Djoker's New Top 100 List

[dankok8]

You can see the original list here: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?514668-My-Attempt-at-Ranking-the-Greatest-Teams-of-All-Time.

I've made quite a few changes:

- all teams are in now, not just championship teams

58 Champions, 25 Finalists, 15 Conference Finalists, 2 Conference Semifinalists made the top 100!

- the new formula includes variance in league Net

This corrects for league parity and particularly helps put older teams on a more even footing.

- the regular season weighs a bit more heavily now relative to the playoffs

Prior list rewarded playoff annihilations of early round opponents too much. Relative weight is now 50/50 instead of 35/65 although corrections for league parity reduce a lot of regular season values so on average it's still around 40/60 in favor of the playoffs.

- teams that lose before the finals incur a penalty

The rationale is that they didn't get to play one more round against a difficult opponent. Teams that lose earlier in the playoffs often have huge rNet values because an easy 1st round has a bigger effect when it's one of two or three series instead of one of four. Penalty is even bigger if they lost to a team that didn't end up winning the title.





Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Team
1996 Bulls
2017 Warriors
1971 Bucks
1991 Bulls
1997 Bulls
2001 Lakers
1972 Lakers
2014 Spurs
1986 Celtics
1992 Bulls
1987 Lakers
1964 Celtics
2015 Warriors
2016 Cavaliers
1998 Bulls
1961 Celtics
1983 Sixers
1967 Sixers
1973 Knicks
2009 Lakers
1999 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2018 Warriors
1972 Bucks
1985 Lakers
2016 Warriors
2009 Cavaliers
1997 Jazz
1959 Celtics
1965 Celtics
2013 Heat
2019 Bucks
1960 Celtics
2016 Thunder
1981 Celtics
1993 Bulls
2016 Spurs
1962 Celtics
2013 Spurs
2012 Heat
2007 Spurs
1996 Jazz
1989 Pistons
2002 Lakers
1973 Lakers
1982 Lakers
1974 Bucks
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Lakers
1966 Celtics
2000 Lakers
2006 Mavericks
1990 Pistons
1992 Blazers
1980 Lakers
2000 Blazers
1989 Lakers
1970 Knicks
2017 Cavaliers
2003 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2019 Raptors
1957 Celtics
2011 Heat
1956 Warriors
2012 Spurs
2005 Suns
2009 Magic
2022 Warriors
1996 Sonics
1977 Blazers
1974 Celtics
2012 Thunder
1963 Celtics
2020 Lakers
2021 Suns
2022 Celtics
1989 Suns
1969 Celtics
1975 Bullets
1998 Jazz
2021 Bucks
2005 Pistons
2015 Cavaliers
1991 Lakers
1982 Sixers
1990 Suns
1988 Pistons
2010 Lakers
1958 Celtics
2019 Warriors
2007 Suns
1980 Celtics
1982 Celtics
1998 Lakers
2002 Kings
1994 Rockets
1984 Celtics
2018 Rockets

Net
15.3
14.4
13.9
12.8
12.6
11.7
11.6
11.3
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
10.6
10.5
10.3
10.3
10.2
10.2
10.2
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.5





Will make a post with more breakdowns later!

[1987_Lakers]

Since you listed some teams that didn't win a title, I'm curious how the '68 Sixers didn't make the list. 62-20. #4 offense. #1 defense.

#1 in SRS with 7.96 while the #2 team had an SRS of 4.99.

Not to mention they won 55 games the next season without Wilt.

[dankok8]

Since you listed some teams that didn't win a title, I'm curious how the '68 Sixers didn't make the list. 62-20. #4 offense. #1 defense.

#1 in SRS with 7.96 while the #2 team had an SRS of 4.99.

Not to mention they won 55 games the next season without Wilt.

68 Sixers only had a +3.2 rNet in the playoffs and lost to the worst Celtics title team of that era.

In fact the 68 Celtics are the only Russell title team not to make the list.

[1987_Lakers]

68 Sixers only had a +3.2 rNet in the playoffs and lost to the worst Celtics title team of that era.

In fact the 68 Celtics are the only Russell title team not to make the list.

Yeah, but the Sixers were without Billy Cunningham.

[dankok8]

Some notable movers from the previous list also listed.

