I'm thinking of how to improve it. Maybe I can find a way to use standard deviations to calculate league parity. When the league had more parity like the 60's then a +8 Net Rating may well be equivalent to a +10 Net Rating in the 90's or something.

[Charlie Sheen]

I gave a +1 boost to teams playing just three rounds of the playoffs (1967-1983) and a +2 boost to teams playing just two rounds of the playoffs (1955-1966) because I noticed that older teams don't feature much at the top. They simply never got to beat up on minnows at the start of the playoffs the way modern teams do which hurts them quite a bit in terms of PS rNet.



Kind of wish you left this as an asterisk note instead of inserting your adjustment. I agree with your justification but the action leaves the impression you are grooming the data to produce the conclusion you wanted.

[Xiao Yao You]

The 68 Sixers and 85 Celtics wouldn't come close to the top 20.

Let's look at the 16 Warriors because they would seem to have a shot...

2016 Warriors

Regular Season: +10.7 Net (+8.1 rORtg, -2.6 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Rockets: +19.4 rNet (+4.5 rORtg, -14.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Blazers: +5.2 rNet (+9.3 rORtg, +4.1 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Thunder: +6.5 rNet (+2.2 rORtg, -4.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Cavaliers: +5.8 rNet (+4.0 rORtg, -1.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +8.7 rNet (+4.2 rORtg, -4.5 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+10.7) + 0.65(+8.7) = +9.4 rNet

Note that their regular season is really really good but not overwhelming. They would be 7th among all the title teams in regular season net rating. And then in the postseason they just weren't that good. The decent but not good +8.7 rNet for the playoffs is heavily boosted by the 1st round against a bad Rockets team. In the last three rounds they played at +5.2, +6.5 and +5.8 rNet which in most years wouldn't even win you a title. A whopping 44 title teams have a better postseason rNet than the 2016 Warriors.

Their total +9.4 rNet would not put them in the top 25 where all teams are +10.0 rNet or better. They would probably land around #30 all-time.



I already went through the 83 Sixers on the first page. Neither their regular season nor the postseason were that dominant.



Older teams especially from the 60's definitely feel underrated on this list. The 1967 Sixers are a good mention.

I'm thinking of how to improve it. Maybe I can find a way to use standard deviations to calculate league parity. When the league had more parity like the 60's then a +8 Net Rating may well be equivalent to a +10 Net Rating in the 90's or something.

winning all but one game is dominance :facepalm

[NBAGOAT]

What are you basing that on? The 93 Knicks were the number 1 defensive team in 93( 2nd in 92), 5th in SRS in 93 compared to 7th in 92, 5th in Net Rtg in 93 vs 6th in 92. Other than Off Rtg, the stats you're using to rank these teams has the 93 Knicks slightly ahead of the 92 version. I haven't looked into the Phoenix/Blazers comparison, but MJ needed to go even more apeshit against Phoenix than he did the Blazers. Which, on one hand, you used that line of reasoning to say the 93 Bulls needed more of a carry job thus being weaker, on the other hand it pointed to how potent the Suns were that he needed to drop 41ppg to beat them and the margins of victory weren't large.

That 91 finals series also might have been a bit more competitive if Worthy was healthy the whole way through. Alot lined up for the 91 Bulls, not to discount their achievement but neither the 91 Pistons or Lakers were the peak versions of those teams.

sansterre went over this in his write up. I dont think OP did this but sansterre was updating your opponents srs as the playoffs went along. so the knicks in 92 beat a decent pistons team(+2 net rtg) by 9 while the 93 knicks got outscored by the pacers and beat an average hornets team by 4.5. Then add on playoffs count for more than 1/2 of your overall srs then the 93 knicks could easily be considered an easier opponent than the 92 team by his metrics. The suns were equally shakey in the playoffs from what he said.

"In the first round against the poor Lakers (-1.2) they’d won 3-2 by only 3.8 points per game.
In the second round against the decent Spurs (+2.4) they’d won 4-2 by 0 points per game
In the Conference Finals they faced a very good Sonics team (+6.0) and won 4-3 by 0.1 points per game

So, upside, they kept winning. But none of those wins looked particularly dominant. Pretty much every single series could have been lost easily, two going to the full length and two by the barest of margins of victory. So OSRS looks quite down on the ‘93 Suns, and viewed the ‘93 Bulls as a five point favorite. And that’s not even counting that the Suns were down Cedric Ceballos, a promising young scorer who had begun starting by mid-season. Even Phoenix having home-court advantage didn’t seem like a worrying factor."

he also argues the bulls didnt really coast based off regular season and playoff srs over their 6 title runs.

"They put up a very solid RSRS (+6.19) which was 4th in the league (though the best was only +6.66). But even there, that RSRS is unusually low for a 90s Bulls team. Here are the RSRSs from ‘91 to ‘98: +8.57, +10.07, +6.19, +2.87 (no Jordan), +4.32 (some Jordan), +11.80, +10.70 and +7.24. You know how a lot of teams historically kind of coasted in the regular season before hitting a higher gear in the playoffs? That is emphatically not something the Bulls did. Despite having some of the best PSRSs ever (4th, 5th, 24th, 27th, 35th and 62nd) they’re actually fairly average in playoff improvement (15th, 27th, 40th, 49th, 80th and 89th). This isn’t to say that the Jordan Bulls weren’t “clutch”, but instead to say that they were so good in the regular season (2nd, 5th, 9th, 14th, 37th and 68th) that they really didn’t need to get that much better in the playoffs to be really damned good. So if the Bulls put up an unusually low SRS in 1993 (for them), we shouldn’t infer that they were coasting, we should infer that they were legit not as good as they were in other years. And their roster kind of suggests it."

[dankok8]

Kind of wish you left this as an asterisk note instead of inserting your adjustment. I agree with your justification but the action leaves the impression you are grooming the data to produce the conclusion you wanted.

I mean I kind of did groom it you could say. I didn't want the list to not have any 60's and 70's teams and tried to correct for the greater parity of that era. And arguably I still didn't correct enough since a team like the 67 Sixers is too low.

[Im Still Ballin]

The 2022 Warriors were a nice modern defense. The 2019 Raptors and 2021 Bucks really turned up the D in the playoffs.

[NBAGOAT]

I mean I kind of did groom it you could say. I didn't want the list to not have any 60's and 70's teams and tried to correct for the greater parity of that era. And arguably I still didn't correct enough since a team like the 67 Sixers is too low.

counterpoint there still isnt a team from 74-80 and I think everyone's ok with that. There just arent any dominant teams from that era because of parity

[Phoenix]

sansterre went over this in his write up. I dont think OP did this but sansterre was updating your opponents srs as the playoffs went along. so the knicks in 92 beat a decent pistons team(+2 net rtg) by 9 while the 93 knicks got outscored by the pacers and beat an average hornets team by 4.5. Then add on playoffs count for more than 1/2 of your overall srs then the 93 knicks could easily be considered an easier opponent than the 92 team by his metrics. The suns were equally shakey in the playoffs from what he said.

"In the first round against the poor Lakers (-1.2) they’d won 3-2 by only 3.8 points per game.
In the second round against the decent Spurs (+2.4) they’d won 4-2 by 0 points per game
In the Conference Finals they faced a very good Sonics team (+6.0) and won 4-3 by 0.1 points per game

So, upside, they kept winning. But none of those wins looked particularly dominant. Pretty much every single series could have been lost easily, two going to the full length and two by the barest of margins of victory. So OSRS looks quite down on the ‘93 Suns, and viewed the ‘93 Bulls as a five point favorite. And that’s not even counting that the Suns were down Cedric Ceballos, a promising young scorer who had begun starting by mid-season. Even Phoenix having home-court advantage didn’t seem like a worrying factor."

he also argues the bulls didnt really coast based off regular season and playoff srs over their 6 title runs.

"They put up a very solid RSRS (+6.19) which was 4th in the league (though the best was only +6.66). But even there, that RSRS is unusually low for a 90s Bulls team. Here are the RSRSs from ‘91 to ‘98: +8.57, +10.07, +6.19, +2.87 (no Jordan), +4.32 (some Jordan), +11.80, +10.70 and +7.24. You know how a lot of teams historically kind of coasted in the regular season before hitting a higher gear in the playoffs? That is emphatically not something the Bulls did. Despite having some of the best PSRSs ever (4th, 5th, 24th, 27th, 35th and 62nd) they’re actually fairly average in playoff improvement (15th, 27th, 40th, 49th, 80th and 89th). This isn’t to say that the Jordan Bulls weren’t “clutch”, but instead to say that they were so good in the regular season (2nd, 5th, 9th, 14th, 37th and 68th) that they really didn’t need to get that much better in the playoffs to be really damned good. So if the Bulls put up an unusually low SRS in 1993 (for them), we shouldn’t infer that they were coasting, we should infer that they were legit not as good as they were in other years. And their roster kind of suggests it."

Interesting info. This goes beyond my perception of how I saw all this going down back then, so the numbers are the numbers so to speak. The 93 Bulls just seemed resilient in a way the 91 Bulls didn't to be, because they weren't challenged to the same degree overall. Would you say the league was overall stronger in 91 or 93? Because 91 was really the passing of the torch from the older Lakers/Celtics/Pistons guard to the peaking Bulls, up and coming Knicks and a number of good teams out west by 93 ( Suns, Rockets, Jazz, Blazers, Sonics, Spurs).

[dankok8]

Let me try to analyze the 92 Blazers and 93 Suns by the same methodology in the OP.

1992 Blazers

Regular Season: +7.3 Net (+3.2 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Lakers: +14.6 rNet (+8.5 rORtg, -6.1 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Suns: +8.9 rNet (+11.3 rORtg, +2.4 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Jazz: +13.6 rNet (+14.4 rORtg, +0.8 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +3.2 rNet (-1.5 rORtg, -4.7 rDRtg)

Postseason: +9.7 rNet (+7.5 rORtg, -2.2 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+7.3) + 0.65(+9.7) = +8.9 rNet

1993 Suns

Regular Season: +6.6 Net (+5.3 rORtg, -1.3 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Lakers: +2.7 rNet (-1.1 rORtg, -3.8 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +2.8 rNet (+3.1 rORtg, +0.3 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +7.6 rNet (+10.9 rORtg, +3.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +6.8 rNet (+6.9 rORtg, +0.1 rDRtg)

Postseason: +5.1 rNet (+4.5 rORtg, -0.6 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+6.6) + 0.65(+5.1) = +5.6 rNet

The Suns seemed to play to the level of their competition in the first two rounds and it could have cost them and they did step up more later although it should be noted that +7.6 and +6.8, while solid, aren't impressive. There is a lot to suggest that the 92 Blazers were the much better team. They had a slightly better regular season and then unlike the Suns, pretty much obliterated the Western Conference until running into the Bulls.

[NBAGOAT]

Interesting info. This goes beyond my perception of how I saw all this going down back then, so the numbers are the numbers so to speak. The 93 Bulls just seemed resilient in a way the 91 Bulls didn't to be, because they weren't challenged to the same degree overall. Would you say the league was overall stronger in 91 or 93? Because 91 was really the passing of the torch from the older Lakers/Celtics/Pistons guard to the peaking Bulls, up and coming Knicks and a number of good teams out west by 93 ( Suns, Rockets, Jazz, Blazers, Sonics, Spurs).

in sansterre's write up for the 91 team he acknowledges 91 was a weak year for his playoff competition. I was like you in thinking that 91 was a relatively easy run for the bulls. However he says the run is still impressive because of how badly the bulls obliterated teams in the playoffs(his metrics had them 4th fyi he seem them as closer to 5-10). srs is still impressed if you beat a -2srs team by 15ppg, that's a 13srs for the series.