Climbers

1964 Celtics #23 to #12
1972 Lakers #15 to #7
1967 Sixers #22 to #18
1983 Sixers #20 to #17
2013 Heat #51 to #31

Fallers

2001 Lakers #3 to #6
2016 Cavaliers #8 to #14
1998 Bulls #11 to #15
2018 Warriors #12 to #23
2009 Lakers #16 to #20
1993 Bulls #24 to #36
2012 Heat #25 to #40

Top 10 Non-Title Teams

24. 1972 Bucks
26. 2016 Warriors
27. 2009 Cavaliers
28. 1997 Jazz
32. 2019 Bucks
34. 2016 Thunder
37. 2016 Spurs
39. 2013 Spurs
42. 1996 Jazz
45. 1973 Lakers

Title Teams Not in the Top 100

2006 Heat +6.4
2023 Nuggets +6.3
1968 Celtics +6.2
1975 Warriors +6.2
1988 Lakers +5.9
1979 Sonics +5.9
1995 Rockets +5.8
1955 Nationals +5.6
1958 Hawks +5.4
1978 Bullets +4.8
1976 Celtics +4.7

[SouBeachTalents]

Some notable movers from the previous list also listed.

Climbers

1964 Celtics #23 to #12
1972 Lakers #15 to #7
1967 Sixers #22 to #18
1983 Sixers #20 to #17
2013 Heat #51 to #31

Fallers

2001 Lakers #3 to #6
2016 Cavaliers #8 to #14
1998 Bulls #11 to #15
2018 Warriors #12 to #23
2009 Lakers #16 to #20
1993 Bulls #24 to #36
2012 Heat #25 to #40

Top 10 Non-Title Teams

24. 1972 Bucks
26. 2016 Warriors
27. 2009 Cavaliers
28. 1997 Jazz
32. 2019 Bucks
34. 2016 Thunder
37. 2016 Spurs
39. 2013 Spurs
42. 1996 Jazz
45. 1973 Lakers
The ‘96 Jazz stick out like a sore thumb on that list. They were a good but far from great 55-27 in the regular season, then went 10-8 in the playoffs. There’s just no way they were better than the ‘18 Rockets or ‘02 Kings, let alone SIXTY spots ahead of them :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

https://i.gyazo.com/2e89f36e0c6ba939f8a5d9a796a024b4.png



Nobody knew it at the time, but that Utah Jazz team was the 42nd best team of ALL TIME.

[Phoenix]

https://i.gyazo.com/2e89f36e0c6ba939f8a5d9a796a024b4.png



Nobody knew it at the time, but that Utah Jazz team was the 42nd best team of ALL TIME.

29 spots ahead of the team that beat them in the WCFs.

[dankok8]

The ‘96 Jazz stick out like a sore thumb on that list. They were a good but far from great 55-27 in the regular season, then went 10-8 in the playoffs. There’s just no way they were better than the ‘18 Rockets or ‘02 Kings, let alone SIXTY spots ahead of them :lol

The list isn't gospel. There will be a few oddities.

I agree they feel very high.. :lol

But couldn't the 96 Jazz be a dark horse monster like say the 16 Thunder were? They did have practically the same roster as the 97 Jazz. A user on RealGM named colts18 made a convincing argument that the 97 Jazz were the best team never to win the title. The 5-man lineup of Stockton-Russell-Hornacek-Malone-Ostertag in 97 is the best lineup in league history (since 1996-97 when plus-minus began being officially tracked) combining the regular season and playoffs. In the 97 Finals that lineup also played really well, narrowly outscoring Chicago's starters when both were on the floor, but the Jazz lost the series because of the minutes they put Carr and Eisley into the game.

Anyways let's look at why the formula loves the 96 Jazz.

1996 Jazz

Regular Season: +7.2 Net (+5.6 rORtg, -1.6 rDRtg)

1st Round vs. Blazers: +13.9 rNet (+9.9 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +20.6 rNet (+10.6 rORtg, -10.0 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +11.2 rNet (+2.8 rORtg, -8.4 rDRtg)

Postseason: +15.0 rNet (+6.7 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg)

Total: 0.5(+7.1) + 0.5(+15.0) -2 = +9.1 rNet

They receive a -1 penalty for losing before the Finals and another -1 penalty for losing to a non-title team. The parity adjustment barely moved their regular season down by -0.1.

They were dominant in the playoffs. Even against the Sonics it's a miracle that they lost that series as they outscored the Sonics by 18 points over 7 games and played much better in the playoffs up to that point. Teams playing at +11.2 rNet rarely lose series. That's really good.

[Phoenix]

The list isn't gospel. There will be a few oddities.