Bulls playoff metrics in 91:
Round 1: New York Knicks (-0.4), won 3-0, by +20.0 points per game (+19.6 SRS eq)
Round 2: Philadelphia 76ers (+2.5), won 4-1, by +8.8 points per game (+11.3 SRS eq)
Round 3: Detroit Pistons (+4.0), won 4-0, by +11.5 points per game (+15.5 SRS eq)
Round 4: Los Angeles Lakers (+8.8), won 4-1, by +9.8 points per game (+18.6 SRS eq)

The competition is weak in the East and lakers were injured but the lakers still had a great regular season and beat a great blazers team in the playoffs. bulls beat them by 10ppg. To paraphase him even with healthy worthy, he's worth nowhere near 10ppg and the bulls still win comfortably. Yes a big portion of sansterre's analysis is based on mov and wins not mattering til the subjective ranking but he argues well as have many other people that mov is a lot better evaluator and predictor of team success than raw record.

To use one example, he has 4 teams from 2016 in his top 30 because they were all that dominant in the regular season and playoffs until they played each other and were completely evenly matched. spurs did lose in the 2nd rd to the thunder 4-2 but mov was even and they most likely they win their fair share of series vs any of the other top teams that year if you played out like 20 playoff series. They were an all time team who makes the finals most years

[dankok8]

Worthy played in the Finals for four games and played well too. I don't think Worthy making a difference is a good argument.

[NBAGOAT]

Worthy played in the Finals for four games and played well too. I don't think Worthy making a difference is a good argument.

well he was hobbled and shot poorly some games 50ts% isnt good even in 91. Still even with healthy worthy, all evidence points to a bulls win. they win by 5ppg its still a +14SRS for the series

[Phoenix]

Worthy played in the Finals for four games and played well too. I don't think Worthy making a difference is a good argument.

Game 4 he dropped 12 points on 6/16, and the closing game 5 he was absent. So more like he played 3 good game, one bad one and missed a game. Bringing it up wasn't to say him being healthy all series changes the outcome. He's just too important to the Lakers to act like it played no factor in how much resistance the Lakers provided, and you're measuring these Bulls teams by their dominance vs their respective competition.

[Phoenix]

Let me try to analyze the 92 Blazers and 93 Suns by the same methodology in the OP.

1992 Blazers

Regular Season: +7.3 Net (+3.2 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Lakers: +14.6 rNet (+8.5 rORtg, -6.1 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Suns: +8.9 rNet (+11.3 rORtg, +2.4 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Jazz: +13.6 rNet (+14.4 rORtg, +0.8 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +3.2 rNet (-1.5 rORtg, -4.7 rDRtg)

Postseason: +9.7 rNet (+7.5 rORtg, -2.2 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+7.3) + 0.65(+9.7) = +8.9 rNet

1993 Suns

Regular Season: +6.6 Net (+5.3 rORtg, -1.3 rDRtg)

R1 vs. Lakers: +2.7 rNet (-1.1 rORtg, -3.8 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +2.8 rNet (+3.1 rORtg, +0.3 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +7.6 rNet (+10.9 rORtg, +3.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +6.8 rNet (+6.9 rORtg, +0.1 rDRtg)

Postseason: +5.1 rNet (+4.5 rORtg, -0.6 rDRtg)

Total: 0.35(+6.6) + 0.65(+5.1) = +5.6 rNet

The Suns seemed to play to the level of their competition in the first two rounds and it could have cost them and they did step up more later although it should be noted that +7.6 and +6.8, while solid, aren't impressive. There is a lot to suggest that the 92 Blazers were the much better team. They had a slightly better regular season and then unlike the Suns, pretty much obliterated the Western Conference until running into the Bulls.

Does any of this measure how good the playoff competition were for the 92 Blazers and 93 Suns these years? The Blazers were more relatively dominant in the 92 playoffs based on your stats but asides from the Lakers, played a different set of teams than the Suns did. Were the 93 Spurs and Sonics worse than the 92 Suns and Jazz? I'm asking because you seem to have more patience to deep up all these numbers than I do.

[NBAGOAT]

Does any of this measure how good the playoff competition were for the 92 Blazers and 93 Suns these years? The Blazers were more relatively dominant in the 92 playoffs based on your stats but asides from the Lakers, played a different set of teams than the Suns did. Were the 93 Spurs and Sonics worse than the 92 Suns and Jazz? I'm asking because you seem to have more patience to deep up all these numbers than I do.

yes since net rtg is based on how good your opponent was during the regular season. Just using SRS since it's easier, both suns and jazz put up a 5.7SRS in 92. Sonics put up a 6.7SRS in 93 but spurs put up a 2.2SRS.

[Phoenix]

yes since net rtg is based on how good your opponent was during the regular season. Just using SRS since it's easier, both suns and jazz put up a 5.7SRS in 92. Sonics put up a 6.7SRS in 93 but spurs put up a 2.2SRS.

So by that metric, the best team either faced was the 93 Sonics. Still feels like there's some nuance missing with how these stats are applied, but that's often the case.

[NBAGOAT]

So by that metric, the best team either faced was the 93 Sonics. Still feels like there's some nuance missing with how these stats are applied, but that's often the case.

I still like these statistical lists since they lead to discussion and maybe challenge some pre existing narrative. Narrative before and one I agreed with is 93 bulls team coasted during regular season and had the toughest competition(suns being maybe the best finals team they faced).

The stats dont support that however. Picture they lay out is that the bulls were not that dominant in the playoffs and competition was much stronger other years. Like OP said The blazers did very well in the playoffs vs 2 strong teams in the west. The suns beat one in the sonics and it wasnt dominant(mov was basically 0). Regular season portland is better too. OP didnt even account for srs updating as the playoffs went along or the suns would be even worse and the blazers would be better. One could argue from the stats the suns gave the bulls a lot of trouble because the Bulls just werent as good as their other championship runs. sansterre had the Bulls 50th fyi and the next lowest bulls title team was the 98 team at 19th.

[dankok8]

^ Yep the 93 Suns don't look anything like the best Finals team the Bulls faced. he 92 Blazers look much stronger. 12.4 rNet average through the Western Conference run is no joke and they easily beat two very good teams in the Suns and Jazz. Another narrative is that the arrival of Barkley dramatically improved the Suns. It actually didn't. In fact one can actually argue that the 1989 or 1990 Suns were the best Suns team in that era.

[Baller234]

^ Yep the 93 Suns don't look anything like the best Finals team the Bulls faced. he 92 Blazers look much stronger. 12.4 rNet average through the Western Conference run is no joke and they easily beat two very good teams in the Suns and Jazz. Another narrative is that the arrival of Barkley dramatically improved the Suns. It actually didn't. In fact one can actually argue that the 1989 or 1990 Suns were the best Suns team in that era.

this is the type of brain rot that results from being too overly reliant on stats and numbers. you arrive at totally ridiculous conclusions like these.

not a single one of those guys on the suns who played with barkley would tell you they were a better team without barkley. in fact it's so ridiculous i can't believe you're actually suggesting it.

[dankok8]

this is the type of brain rot that results from being too overly reliant on stats and numbers. you arrive at totally ridiculous conclusions like these.

not a single one of those guys on the suns who played with barkley would tell you they were a better team without barkley. in fact it's so ridiculous i can't believe you're actually suggesting it.

Hey.. I still think the 93 Suns were a bit better than in 89 and 90 but it's not a big gap. Although it's worth noting that KJ did miss a chunk of the regular season with injuries in 93.

https://i.ibb.co/HqjZhxk/89-93-Suns.jpg (https://ibb.co/NKMRTmH)

[Phoenix]

this is the type of brain rot that results from being too overly reliant on stats and numbers. you arrive at totally ridiculous conclusions like these.

not a single one of those guys on the suns who played with barkley would tell you they were a better team without barkley. in fact it's so ridiculous i can't believe you're actually suggesting it.

Yeah I can only go so far with these stat-based discussions. Who was better or worse in any given year requires a ton of context. Teams are what they are in the season they played, and the era. Just the fact that level of competition and quality of teams can waver from year to year means these stats should be used as a guide but not the end all be all. Swap some of these teams around in different seasons and alot of these numbers come out differently and what then?

Mostly I would say the list has equated to teams we generally consider the GOATS, but it also produces things like the 2016 Cavs being better than the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers. No amount of stats will convince me that this is the case.

[Charlie Sheen]

I mean I kind of did groom it you could say. I didn't want the list to not have any 60's and 70's teams and tried to correct for the greater parity of that era. And arguably I still didn't correct enough since a team like the 67 Sixers is too low.

First, credit to you for your work and showing how you got there :applause:

MLB uses a league adjustment factor to compare players who played under different sets of rules. DH or no DH for example. It is a negative value based on league totals. Maybe try playing with something like that instead of +1.

[dankok8]

Yeah I can only go so far with these stat-based discussions. Who was better or worse in any given year requires a ton of context. Teams are what they are in the season they played, and the era. Just the fact that level of competition and quality of teams can waver from year to year means these stats should be used as a guide but not the end all be all. Swap some of these teams around in different seasons and alot of these numbers come out differently and what then?

Mostly I would say the list has equated to teams we generally consider the GOATS, but it also produces things like the 2016 Cavs being better than the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers. No amount of stats will convince me that this is the case.

100%

The data is important because it will make us challenge our preconceived notions. But there's a lot of nuance to rankings and thinking with your head is obviously important plus there are many methodologies to analyze teams with data as well. I'm in no way claiming that the way in the OP is the best. In fact I'd love to improve it.

My plans for improvements:

- find a way to put old teams on an equal footing; 83 Sixers, 67 Sixers, Russell Celtics etc. feel too low on this list
- maybe cap early round blowouts for top seeds at like +15 rNet; right now some teams are getting too much a boost from annihilating very weak opposition (i.e. whether you beat the 8th seed in the 1st round by 20 points a game vs 12 points a game shouldn't matter that much)
- include non-title teams on the list as well


First, credit to you for your work and showing how you got there

MLB uses a league adjustment factor to compare players who played under different sets of rules. DH or no DH for example. It is a negative value based on league totals. Maybe try playing with something like that instead of +1.

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't follow baseball so if you could elaborate on that a bit more...

[Baller234]

Hey.. I still think the 93 Suns were a bit better than in 89 and 90 but it's not a big gap. Although it's worth noting that KJ did miss a chunk of the regular season with injuries in 93.

https://i.ibb.co/HqjZhxk/89-93-Suns.jpg (https://ibb.co/NKMRTmH)

it is a huge gap though.

there is a huge difference between having prime charles barkley and not having prime charles barkley on your team. it's not something you're going to determine just from stats and numbers though.

without barkley they were a good team but had zero shot of ever reaching the top of the mountain.

[dankok8]

it is a huge gap though.

there is a huge difference between having prime charles barkley and not having prime charles barkley on your team. it's not something you're going to determine just from stats and numbers though.

without barkley they were a good team but had zero shot of ever reaching the top of the mountain.

Huge gap based on what... The 1990 Suns were quite good and had a totally different team. They had a peak KJ, peak Tom Chambers and Jeff Hornacek. They beat the Stockton/Malone Jazz, then the Magic Lakers and then they unfortunately lost to the Blazers despite outscoring them quite heavily. The 1993 Suns weren't a level above based on how they performed in the regular season or the playoffs.

[Baller234]

Huge gap based on what... The 1990 Suns were quite good and had a totally different team. They had a peak KJ, peak Tom Chambers and Jeff Hornacek. They beat the Stockton/Malone Jazz, then the Magic Lakers and then they unfortunately lost to the Blazers despite outscoring them quite heavily. The 1993 Suns weren't a level above based on how they performed in the regular season or the playoffs.

based on the fact that they had a guy who could dominate and impose his will on the game if needed to? the fact that they now had a guy who could score from almost anywhere on the floor? the fact that they he gave them a rough and tough edge and was a strong leader?

[1987_Lakers]

this is the type of brain rot that results from being too overly reliant on stats and numbers. you arrive at totally ridiculous conclusions like these.

not a single one of those guys on the suns who played with barkley would tell you they were a better team without barkley. in fact it's so ridiculous i can't believe you're actually suggesting it.

Yea, to say the '89 & '90 Suns were arguably better than their '93 team is just ridiculous. :oldlol:

Those early 90's Blazers teams although talented were known for their lack of basketball IQ and would always crumble when the game got tight, there are just alot of factors that you have to consider when evaluating a team, can't just use advanced stats.

[dankok8]

based on the fact that they had a guy who could dominate and impose his will on the game if needed to? the fact that they now had a guy who could score from almost anywhere on the floor? the fact that they he gave them a rough and tough edge and was a strong leader?

Barkley wasn't a great scorer outside of the paint. He also didn't make them particularly tough on defense.

Anyways you have your preconceived notions but when data disagrees with you, you should at least stop and reconsider your position before you throw the data out as meaningless. Also consider the nuance in my position. I never called Barkley a fraud or that he didn't deserve the MVP or that he wasn't a top 5 player in the league in 1993 but simply highlighted the fact that earlier Suns teams without Barkley were quite good and don't get enough credit because of the "Barkley put them over the top" narrative which the data doesn't support at all.

[Xiao Yao You]

Yea, to say the '89 & '90 Suns were arguably better than their '93 team is just ridiculous. :oldlol:

Those early 90's Blazers teams although talented were known for their lack of basketball IQ and would always crumble when the game got tight, there are just alot of factors that you have to consider when evaluating a team, can't just use advanced stats.

yeah losing one game game in the playoffs and sweeping the defending champs should count for something

[Baller234]

Barkley wasn't a great scorer outside of the paint. He also didn't make them particularly tough on defense.

Anyways you have your preconceived notions but when data disagrees with you, you should at least stop and reconsider your position before you throw the data out as meaningless. Also consider the nuance in my position. I never called Barkley a fraud or that he didn't deserve the MVP or that he wasn't a top 5 player in the league in 1993 but simply highlighted the fact that earlier Suns teams without Barkley were quite good and don't get enough credit because of the "Barkley put them over the top" narrative which the data doesn't support at all.

you couldn't be any more wrong and you would know this if you watched barkley play.

look no further than his game winner against the spurs in the 1993 wcf. the confidence he had to get to his spot and pull up shows you he wasn't just settling on that possession. that was his bag.

[Charlie Sheen]

Baseball has a WAR statistic that attempts to capture a player's value. PER like stats are the NBA equivalent. The formula attempts to adjust for differences in rules, era and positional value. Now that I think about it, this factor would not have to be negative for your purposes. The zero value is crucial to the WAR statistic. That is the baseline value of a replacement player. However, distance from zero has no meaning in your rankings.

The OP is more accurately a measure of how far the champion is ahead of the teams they played. Winning matters but winning with style matters even more in your rankings. The 83 Sixers were not trashing anybody by 30 on their road to the title. That is the difference between a 1 loss postseason team being ranked top 3 versus 20.

[90sgoat]

Something must be wrong if 2016 Cavs are listed over 1986 Celtics or 2012 Miami Heat for that matter.

[ArbitraryWater]

Barkley wasn't a great scorer outside of the paint. He also didn't make them particularly tough on defense.

Anyways you have your preconceived notions but when data disagrees with you, you should at least stop and reconsider your position before you throw the data out as meaningless. Also consider the nuance in my position. I never called Barkley a fraud or that he didn't deserve the MVP or that he wasn't a top 5 player in the league in 1993 but simply highlighted the fact that earlier Suns teams without Barkley were quite good and don't get enough credit because of the "Barkley put them over the top" narrative which the data doesn't support at all.


the data in itself is not nearly enough to answer these things.

i thought youre big on context?

[dankok8]

you couldn't be any more wrong and you would know this if you watched barkley play.

look no further than his game winner against the spurs in the 1993 wcf. the confidence he had to get to his spot and pull up shows you he wasn't just settling on that possession. that was his bag.

We have shot chart data for Charles Barkley.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?296225-Charles-Barkley-Shot-Chart-(1992-1993)

He was well below league average in terms of efficiency outside of the paint. And it's obvious from watching him that he wasn't a good jump shooter.

[dankok8]

Baseball has a WAR statistic that attempts to capture a player's value. PER like stats are the NBA equivalent. The formula attempts to adjust for differences in rules, era and positional value. Now that I think about it, this factor would not have to be negative for your purposes. The zero value is crucial to the WAR statistic. That is the baseline value of a replacement player. However, distance from zero has no meaning in your rankings.

The OP is more accurately a measure of how far the champion is ahead of the teams they played. Winning matters but winning with style matters even more in your rankings. The 83 Sixers were not trashing anybody by 30 on their road to the title. That is the difference between a 1 loss postseason team being ranked top 3 versus 20.

I get it but...

What do you mean by distance from zero has no meaning in the rankings? +15 rNet for instance means that a team is playing 15 points/100 possessions better than an average team would play against those opponents. If anything rNet works similarly to what you're describing.

The issue is that different leagues have different distributions of quality. For instance Russell's 1962 Celtics were playing at +7.0 in the regular season which is nothing spectacular until you realize that the 2nd best team that year, Wilt's Warriors, played at +2.1. Russell's Celtics were in fact an insane outlier but you wouldn't see it from their Net Rating... Then again the 60's Celtics weren't all that impressive in the playoffs for the most part. Their dominance actually decreased in the postseason which means they won't be that near the top of the list. Still, a rightful boost to some of their regular seasons is probably in order.

[NBAGOAT]

Yeah I can only go so far with these stat-based discussions. Who was better or worse in any given year requires a ton of context. Teams are what they are in the season they played, and the era. Just the fact that level of competition and quality of teams can waver from year to year means these stats should be used as a guide but not the end all be all. Swap some of these teams around in different seasons and alot of these numbers come out differently and what then?

Mostly I would say the list has equated to teams we generally consider the GOATS, but it also produces things like the 2016 Cavs being better than the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers. No amount of stats will convince me that this is the case.

Op couldn’t but sansterre looked at stuff like standard deviation. How much better were you than rest of league and the 2nd best team how many bad teams were there to beat on for the top teams etc. it’s why he moved the 96 bulls below the 17 warriors even though bulls had a slightly better overall srs I think and had 4 2016 teams in the top 50

[NBAGOAT]

based on the fact that they had a guy who could dominate and impose his will on the game if needed to? the fact that they now had a guy who could score from almost anywhere on the floor? the fact that they he gave them a rough and tough edge and was a strong leader?

Counterpoint: everyone from the 89-90 team had declined. Barkley gave them a lot on offense but we don’t know how bad they would be without Barkley. He didn’t get added to the 92 team he got added later and traded for an all star. Why arent the 16 spurs better than the 14 spurs if they just added Lma an all star to the same team. Lma is not Barkley but he was an all-nba guy.

Also you can’t just look at teams on paper and list their talent. That type of analysis always ignores chemistry/fit and always overrates offense first guys over defense first guys and overrates stars over role players. Main explanation sansterre gave for the 93 bulls fall off is their role guys went from average to bad. Had nothing to do with Jordan, pippen, grant. Most people dont care if the rest of the guys are small positives, neutral or small negatives but that matters

Blazers may be chokers in the playoffs but they’re the 2nd best defense bulls faced and that never gets talked about in these discussions

[Baller234]

Counterpoint: everyone from the 89-90 team had declined. Barkley gave them a lot on offense but we don’t know how bad they would be without Barkley. He didn’t get added to the 92 team he got added later and traded for an all star. Why arent the 16 spurs better than the 14 spurs if they just added Lma an all star to the same team. Lma is not Barkley but he was an all-nba guy.

Also you can’t just look at teams on paper and list their talent. That type of analysis always ignores chemistry/fit and always overrates offense first guys over defense first guys and overrates stars over role players. Main explanation sansterre gave for the 93 bulls fall off is their role guys went from average to bad. Had nothing to do with Jordan, pippen, grant. Most people dont care if the rest of the guys are small positives, neutral or small negatives but that matters

Blazers may be chokers in the playoffs but they’re the 2nd best defense bulls faced and that never gets talked about in these discussions

the 93 bulls fell off? did i miss something? we're talking about the same team that won the championship right?

in what did they fall off?

[NBAGOAT]

the 93 bulls fell off? did i miss something? we're talking about the same team that won the championship right?

in what did they fall off?

Fall off is strong but it’s easy to argue they weren’t as good. Less dominant regular season not as dominant playoffs as 91 or 92. The 98 bulls won a title too, they’re not the 96 bulls. In other comment I mentioned the role players/depth outside the big 3 went from already not good to pretty bad. Look up cartwrights numbers he obviously declined to name one guy.

[paksat]

Even with the refs trying to extend series these days, the fact that the 01 lakers did what they did makes them the best to me. It makes the 2017 warriors almost equally as impressive, but not quite.

two top 10 all time talents on one team, both of them nearing or in their prime. I watched that team in those playoffs and they look liked the most well oiled machine I've ever seen in any sport.

I also think the 2018 warriors will beat 98% of these teams, but I see how you did your rankings and that's another topic

[Phoenix]

Fall off is strong but it’s easy to argue they weren’t as good. Less dominant regular season not as dominant playoffs as 91 or 92. The 98 bulls won a title too, they’re not the 96 bulls. In other comment I mentioned the role players/depth outside the big 3 went from already not good to pretty bad. Look up cartwrights numbers he obviously declined to name one guy.

Cartwrights numbers declined but Grants numbers went up. Scott Williams, Will Perdue and Stacey King together averaged more in 93 than 91. Granted none of the Bulls centers were much more than lamp-posts, Cartwright provided toughness and locker-room presence but strictly from a production standpoint his drop-off was picked up by other bigs on the roster. Paxson averaged 10 in 91, two years later BJ was the starting PG averaging 12.

[dankok8]

I'd personally rank the Bulls teams 96 > 91 > 97 > 92 > 98 > 93.

[Baller234]

Fall off is strong but it’s easy to argue they weren’t as good. Less dominant regular season not as dominant playoffs as 91 or 92. The 98 bulls won a title too, they’re not the 96 bulls. In other comment I mentioned the role players/depth outside the big 3 went from already not good to pretty bad. Look up cartwrights numbers he obviously declined to name one guy.

michael and scottie didn't get a summer vacation in 92 because of barcelona. maybe they were tired and decided it was best to preserve their energy for the playoffs. they had nothing left to prove. they just won back to back championships and even flirted with winning 70 the year before.

you could argue that reason alone doesn't make them as good, seeing as the 92 team was more determined to prove something, but i'm not sure how much of a difference a few role players made in the grand scheme of things. they still had mostly the same guys, and BJ was up and coming.

[NBAGOAT]

michael and scottie didn't get a summer vacation in 92 because of barcelona. maybe they were tired and decided it was best to preserve their energy for the playoffs. they had nothing left to prove. they just won back to back championships and even flirted with winning 70 the year before.

you could argue that reason alone doesn't make them as good, seeing as the 92 team was more determined to prove something, but i'm not sure how much of a difference a few role players made in the grand scheme of things. they still had mostly the same guys, and BJ was up and coming.

The role players can make a difference if they’re bad. Those guys declining often is the reason a title team isn’t as good next year. Also Scottie was worse but I don’t hear many people argue 92 MJ as much better than 93 just based off regular season and stats don’t support that either. Sansterre used bpm in his analysis which has its flaws but the bulls depth made up 6.4% of the teams vorp in 92 which is already pretty bad among all time teams to 0% in 93 meaning impact wise they didn’t give you any wins.

[NBAGOAT]

Cartwrights numbers declined but Grants numbers went up. Scott Williams, Will Perdue and Stacey King together averaged more in 93 than 91. Granted none of the Bulls centers were much more than lamp-posts, Cartwright provided toughness and locker-room presence but strictly from a production standpoint his drop-off was picked up by other bigs on the roster. Paxson averaged 10 in 91, two years later BJ was the starting PG averaging 12.

Can’t just look at ppg for role guys since that’s more a function of role and your top guys usage. Cartwrights production may have been made up and he played less but it’s hard to make up going from 52ts% in 91 to 46ts% in 93. vorp not a great stat but one of the better ones for years plus minus was available says him just playing cost the bulls a win compared to a guy who barely makes the league

[Phoenix]

Can’t just look at ppg for role guys since that’s more a function of role and your top guys usage. Cartwrights production may have been made up and he played less but it’s hard to make up going from 52ts% in 91 to 46ts% in 93. vorp not a great stat but one of the better ones for years plus minus was available says him just playing cost the bulls a win compared to a guy who barely makes the league

I'm only bringing it up because you mentioned Cartwrights numbers. I'm just saying they were more than made up by the other bigs. But the bulls bigs weren't noteworthy parts of the offense ini any of the years being discussed.

Beyond that, Grant scored more in 93 than 91 but dropped TS%, BJ scored more in 93 than 91 while increasing. Some of this stuff just seemed to balance out, some players a little better or worse. Pippen's scoring was lower from 92 but higher than 91, MJ scored the most he had scored since 90, his field goal percentage dropped a fraction below 50% but he was also becoming more perimeter-oriented at this point and was shooting more 3's. This is just talking about numbers which, much like the numbers being used to rank these teams, are just 'what' happened and should also be taken with context and nuance.

[NBAGOAT]

I'm only bringing it up because you mentioned Cartwrights numbers. I'm just saying they were more than made up by the other bigs. But the bulls bigs weren't noteworthy parts of the offense ini any of the years being discussed.

Beyond that, Grant scored more in 93 than 91 but dropped TS%, BJ scored more in 93 than 91 while increasing. Some of this stuff just seemed to balance out, some players a little better or worse. Pippen's scoring was lower from 92 but higher than 91, MJ scored the most he had scored since 90, his field goal percentage dropped a fraction below 50% but he was also becoming more perimeter-oriented at this point and was shooting more 3's. This is just talking about numbers which, much like the numbers being used to rank these teams, are just 'what' happened and should also be taken with context and nuance.

As I said to baller those role guys can have significant effects if they’re bad. Ask any warriors fan, a huge reason they went from a playin team to a title team is not playing wiseman anymore. Then a big reason they dropped off last year and seem like theyve bounced back so far this year is Poole dropped off and they traded him for cp3. Cp3 is a good piece but he’s depth at this point and not a 3rd best player on a contender type.

it’s fair to go over individual guys but really we can simplify by just looking at the team as a whole. bulls shot 56ts% and 55.5ts% in 91 and 92 both years in top 5. In 93, they dropped to
53.5ts% and we’re outside the top 10. If it’s not the stars fault(doesn’t seem like mostly), then the role guys dropped them down and significantly.

I didn’t go over defense side of the ball either where the team is worse during rs and playoffs compared to both years based off OPs post

[Phoenix]

As I said to baller those role guys can have significant effects if they’re bad. Ask any warriors fan, a huge reason they went from a playin team to a title team is not playing wiseman anymore. Then a big reason they dropped off last year and seem like theyve bounced back so far this year is Poole dropped off and they traded him for cp3. Cp3 is a good piece but he’s depth at this point and not a 3rd best player on a contender type.

it’s fair to go over individual guys but really we can simplify by just looking at the team as a whole. bulls shot 56ts% and 55.5ts% in 91 and 92 both years in top 5. In 93, they dropped to
53.5ts% and we’re outside the top 10. If it’s not the stars fault(doesn’t seem like mostly), then the role guys dropped them down and significantly.

I didn’t go over defense side of the ball either where the team is worse during rs and playoffs compared to both years based off OPs post

True, but in the example you're speaking to 91 Cartwright was mostly a locker-room presence in that first threepeat. His production was mostly a bonus because he had dropped below double digits by 90 anyway. If his numbers are being supplemented by other younger bigs on the roster then you're still left with whatever leadership he provided.

As for TS%, yeah it dipped from 56 to 53% but the Bulls 3 point shooting attempts went from 424 in 91 to 669 in 93. It's not unreasonable for what is a relatively small dip in TS% when you're increasing your 3point attempts by 63% and evolving your offense.

I hold to the belief that the 93 Bulls experience wins out if they played the 91 Bulls. Yeah maybe their numbers look worse vs what the league was in 91 and what it was in 93, but some of these differences don't account for the intangibles and experience factors. Those things are harder to argue because you can't measure them on a spreadsheet.

[dankok8]

It's not even just offense either. 1993 Bulls were the worst defensive team of that dynasty by some distance in both the RS and the PS.

Intangibles as such are still reflected in the box score at the end of the day. If the team is scoring less or allowing more then clearly the intangibles are not working? The 1993 Bulls won the title but they did so in far more precarious fashion. And the coasting argument works in the RS but not the PS.

[Phoenix]

It's not even just offense either. 1993 Bulls were the worst defensive team of that dynasty by some distance in both the RS and the PS.

Intangibles as such are still reflected in the box score at the end of the day. If the team is scoring less or allowing more then clearly the intangibles are not working? The 1993 Bulls won the title but they did so in far more precarious fashion. And the coasting argument works in the RS but not the PS.

As I said, I'm saying that in the context of the teams matching against each other, obviously its hypothetical and I don't have 100 stat categories to throw at you as a retort.

[NBAGOAT]

True, but in the example you're speaking to 91 Cartwright was mostly a locker-room presence in that first threepeat. His production was mostly a bonus because he had dropped below double digits by 90 anyway. If his numbers are being supplemented by other younger bigs on the roster then you're still left with whatever leadership he provided.

As for TS%, yeah it dipped from 56 to 53% but the Bulls 3 point shooting attempts went from 424 in 91 to 669 in 93. It's not unreasonable for what is a relatively small dip in TS% when you're increasing your 3point attempts by 63% and evolving your offense.

I hold to the belief that the 93 Bulls experience wins out if they played the 91 Bulls. Yeah maybe their numbers look worse vs what the league was in 91 and what it was in 93, but some of these differences don't account for the intangibles and experience factors. Those things are harder to argue because you can't measure them on a spreadsheet.

3% over a whole season is not a small dip however as is going from top 5 to outside the top 10. The bulls shot 36.5% from 3 in 93, I think you’re reaching pointing to the increase in 3pt shots as the reason for the fall in efficiency.

As OP said those intangibles play out in some way usually in the playoffs. the bulls were worse in the playoffs in 93 too. The argument from you and others is the competition especially the last 2 rounds was tougher but there’s no statistical evidence of that. Blazers are a clearly more impressive team. You can’t argue suns and Knicks are better because they played the bulls closer since that’s assuming 93 bulls are the same lvl as previous 2 years. It’s a reasonable assumption they have the same players but ops analysis challenges that. Also title teams have declined all the time with the same core and more experience, guys decline have down years etc.

[WhiteKyrie]

I'd personally rank the Bulls teams 96 > 91 > 97 > 92 > 98 > 93.

1993 Bulls def aren’t the worst

[Phoenix]

3% over a whole season is not a small dip however as is going from top 5 to outside the top 10. The bulls shot 36.5% from 3 in 93, I think you’re reaching pointing to the increase in 3pt shots as the reason for the fall in efficiency.

As OP said those intangibles play out in some way usually in the playoffs. the bulls were worse in the playoffs in 93 too. The argument from you and others is the competition especially the last 2 rounds was tougher but there’s no statistical evidence of that. Blazers are a clearly more impressive team. You can’t argue suns and Knicks are better because they played the bulls closer since that’s assuming 93 bulls are the same lvl as previous 2 years. It’s a reasonable assumption they have the same players but ops analysis challenges that. Also title teams have declined all the time with the same core and more experience, guys decline have down years etc.

Their 3pt and 2pt% were above league average, the former comfortably. They were actually 2nd in 3pt%, albeit 15th in attempts( 19th in 91). A 63% increase in 3 point attempts wouldn't increase their efficiency, so it's not a reach to say that if those extra 250+ 3's were converted to 2's it would have slightly bumped their TS%. They were less than 1% out of the top ten that you keep referring to. The biggest culprit for their drop in TS% may actually be due to free throw %, they were 22nd. Without comparing it to other champions, that seems pretty low so there must have been other factors at play allowing them to get over. Experience? Poise? Or probably you and the OP would chalk it to weaker competition.

[Phoenix]

I'd personally rank the Bulls teams 96 > 91 > 97 > 92 > 98 > 93.

Your list has the 98 Bulls over 92, but you have 92 over 98. Reasoning? Because some of us are saying we prefer the 93 Bulls over 91, and your argument is basically 'but the stats'.

[Phoenix]

1993 Bulls def aren’t the worst

I, like you no doubt, saw all these teams 30 years ago and 100 stat categories will never convince either of us that the 98 team wasn't quite clearly the most vulnerable of that dynasty.

[WhiteKyrie]

I, like you no doubt, saw all these teams 30 years ago and 100 stat categories will never convince either of us that the 98 team wasn't quite clearly the most vulnerable of that dynasty.

Definitely was the most vulnerable

1993 team didn’t go 7 with anyone.

1992 and 1999 did.

1991 faced the weakest competition overall I’d say of all the championship runs

1993, 1996, and 1997 faced the toughest competition. And those are 3 of the best season in league history. Each one of those seasons Jordan’s Bulls beat 2x 60+ win teams.

[NBAGOAT]

Their 3pt and 2pt% were above league average, the former comfortably. They were actually 2nd in 3pt%, albeit 15th in attempts( 19th in 91). A 63% increase in 3 point attempts wouldn't increase their efficiency, so it's not a reach to say that if those extra 250+ 3's were converted to 2's it would have slightly bumped their TS%. They were less than 1% out of the top ten that you keep referring to. The biggest culprit for their drop in TS% may actually be due to free throw %, they were 22nd. Without comparing it to other champions, that seems pretty low so there must have been other factors at play allowing them to get over. Experience? Poise? Or probably you and the OP would chalk it to weaker competition.

Most likely the shots that got converted to 3s were long 2s would be my counter but we need shot chart info. I never said bulls in 93 aren’t good enough to win a title even with stronger competition, they would’ve won the title in 91 or 92 too.

The question is are they on the level of the 91 or 92 teams when the only argument I’ve seen for them is stronger competition(heavily disputed by ops analysis) and their experience. I struggle to see how 93 bulls came through when at least based on the net rtg stuff the 91 and 92 teams would’ve won a title in 93 and more comfortably too.

[NBAGOAT]

Definitely was the most vulnerable

1993 team didn’t go 7 with anyone.

1992 and 1999 did.

1991 faced the weakest competition overall I’d say of all the championship runs

1993, 1996, and 1997 faced the toughest competition. And those are 3 of the best season in league history. Each one of those seasons Jordan’s Bulls beat 2x 60+ win teams.

Going 6 can be as close as going 7 based on mov. Also a 55 win team can be better than a 60 win team based on mov. Ik as fans we been conditioned to only care about wins and losses but mov is a lot better indicator of team strength than record. Also 91 team didn’t have strong competition but they should get a lot of credit for destroying everyone in the playoffs.

[WhiteKyrie]

Having watched all those Bulls teams intently, borderline every game of every single one of those seasons

1) 1996
2) 1997
3) 1993
4) 1992
5) 1991
6) 1998

That 1992 team had talks of it for quite a while, breaking the Lakers, 69 and 13 record. They had a few games where they skidded. But for much of the season they were even more dominant than 1991. Visibly. Faced better playoff and Finals comp too

[dankok8]

Your list has the 98 Bulls over 92, but you have 92 over 98. Reasoning? Because some of us are saying we prefer the 93 Bulls over 91, and your argument is basically 'but the stats'.

The 91 team is just way more dominant than 93 statistically. Like it's a huge gap.

92 and 98 are very close statistically. I'd go 92 simply because 98 had Pippen injured and if the teams were pushed to the limit (such as for instance versed each other), I'm not sure Pippen could have played well enough. And if we're nitpicking, the 92 team had three tough opponents (NY, Cleveland, Portland) vs. 98 with two tough opponents (Indiana, Utah). Not a big gap though.

[Phoenix]

The 91 team is just way more dominant than 93 statistically. Like it's a huge gap.

92 and 98 are very close statistically. I'd go 92 simply because 98 had Pippen injured and if the teams were pushed to the limit (such as for instance versed each other), I'm not sure Pippen could have played well enough. And if we're nitpicking, the 92 team had three tough opponents (NY, Cleveland, Portland) vs. 98 with two tough opponents (Indiana, Utah). Not a big gap though.

Is there room in there for what the eye test tells you? Because to anyone watching this in the 90s, the 92 Bulls were quite clearly a more dominant and dynamic team whose best players were in their prime, and the dream teamers minus Magic/Bird were as well. The stat difference similarities you mentioned couldn't be down to overall league quality? 98 was pretty diluted by the additional expansion of the Canadian teams and the league was sort of in transition with aging stars ( Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone,etc) and the new ones not having taken over yet ( Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, young Kobe, Hill, Penny before injuries completely fukked him, etc). I means, the fact that an aging Jordan managed to get them to 62 wins with Pippen out half the year and Rodman declining while playing wrestler says alot about the league that year. If the 92 team can win 67 games, they probably win 75 in 98. The big 3 of Jordan/Pippen/Grant missed one game( Grant played 81), Paxson played 79. They should have mopped the floor with what the league was in 98.

[Phoenix]

Having watched all those Bulls teams intently, borderline every game of every single one of those seasons

1) 1996
2) 1997
3) 1993
4) 1992
5) 1991
6) 1998

That 1992 team had talks of it for quite a while, breaking the Lakers, 69 and 13 record. They had a few games where they skidded. But for much of the season they were even more dominant than 1991. Visibly. Faced better playoff and Finals comp too

The 97 team may have broken the 96 teams mark. Rodman missed 27 games and Kukoc 25.

[Phoenix]

Most likely the shots that got converted to 3s were long 2s would be my counter but we need shot chart info. I never said bulls in 93 aren’t good enough to win a title even with stronger competition, they would’ve won the title in 91 or 92 too.

The question is are they on the level of the 91 or 92 teams when the only argument I’ve seen for them is stronger competition(heavily disputed by ops analysis) and their experience. I struggle to see how 93 bulls came through when at least based on the net rtg stuff the 91 and 92 teams would’ve won a title in 93 and more comfortably too.

What do you mean by struggling to see how they came through? I struggle to see how the 91 Bulls more comfortably beat the 93 Knicks when they were less of a long range perimeter threat. The 93 Bulls hit 25 threes for 46% against the Knicks that year. By contract, the 91 team hit 30 threes over the entire 91 playoffs.

[eliteballer]

96 and 97 Bulls are helped because the short 3 point line disproportionately helped Jordan and Pippen become 3 point sharpshooters.

If the Magic had Ho Grant healthy and they played with the real 3 point line it would have been a very competitive series in 96.

The Magic played them really tough in the regular season and presented major matchup problems.

[NBAGOAT]

What do you mean by struggling to see how they came through? I struggle to see how the 91 Bulls more comfortably beat the 93 Knicks when they were less of a long range perimeter threat. The 93 Bulls hit 25 threes for 46% against the Knicks that year. By contract, the 91 team hit 30 threes over the entire 91 playoffs.

I mean came through like you meant get over. I assumed you meant the 93 bulls did something the previous teams couldn’t. To counter the bulls in 91 were better scoring inside the 3 pt line in the regular season and playoffs even adjusting for defenses. The 91 team shot 53% the 93 team shot 49%. That’s on over 70 attempts a game so I would argue matters much more than the 3 pt shooting jist because of the pure volume of 2s they took compared to 3s.

If you disagree about the adjustment for defenses, I point back to ops relative ortg stat which accounts for opponents drtg. Ortg isn’t just based on ts% but also offensive rebounding and turnovers so doesn’t 100% prove my point. Still 91 bulls are a full 2 points better in the playoffs on offense. Yes you can argue scoring 10 points better on an average defense is easier to do than scoring 10 points on a great defense but that’s the best way to do the analysis for now and there are arguments for the reverse too

[Phoenix]

I mean came through like you meant get over. I assumed you meant the 93 bulls did something the previous teams couldn’t. To counter the bulls in 91 were better scoring inside the 3 pt line in the regular season and playoffs even adjusting for defenses. The 91 team shot 53% the 93 team shot 49%. That’s on over 70 attempts a game so I would argue matters much more than the 3 pt shooting jist because of the pure volume of 2s they took compared to 3s.

If you disagree about the adjustment for defenses, I point back to ops relative ortg stat which accounts for opponents drtg. Ortg isn’t just based on ts% but also offensive rebounding and turnovers so doesn’t 100% prove my point. Still 91 bulls are a full 2 points better in the playoffs on offense. Yes you can argue scoring 10 points better on an average defense is easier to do than scoring 10 points on a great defense but that’s the best way to do the analysis for now and there are arguments for the reverse too

No, I'm saying that being that low down on the free throw attempts wouldn't be ideal for a team with title aspirations.

As for the 91 Bulls superior interior scoring ability, they would have had a harder time scoring on the the 93 Knicks interior D than any of the teams they faced in the 91 playoffs( including the Knicks in the first round as they improved between 92 and 93). In terms of perimeter shooting the 93 Bulls were more equipped to counter the Knicks interior D with much better range shooting to counter any loss of inside the 3 scoring, which the Knicks D was built to stifle by walling off the paint with the likes of Oakley/Mason/Smith, Ewing protecting the rim as the last line and pesky perimeter defenders like Starks and Greg Anthony proving aggressive man D on the perimeter. Jordan may have lost a half-step as a slasher compared to 91 but he was also a better shooter to compensate. The 54 he dropped in game 4 was mostly range jumpers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYiAqxmye0&ab_channel=GAMETIMEHIGHLIGHTS

91 Jordan was a better slasher than 93 Jordan but he's not going to waltz to the basket.

[Phoenix]

96 and 97 Bulls are helped because the short 3 point line disproportionately helped Jordan and Pippen become 3 point sharpshooters.

If the Magic had Ho Grant healthy and they played with the real 3 point line it would have been a very competitive series in 96.

The Magic played them really tough in the regular season and presented major matchup problems.

It would have been more competitive even with the shortened 3pt line if Grant were healthy. His absence afforded Chicago the luxury of having Rodman completely focus on Shaq, because the Bulls didn't have anyone else on the roster to neutralize Horace.

[dankok8]

Is there room in there for what the eye test tells you? Because to anyone watching this in the 90s, the 92 Bulls were quite clearly a more dominant and dynamic team whose best players were in their prime, and the dream teamers minus Magic/Bird were as well. The stat difference similarities you mentioned couldn't be down to overall league quality? 98 was pretty diluted by the additional expansion of the Canadian teams and the league was sort of in transition with aging stars ( Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone,etc) and the new ones not having taken over yet ( Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, young Kobe, Hill, Penny before injuries completely fukked him, etc). I means, the fact that an aging Jordan managed to get them to 62 wins with Pippen out half the year and Rodman declining while playing wrestler says alot about the league that year. If the 92 team can win 67 games, they probably win 75 in 98. The big 3 of Jordan/Pippen/Grant missed one game( Grant played 81), Paxson played 79. They should have mopped the floor with what the league was in 98.

You are overstating the league differences. It might be 1-2 wins difference. 1992 Bulls would not win 75 games in 1998... lmao

[Phoenix]

You are overstating the league differences. It might be 1-2 wins difference. 1992 Bulls would not win 75 games in 1998... lmao

1-2 wins on top of what? The 62 they won with Pippen out half the year? The 98 Bulls likely win 70 or more if Pippen played most/all of the season. A better, healthier 92 team in place of the 98 one would obviously do better, and substantially more than 1-2 wins. Hell, the 98 team with a healthy Pippen in 1992 may be lucky to win 62, considering the 91 Bulls won 61 and you've been trumpeting the horn for them all thread long as being the 2nd best Bulls team versus the 2nd worst Bulls team (per your ranking). LMAO indeed....

[dankok8]

1-2 wins on top of what? The 62 they won with Pippen out half the year? The 98 Bulls likely win 70 or more if Pippen played most/all of the season. A better, healthier 92 team in place of the 98 one would obviously do better, and substantially more than 1-2 wins. Hell, the 98 team with a healthy Pippen in 1992 may be lucky to win 62, considering the 91 Bulls won 61 and you've been trumpeting the horn for them all thread long as being the 2nd best Bulls team versus the 2nd worst Bulls team (per your ranking). LMAO indeed....

Like the difference in league strength can contribute to 1-2 extra (or less) wins. The 92 Bulls were better than the 98 Bulls but not by a large margin.

98 Bulls played at a 67-win pace with Pippen.

[Phoenix]

Like the difference in league strength can contribute to 1-2 extra (or less) wins. The 92 Bulls were better than the 98 Bulls but not by a large margin.

98 Bulls played at a 67-win pace with Pippen.



You've spent the last few days defending the order of the OP list based on the stats you provided, so for consistency sake your own list should adhere to the logic you're using to retort everyone else having alternative rankings. You're saying 92 and 98 are close enough so you're arbitrarily flipping their order but it doesn't work that way, not for the conversation you're trying to have.

[dankok8]

You've spent the last few days defending the order of the OP list based on the stats you provided, so for consistency sake your own list should adhere to the logic you're using to retort everyone else having alternative rankings. You're saying 92 and 98 are close enough so you're arbitrarily flipping their order but it doesn't work that way, not for the conversation you're trying to have.

I don't get what you mean. The stats aren't 100% foolproof. I have 92 > 98 even though the stats disagree and have 98 slightly ahead.

The stats should make us question certain narratives though but there is no such thing as a definitive ranking. :confusedshrug:

[Phoenix]

I don't get what you mean. The stats aren't 100% foolproof. I have 92 > 98 even though the stats disagree and have 98 slightly ahead.

The stats should make us question certain narratives though but there is no such thing as a definitive ranking. :confusedshrug:

They're food for thought, but I can't say its twisted my brain into pretzels reorganizing my own rankings based on what I was watching 30 years.

[Charlie Sheen]

I get it but...

What do you mean by distance from zero has no meaning in the rankings? +15 rNet for instance means that a team is playing 15 points/100 possessions better than an average team would play against those opponents. If anything rNet works similarly to what you're describing.

The issue is that different leagues have different distributions of quality. For instance Russell's 1962 Celtics were playing at +7.0 in the regular season which is nothing spectacular until you realize that the 2nd best team that year, Wilt's Warriors, played at +2.1. Russell's Celtics were in fact an insane outlier but you wouldn't see it from their Net Rating... Then again the 60's Celtics weren't all that impressive in the playoffs for the most part. Their dominance actually decreased in the postseason which means they won't be that near the top of the list. Still, a rightful boost to some of their regular seasons is probably in order.

Because of the ranking structure. The posters replying to you are questioning the position of this team or that team. Far as i noticed nobody is questioning the rNET values. That is why i said it wouldn't matter whether you adjust by a positive or negative factor. The rankings do not change.

[NBAGOAT]

No, I'm saying that being that low down on the free throw attempts wouldn't be ideal for a team with title aspirations.

As for the 91 Bulls superior interior scoring ability, they would have had a harder time scoring on the the 93 Knicks interior D than any of the teams they faced in the 91 playoffs( including the Knicks in the first round as they improved between 92 and 93). In terms of perimeter shooting the 93 Bulls were more equipped to counter the Knicks interior D with much better range shooting to counter any loss of inside the 3 scoring, which the Knicks D was built to stifle by walling off the paint with the likes of Oakley/Mason/Smith, Ewing protecting the rim as the last line and pesky perimeter defenders like Starks and Greg Anthony proving aggressive man D on the perimeter. Jordan may have lost a half-step as a slasher compared to 91 but he was also a better shooter to compensate. The 54 he dropped in game 4 was mostly range jumpers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzYiAqxmye0&ab_channel=GAMETIMEHIGHLIGHTS

91 Jordan was a better slasher than 93 Jordan but he's not going to waltz to the basket.

Well now we’re talking specific matchups. Yes there’s nuance there and I can’t disagree about the Knicks. 91 team also defends the Knicks better than 93 team did and that makes up some difference. I would counter shouldnt Jordan’s slashing in 91 destroy phxs poor defense more than he actually did. The Knicks series would be closer the Phoenix series wouldnt

[NBAGOAT]

Because of the ranking structure. The posters replying to you are questioning the position of this team or that team. Far as i noticed nobody is questioning the rNET values. That is why i said it wouldn't matter whether you adjust by a positive or negative factor. The rankings do not change.

Yea you had one of the most valid criticisms. You are heavily rewarded for destroying teams. The people on realgm discussed that maybe a cap on mov for a game might produce better results like +25.

[WhiteKyrie]

The 97 team may have broken the 96 teams mark. Rodman missed 27 games and Kukoc 25.

Yeah, but to be fair the 1996 team should’ve won more games as well. I think they lost three games by less than two points that could’ve very easily gone either way down to the wire. That team probably should’ve won 75 and the same thing happened the very next season with the 1997 team, they lost a fluke game to end the season which would’ve put them at 70. But they probably would’ve won 70 to 72 games if a bounce here or there didn’t go the other way.

You’re talking about back-to-back 70+ win teams.

And then like you intelligently mentioned before. 35-year-old Michael Jordan carried the 1998 Bulls with Scottie Pippen selfishly missing half of the damn season , Dennis Rodman rapidly deteriorating and being an AWOL pro wrestler. And they still won 62 games.

You mean to tell me if Scottie doesn’t miss 35 to 40 games they don’t win at minimum an extra 10 to 15? They should’ve won over 70 all those seasons.

I think the league in 1998 specifically was much weaker due to a variety of circumstances than it was the previous two seasons. But I definitely hold the competition from 1991 to 1993 in higher esteem. And I think that 1993 season is peak in terms of talent around the league and some of those basketball teams as competition.

[Phoenix]

Well now we’re talking specific matchups. Yes there’s nuance there and I can’t disagree about the Knicks. 91 team also defends the Knicks better than 93 team did and that makes up some difference. I would counter shouldnt Jordan’s slashing in 91 destroy phxs poor defense more than he actually did. The Knicks series would be closer the Phoenix series wouldnt

91 Jordan individually would have carved up the 93 Suns D. Of course, you could also counter by saying the Bulls actually outshooting the Suns in 3pointers that series, which the 91 team wouldn't have, may have balanced out whatever strengths the 91 team had in other categories. So the dynamics of how the matchups would have occurred, easier or harder one way or the other we can only speculate.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, but to be fair the 1996 team should’ve won more games as well. I think they lost three games by less than two points that could’ve very easily gone either way down to the wire. That team probably should’ve won 75 and the same thing happened the very next season with the 1997 team, they lost a fluke game to end the season which would’ve put them at 70. But they probably would’ve won 70 to 72 games if a bounce here or there didn’t go the other way.

You’re talking about back-to-back 70+ win teams.

And then like you intelligently mentioned before. 35-year-old Michael Jordan carried the 1998 Bulls with Scottie Pippen selfishly missing half of the damn season , Dennis Rodman rapidly deteriorating and being an AWOL pro wrestler. And they still won 62 games.

You mean to tell me if Scottie doesn’t miss 35 to 40 games they don’t win at minimum an extra 10 to 15? They should’ve won over 70 all those seasons.

I think the league in 1998 specifically was much weaker due to a variety of circumstances than it was the previous two seasons. But I definitely hold the competition from 1991 to 1993 in higher esteem. And I think that 1993 season is peak in terms of talent around the league and some of those basketball teams as competition.

93 was definitely a stronger league. You had the 'Dream team' superstars all in their prime/peaks, you had rookie Shaq coming in as a dominant force from day one, etc. The league had expanded with the four new teams but it was before the FURTHER expansion in 95 with the two Canadian franchises.

But yeah, the over-reliance on stats to land on the idea that Scottie being present for most/all of 98 is only worth an extra 1-2 wins..... ridiculous. EASILY a 70+ win team if Pippen is there all season.

[dankok8]

93 was definitely a stronger league. You had the 'Dream team' superstars all in their prime/peaks, you had rookie Shaq coming in as a dominant force from day one, etc. The league had expanded with the four new teams but it was before the FURTHER expansion in 95 with the two Canadian franchises.

But yeah, the over-reliance on stats to land on the idea that Scottie being present for most/all of 98 is only worth an extra 1-2 wins..... ridiculous. EASILY a 70+ win team if Pippen is there all season.

I think the 1-2 wins is directed at me. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say having Pippen is worth 1-2 wins. 98 Bulls with Pippen went 36-8 (67-win pace) and 26-12 (56-win pace) without him so that's around a 10-win difference. The 1-2 wins I was attributing to a slightly weaker league i.e. 1992 or 1993 Bulls might have won 1-2 more games in 1998.

[WhiteKyrie]

1993 Bulls aren’t the worst championship Bulls team. It’s 1998 for all the obvious reasons and I don’t need stats that different in a vacuum from season to season to know that. I watched all of them.

[Phoenix]

I think the 1-2 wins is directed at me. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say having Pippen is worth 1-2 wins. 98 Bulls with Pippen went 36-8 (67-win pace) and 26-12 (56-win pace) without him so that's around a 10-win difference. The 1-2 wins I was attributing to a slightly weaker league i.e. 1992 or 1993 Bulls might have won 1-2 more games in 1998.

So to be clear, you're saying the 92 Bulls win 69 games and the 93 Bulls 59 wins if those teams played in 1998?

[WhiteKyrie]

So to be clear, you're saying the 92 Bulls win 69 games and the 93 Bulls 59 wins if those teams played in 1998?

Apparently he knows this definitively :oldlol:

[Phoenix]

Apparently he knows this definitively :oldlol:

Effectively, if I'm understanding him correctly, the 57 win 93 Bulls with younger, better versions of Jordan/Pippen, and I would take 93 Horace over Rodman who was extremely erratic that year.... would end up winning less than the 98 team with 35 year old MJ, Pippen missing 38 games, and Rodman playing part-time NWO member.

[dankok8]

Effectively, if I'm understanding him correctly, the 57 win 93 Bulls with younger, better versions of Jordan/Pippen, and I would take 93 Horace over Rodman who was extremely erratic that year.... would end up winning less than the 98 team with 35 year old MJ, Pippen missing 38 games, and Rodman playing part-time NWO member.

Yes that's right. The 93 Bulls had terrible depth. That's why that team was worse than 98. MJ/Pippen/Grant in 93 are better than MJ/Pippen/Rodman in 98 but the rest of the roster is way better in 98. Kukoc/Longley/Harper/Kerr >> BJ/Paxson/Scott Williams/washed up Cartwright. Seriously other than BJ, those other guys shouldn't have been in the rotation.

[Phoenix]

Yes that's right. The 93 Bulls had terrible depth. That's why that team was worse than 98. MJ/Pippen/Grant in 93 are better than MJ/Pippen/Rodman in 98 but the rest of the roster is way better in 98. Kukoc/Longley/Harper/Kerr >> BJ/Paxson/Scott Williams/washed up Cartwright. Seriously other than BJ, those other guys shouldn't have been in the rotation.

You realize that this was the same supporting cast that won 61 and 67 games the prior two years yeah? The only one of those guys who was 'worse' is Cartwright but as stated before, Cartwrights role in 91-93 was more veteran presence than productivity based. Paxson was about the same based on his role, but just gave way to BJ who fulfilled the same spot up shooting role but was younger and better defender. All the other role players like Scott Williams, Stacey King, Will Perdue were the same or better.

The supporting cast being superior in 98 doesn't make up the fact that 93 MJ/Pippen/Grant were a YOUNGER, BETTER and HEALTHIER trio than 98 MJ/Pippen/Rodman. They would have done alot of the heavy lifting, and let's be real the 98 season as previously stated was a combination of aging stars/teams and younger talent that was still relatively raw and hadn't taken over yet. That's why a 35 year old Jordan with bad knees was able to get 62 wins out of that team with begin with. You need to put a little more stock in the logic of each situation broken down and what your eyes saw back then, and a bit less in basketball reference. Did you actually watch the 90's Bulls night in, night out? Honest question.

[WhiteKyrie]

None of the Chicago Bulls teams ever had a deep bench. That’s a really dumb take. BJ Armstrong coming into his own in 1993 was a huge upgrade over John Paxson, who shouldn’t have been a starter once the 90s hit. The reason he was, was because of his rapport with Michael, MJ trusted him, he could initiate the offense and had a wet jumper when left open. But he was routinely getting cooked by more dynamic point guards defensively. So BJ Armstrong’s essential loan was a massive upgrade. The only time the Chicago Bulls had what I would even remotely consider a deep bench, and they never did. Was in 1997 when you had Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, and then a very rare brief glow up of Bison Dele off the bench.

[dankok8]

You realize that this was the same supporting cast that won 61 and 67 games the prior two years yeah? The only one of those guys who was 'worse' is Cartwright but as stated before, Cartwrights role in 91-93 was more veteran presence than productivity based. Paxson was about the same based on his role, but just gave way to BJ who fulfilled the same spot up shooting role but was younger and better defender. All the other role players like Scott Williams, Stacey King, Will Perdue were the same or better.

The supporting cast being superior in 98 doesn't make up the fact that 93 MJ/Pippen/Grant were a YOUNGER, BETTER and HEALTHIER trio than 98 MJ/Pippen/Rodman. They would have done alot of the heavy lifting, and let's be real the 98 season as previously stated was a combination of aging stars/teams and younger talent that was still relatively raw and hadn't taken over yet. That's why a 35 year old Jordan with bad knees was able to get 62 wins out of that team with begin with. You need to put a little more stock in the logic of each situation broken down and what your eyes saw back then, and a bit less in basketball reference. Did you actually watch the 90's Bulls night in, night out? Honest question.

I started watching the NBA in the 1996-97 season so I admit I haven't watched the earlier Bulls teams night in, night out. Watched plenty of games though.

You mentioning the 91 and 92 teams is fair but those teams too had worse depth than the 98 Bulls so it doesn't make me wrong.

[Phoenix]

None of the Chicago Bulls teams ever had a deep bench. That’s a really dumb take. BJ Armstrong coming into his own in 1993 was a huge upgrade over John Paxson, who shouldn’t have been a starter once the 90s hit. The reason he was, was because of his rapport with Michael, MJ trusted him, he could initiate the offense and had a wet jumper when left open. But he was routinely getting cooked by more dynamic point guards defensively. So BJ Armstrong’s essential loan was a massive upgrade. The only time the Chicago Bulls had what I would even remotely consider a deep bench, and they never did. Was in 1997 when you had Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, and then a very rare brief glow up of Bison Dele off the bench.

What's funny to me is this constant bringing up of Bill Cartwright, like the quality of the team rose or fell on his level of play, while completely dismissing that all the other bigs on the roster got better as Cartwright 'declined'. No mention of Grant and BJ in 93 being a year off from all-star selections. Now, in the history of the league certainly not 'strong' selections, but the point is those two got better and better by 93, and were pretty much better than any of the role players on the 2nd threepeat other than Kukoc. I would take 93 BJ over 98 Harper, he was better than Kerr save for 3point shooting, and Grant by that point was more reliable than 98 Rodman. Not only could he chip in 13 points as a 'garbage' scorer off putbacks/handoffs and had a solid 15 foot jumpshot, he was a more mobile defender, solid rebounder in his own right at 10rpg, and most importantly was PRESENT and AVAILABLE in a way 98 Rodman was not. People forget Rodman was mostly coming off the bench in the 98 playoffs. That team actually had plenty of reasons to not win the title. It's an underrated carry job by MJ over the season and game 6 of the finals when all the chips were down, but it was also due to a league in transition where the best teams were led by aging stars. 3 of the final 4 teams ( Bulls, Jazz, Pacers) were led by guys in their mid 30's. I'm honestly not 100% sure the 98 team wins the title in 93. The Pacers took them to the wire and I would take the 93 Knicks over them ( cue 100 advanced stats now showing that the 98 Pacers were better).

[Phoenix]

I started watching the NBA in the 1996-97 season so I admit I haven't watched the earlier Bulls teams night in, night out. Watched plenty of games though.

You mentioning the 91 and 92 teams is fair but those teams too had worse depth than the 98 Bulls so it doesn't make me wrong.

It doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I'm just saying the games are played on the court, not the spreadsheet. Especially when it comes to teams 5 years apart with 100 variables in the middle. I would encourage you to try and find some 93 Bulls games and just soak it in a bit. I know at one point youtube had alot of games but I haven't looked recently.

[dankok8]

It doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I'm just saying the games are played on the court, not the spreadsheet. Especially when it comes to teams 5 years apart with 100 variables in the middle. I would encourage you to try and find some 93 Bulls games and just soak it in a bit. I know at one point youtube had alot of games but I haven't looked recently.

I watched 93 Bulls games and my impressions agree with Sansterre. Apart from BJ, no one else on that team besides the top three should have been getting any minutes. There were scrubs quite literally. In fact, that team reminds me a bit of the 2011 Heat. Great top three but the rest of the roster is putrid.

[Phoenix]

I watched 93 Bulls games and my impressions agree with Sansterre. Apart from BJ, no one else on that team besides the top three should have been getting any minutes. There were scrubs quite literally. In fact, that team reminds me a bit of the 2011 Heat. Great top three but the rest of the roster is putrid.

But that's no less true in 91 and 92, and you hold those teams in higher regard. Will Perdue, King, Williams were 'scrubs' in 91 and 92 and maybe slightly less so in 93, both in terms of statistics and in terms of experience. Cartwright was worse, BJ and Horace were much better. :confusedshrug:

[WhiteKyrie]

What's funny to me is this constant bringing up of Bill Cartwright, like the quality of the team rose or fell on his level of play, while completely dismissing that all the other bigs on the roster got better as Cartwright 'declined'. No mention of Grant and BJ in 93 being a year off from all-star selections. Now, in the history of the league certainly not 'strong' selections, but the point is those two got better and better by 93, and were pretty much better than any of the role players on the 2nd threepeat other than Kukoc. I would take 93 BJ over 98 Harper, he was better than Kerr save for 3point shooting, and Grant by that point was more reliable than 98 Rodman. Not only could he chip in 13 points as a 'garbage' scorer off putbacks/handoffs and had a solid 15 foot jumpshot, he was a more mobile defender, solid rebounder in his own right at 10rpg, and most importantly was PRESENT and AVAILABLE in a way 98 Rodman was not. People forget Rodman was mostly coming off the bench in the 98 playoffs. That team actually had plenty of reasons to not win the title. It's an underrated carry job by MJ over the season and game 6 of the finals when all the chips were down, but it was also due to a league in transition where the best teams were led by aging stars. 3 of the final 4 teams ( Bulls, Jazz, Pacers) were led by guys in their mid 30's. I'm honestly not 100% sure the 98 team wins the title in 93. The Pacers took them to the wire and I would take the 93 Knicks over them ( cue 100 advanced stats now showing that the 98 Pacers were better).
I agree on all fronts. So you know why? I watched every single game of all these teams. Seems like you did as well. Curious, how would you rank Scottie Pippen, in every iteration of the championship seasons in terms of quality of supplemental support? Full season. Regular and post season performance

[dankok8]

But that's no less true in 91 and 92, and you hold those teams in higher regard. Will Perdue, King, Williams were 'scrubs' in 91 and 92 and maybe slightly less so in 93, both in terms of statistics and in terms of experience. Cartwright was worse, BJ and Horace were much better. :confusedshrug:

91 and 92 teams had BJ, Cartwright, Paxson who were all better. Even had Levingston who was a really good defensive big in short bursts and Hodges who could shoot the lights out. Pippen was also even better on offense in 91 and 92 especially in the playoffs.

A lot of little things but they add up.

What do you think of the 16 Cavs by the way? Are they too high on the list?

[Charlie Sheen]

I watched 93 Bulls games and my impressions agree with Sansterre. Apart from BJ, no one else on that team besides the top three should have been getting any minutes. There were scrubs quite literally. In fact, that team reminds me a bit of the 2011 Heat. Great top three but the rest of the roster is putrid.

:wtf:

Roster continuity counts for a lot. The guys you are calling scrubs had been in the Bulls system for 5 years. You cannot insert any scrub and replace that familiarity.

[Phoenix]

I agree on all fronts. So you know why? I watched every single game of all these teams. Seems like you did as well. Curious, how would you rank Scottie Pippen, in every iteration of the championship seasons in terms of quality of supplemental support? Full season. Regular and post season performance

I probably missed the odd game here and there but having satellite, I was pretty tuned tuned into the weekly WGN broadcasts so yeah.....

That's an interesting question about Pippen, because he may have been better in one season versus another but worse in the playoffs and my rankings will reflect an emphasis on the latter moreso than the peaks and valleys of his season play. Like, I'd take Pippen's 92 season over his 91 season but I'd take his 91 playoffs over 92 playoffs. Then there's the argument about his production during his peak vs the value of the intangibles he may have provided in terms of defense and leadership in the 2nd 3peat but with worse production especially in scoring, meaning MJ on the back nine of his prime needed to carry the scoring more than if Scottie provided better help in that regard. I mean, obviously MJ was far and away 'carrying' the scoring in the first 3peat but Scottie was more solid in that respect while providing the team D and facilitating within the triangle. I would say something like:

91- Solid across the board year. Not his peak season numbers (18/7/6/ 52%) but stepped it up in the playoffs with 22/9/6/50% and a spectacular all-around 2nd option finals including the leading scorer in game 5. I think this is the only year of the 6 rings where you can't really pick too many holes over the course of the season+playoffs.

92- First all-nba season, great across the board numbers of 21/8/7/51%. I'm ranking him 2nd because his overall playoff performance dipped from both his standard of the regular season but also the prior playoffs. Struggled against the Knicks with 16ppg on 40% shooting. Asides from rebounds, all numbers were solid but dropped off (20/8/7/47%) from 91. Good finals, notably leading the comeback in game 6 with MJ on the bench

93- IIRC was dealing with some post Dream team fatigue and injuries, so while the numbers don't suggest a tangible drop-off(19/8/6/47%), this was his worst season during the first 3peat. He's redeemed with a 3rd place ranking with strong playoff performances notably against the best competition. Markedly better against the Knicks as far as offensive support, 23/7/4/51% capped by the 29 point on 83% in game 3 to get the Bulls in the win column( MJ had 22 on 3/18 shooting) to set up the 54 point MJ special in game 4 to square the series. 21/9/8 in the finals albeit on 44% shooting, but the raw production was there.

97- This was his best start to finish season of the 2nd 3peat but not the 'best' in terms of peak play( that would be the first half of 96 as explained below), 20/7/6/47% and his best overall playoffs of the 2nd 3peat, albeit at this point his positive intangibles were being off-set by a sharp decline in scoring volume/efficiency. Playoff numbers of 19/7/4 on 42% put him above 96 here. IIRC he also had his career high in scoring this year, just as a fun fact.

96- DISCLAIMER: Scottie was balling this year until January, carrying over from his 94 and 95 seasons but perfectly in-step with Jordan reclaiming his place in the league. From November till January he was better than he was in any championship season with MJ. But... his numbers dropped off from mid-season injuries and those injuries greatly impacted the playoffs. 17/9/6 on 39% shooting, horrible offensive numbers neutering what he did defensively/intangibles. Any version of Scottie in his place( minus probably 98) and the Bulls may have only lost 1 game that entire playoff run, 2 at most. It should be noted that if 96 Scottie's November-January play carried the entire year I'd rank him first. That's how good he was when healthy, but also how much he dropped off from injuries as the season and playoffs wore on. I almost feel bad ranking 96 this low.

98- His return stabilized the season and got the Bulls to the top seed in the East, but the worst season production 19/5/6 45% and 17ppg on 41% through the playoffs, Did have some great defensive impact against the Pacers and Jazz 'cutting the head off the snake' defending Jackson and Stockton. Played as well as his back would allow in game 6 vs Utah but his injury did require MJ having to play Superman to close it out. It wouldn't have looked promising for Chicago in game 7 on the road for MJ to duplicate that performance with Pippen basically playing decoy.

[Phoenix]

91 and 92 teams had BJ, Cartwright, Paxson who were all better. Even had Levingston who was a really good defensive big in short bursts and Hodges who could shoot the lights out. Pippen was also even better on offense in 91 and 92 especially in the playoffs.

A lot of little things but they add up.

What do you think of the 16 Cavs by the way? Are they too high on the list?

Umm, what? BJ was NOT better in 91/92 vs 93 :wtf:. BJ was a MAJOR upgrade over Paxson in the starting lineup, and Paxson off the bench is an upgrade over what Hodges would have been. You also had Trent Tucker in 93 whose production both in scoring and 3pt% basically replaced what Hodges gave them in 91 and 92. So to simplify all that, the 93 rotation of BJ starting, Paxson/Tucker off the bench was better than the 91 and 92 rotations of Paxson starting with BJ/Hodges off the bench.

I said a few times above that 2016 Cavs are too high, especially when you look at them being ranked over the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers. That's why these stats being applied require being taken with a cup of salt.

[Phoenix]

:wtf:

Roster continuity counts for a lot. The guys you are calling scrubs had been in the Bulls system for 5 years. You cannot insert any scrub and replace that familiarity.

Also this. Knowledge of teammates and systems aren't something these stats can capture, and there-in lies the problem over-relying on them.

[dankok8]

Umm, what? BJ was NOT better in 91/92 vs 93 :wtf:. BJ was a MAJOR upgrade over Paxson in the starting lineup, and Paxson off the bench is an upgrade over what Hodges would have been. You also had Trent Tucker in 93 whose production both in scoring and 3pt% basically replaced what Hodges gave them in 91 and 92. So to simplify all that, the 93 rotation of BJ starting, Paxson/Tucker off the bench was better than the 91 and 92 rotations of Paxson starting with BJ/Hodges off the bench.

I said a few times above that 2016 Cavs are too high, especially when you look at them being ranked over the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers. That's why these stats being applied require being taken with a cup of salt.

Sorry the BJ part was a typo. He was good and basically got more minutes to make up for Paxson's decline in 93.

What do you think can be improved with the formula?


Also this. Knowledge of teammates and systems aren't something these stats can capture, and there-in lies the problem over-relying on them.


For sure but the team as a whole was underperforming in 93 so clearly something is up.

[Phoenix]

Sorry the BJ part was a typo. He was good and basically got more minutes to make up for Paxson's decline in 93.

What do you think can be improved with the formula?



For sure but the team as a whole was underperforming in 93 so clearly something is up.

I don't use stats to this degree, especially the ones you're using, to really know what can be improved. As I said above earlier the top 5 list isn't the worst but the stats do result in some oddities like the 2016 Cavs.

I tend to look at the 'underperformance' as having an understanding of pacing yourself over the season after you've won a few. This team had not only been to two prior finals, but 2 ECFs before that. Where they were worse because of some skill/talent attrition, and being worse because they didn't maybe feel the need to blast through the regular season, is where the difficulty comes determining where that line is. Pippen's production scaled up in the playoffs and MJ had one of the GOAT individual finals, its possible one or neither of those happen if they were fixated with keeping pace with the prior year. I mean MJ would have dropped his 30+ on the Suns regardless, but I mean scaling it up another gear to 40+. I'd be interested to know if MJ/Pippen/Phil have ever expressed how they view the different teams.

[dankok8]

I don't use stats to this degree, especially the ones you're using, to really know what can be improved. As I said above earlier the top 5 list isn't the worst but the stats do result in some oddities like the 2016 Cavs.

I tend to look at the 'underperformance' as having an understanding of pacing yourself over the season after you've won a few. This team had not only been to two prior finals, but 2 ECFs before that. Where they were worse because of some skill/talent attrition, and being worse because they didn't maybe feel the need to blast through the regular season, is where the difficulty comes determining where that line is. Pippen's production scaled up in the playoffs and MJ had one of the GOAT individual finals, its possible one or neither of those happen if they were fixated with keeping pace with the prior year. I mean MJ would have dropped his 30+ on the Suns regardless, but I mean scaling it up another gear to 40+. I'd be interested to know if MJ/Pippen/Phil have ever expressed how they view the different teams.

Yea the 2016 Cavs feel high. However they did annihilate a bunch of weak teams in their conference and then beat a really good team in the finals. Are they really that different from say the 1987 Lakers that also roflstomped through a weak conference then beat a really good Celtics team? It reads similar. Like same tier...

[Phoenix]

Yea the 2016 Cavs feel high. However they did annihilate a bunch of weak teams in their conference and then beat a really good team in the finals. Are they really that different from say the 1987 Lakers that also roflstomped through a weak conference then beat a really good Celtics team? It reads similar. Like same tier...

Similar circumstances, so I guess the only thing left to do is actually compare the talent between the two teams.

[NBAGOAT]

I don't use stats to this degree, especially the ones you're using, to really know what can be improved. As I said above earlier the top 5 list isn't the worst but the stats do result in some oddities like the 2016 Cavs.

I tend to look at the 'underperformance' as having an understanding of pacing yourself over the season after you've won a few. This team had not only been to two prior finals, but 2 ECFs before that. Where they were worse because of some skill/talent attrition, and being worse because they didn't maybe feel the need to blast through the regular season, is where the difficulty comes determining where that line is. Pippen's production scaled up in the playoffs and MJ had one of the GOAT individual finals, its possible one or neither of those happen if they were fixated with keeping pace with the prior year. I mean MJ would have dropped his 30+ on the Suns regardless, but I mean scaling it up another gear to 40+. I'd be interested to know if MJ/Pippen/Phil have ever expressed how they view the different teams.

but how do you explain the difference in playoff results. OP's formula says the knicks and suns arent the strongest opponents and the bulls struggled with them even though some people see otherwise. His formula is based on the regular season but the playoffs lower those teams mov numbers even more. There's no expansion in 93 so I dont think you can argue there's a big difference in league strength in 91/92 and 93. There's nuance but stats are pretty clear on the knicks not being that much better in the regular season and the playoffs than the previous year and the suns had an unimpressive playoffs breaking even with the one tough opponent they had pre-finals in the sonics. I get your cartwright argument he's just a veteran presence and played less and less but I think you're just underestimating how much a bad player can make a team worse even in sub 20mpg. He went from a -2.6bpm in 91 to -3.2 in 92 to a -4.9 in 93. There are countless recent examples like deandre jordan last year. Great locker room guy but denver was 23-16 when he played 30-13 when he didnt, he had an on/off of -3. Denver got better giving his minutes to a replacement lvl guy in thomas bryant or straight up shortening the rotation and not playing a backup center.

I wont argue about 98 since that's a completely different league. I'll only say yes the first 3peat obviously had a better big 3 but kukoc is not some average guy, he's good enough to be considered part of a big 4 and that matters. The numbers and my eye test both agree on that.

[Charlie Sheen]

but how do you explain the difference in playoff results. OP's formula says the knicks and suns arent the strongest opponents and the bulls struggled with them even though some people see otherwise. His formula is based on the regular season but the playoffs lower those teams mov numbers even more. There's no expansion in 93 so I dont think you can argue there's a big difference in league strength in 91/92 and 93. There's nuance but stats are pretty clear on the knicks not being that much better in the regular season and the playoffs than the previous year and the suns had an unimpressive playoffs breaking even with the one tough opponent they had pre-finals in the sonics. I get your cartwright argument he's just a veteran presence and played less and less but I think you're just underestimating how much a bad player can make a team worse even in sub 20mpg. He went from a -2.6bpm in 91 to -3.2 in 92 to a -4.9 in 93. There are countless recent examples like deandre jordan last year. Great locker room guy but denver was 23-16 when he played 30-13 when he didnt, he had an on/off of -3. Denver got better giving his minutes to a replacement lvl guy in thomas bryant or straight up shortening the rotation and not playing a backup center.

I wont argue about 98 since that's a completely different league. I'll only say yes the first 3peat obviously had a better big 3 but kukoc is not some average guy, he's good enough to be considered part of a big 4 and that matters. The numbers and my eye test both agree on that.

Cartwright was declining but so was the 5 in the Bulls offense. Everyone playing the 5 for the Bulls looked lousy by measure of BPM. Their value was not captured by the box score. Not saying they were all stars but they were not a massive liability either. Scrub is too extreme.

Cartwright in particular was more often than not where he was needed to be. Things that are not captured in a box score like positioning himself for an outlet when MJ or Pippen lost their dribble and needed to reset for example.

[dankok8]

Similar circumstances, so I guess the only thing left to do is actually compare the talent between the two teams.

Well here's the thing. We shouldn't rank teams based on talent but how they actually played. And second, the 87 Lakers have more big names and they are more talented but not by a large margin or anything. Lebron/Kyrie/Love aren't that much worse than Magic/Worthy/Kareem. In fact Lebron = Magic and Kyrie > Worthy at least based on how they played in those years is probably fair. Kareem was 40 and a 3rd option at that point but he was better than Love especially because of defense. The Cavs had a nice roster with Tristan, JR Smith, Shumpert, Jefferson rounding out their top 7 vs. the Lakers with Scott, Cooper, AC Green and Mychal Thompson. All in all I like the Lakers a bit more but it's not a crazy comparison.

[Wally450]

Still laughing at the 86 Celtics below the 16 Cavs.

Use whatever stats you want. There's plenty of players, coaches, executives, talking heads that are on record of saying the 86 Celtics are one of the greatest teams of all time.

[NBAGOAT]

Cartwright was declining but so was the 5 in the Bulls offense. Everyone playing the 5 for the Bulls looked lousy by measure of BPM. Their value was not captured by the box score. Not saying they were all stars but they were not a massive liability either. Scrub is too extreme.

Cartwright in particular was more often than not where he was needed to be. Things that are not captured in a box score like positioning himself for an outlet when MJ or Pippen lost their dribble and needed to reset for example.

That’s a good counter, bpm isn’t the best measure. I’ve been singling him out too much based on that but still bulls decline came from somewhere whether it’s other depth or pippen/grant. If it was coasting, then you would’ve seen more dominance in the playoffs vs their competition. The warriors saw that in 18, they were dominant in post season but injured and coasted during regular season