I agree they feel very high.. :lol

But couldn't the 96 Jazz be a dark horse monster like say the 16 Thunder were? They did have practically the same roster as the 97 Jazz. A user on RealGM named colts18 made a convincing argument that the 97 Jazz were the best team never to win the title. The 5-man lineup of Stockton-Russell-Hornacek-Malone-Ostertag in 97 is the best lineup in league history (since 1996-97 when plus-minus began being officially tracked) combining the regular season and playoffs. In the 97 Finals that lineup also played really well, narrowly outscoring Chicago's starters when both were on the floor, but the Jazz lost the series because of the minutes they put Carr and Eisley into the game.

Anyways let's look at why the formula loves the 96 Jazz.

1996 Jazz

Regular Season: +7.2 Net (+5.6 rORtg, -1.6 rDRtg)

1st Round vs. Blazers: +13.9 rNet (+9.9 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +20.6 rNet (+10.6 rORtg, -10.0 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +11.2 rNet (+2.8 rORtg, -8.4 rDRtg)

Postseason: +15.0 rNet (+6.7 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg)

Total: 0.5(+7.1) + 0.5(+15.0) -2 = +9.1 rNet

They receive a -1 penalty for losing before the Finals and another -1 penalty for losing to a non-title team. The parity adjustment barely moved their regular season down by -0.1.

They were dominant in the playoffs. Even against the Sonics it's a miracle that they lost that series as they outscored the Sonics by 18 points over 7 games and played much better in the playoffs up to that point. Teams playing at +11.2 rNet rarely lose series. That's really good.

It just feels weird that they'd be ranked 29 places above the 96 Sonics because 'the numbers' say they're better. No matter how it's spun( played better during the playoffs overall, scored more total points than Seattle)....they lost that series. Numbers can favor one team over another in terms of how they perform respectively vs the league, but bear a contradictory result when the teams in question match-up. The game is won or lost on the floor.

[Jasper]

I appreciate all the work OP did for this thread ... Nice Job dude. !!!!

[dankok8]

It just feels weird that they'd be ranked 29 places above the 96 Sonics because 'the numbers' say they're better. No matter how it's spun( played better during the playoffs overall, scored more total points than Seattle)....they lost that series. Numbers can favor one team over another in terms of how they perform respectively vs the league, but bear a contradictory result when the teams in question match-up. The game is won or lost on the floor.

Well... the formula is telling us the Sonics got lucky to win the series. :confusedshrug:

It happens a few more times on the list. For instance the 2019 Bucks are 31 spots ahead of my golden 2019 Raptors. Sometimes teams pull off upsets.

[Phoenix]

Well... the formula is telling us the Sonics got lucky to win the series. :confusedshrug:

It happens a few more times on the list. For instance the 2019 Bucks are 31 spots ahead of my golden 2019 Raptors. Sometimes teams pull off upsets.

No, it is telling us that just sometimes the formula doesn't always matter once the teams hit the floor and don't put all your eggs into it. The reality is, if the Jazz were actually 29 spots better than the Sonics they should have distanced themselves enough for 'luck' to not play a role in the outcome. Why did the Jazz win 9 less games over the season, bearing in mind that these teams are from the same year playing in the same conference.

[warriorfan]

Pretty interesting. Nice work OP.

lol at some people already getting bent out of shape because of their agendas. jesus.

[Phoenix]

Pretty interesting. Nice work OP.

lol at some people already getting bent out of shape because of their agendas. jesus.

I haven't seen a single post in response to the OP that adheres to this. Agenda about what exactly?

[warriorfan]

I haven't seen a single post in response to the OP that adheres to this. Agenda about what exactly?

lebron fans getting upset at the jazz being rated high, some psycho obsessed with trying to fade wilt wanting the team the year after he left on the list

[dankok8]

No, it is telling us that just sometimes the formula doesn't always matter once the teams hit the floor and don't put all your eggs into it. The reality is, if the Jazz were actually 29 spots better than the Sonics they should have distanced themselves enough for 'luck' to not play a role in the outcome. Why did the Jazz win 9 less games over the season, bearing in mind that these teams are from the same year playing in the same conference.

Well admittedly there are also aspects of the game the formula doesn't account for, like crunch time play. In the 96 WCF, the Sonics and Jazz played four very close games and the Sonics won three out of the four. Maybe there's something to that? The Jazz just weren't clutch. It fits into the prevalent narrative lol

[Phoenix]

lebron fans getting upset at the jazz being rated high, some psycho obsessed with trying to fade wilt wanting the team the year after he left on the list

I mean I'm the furthest thing from a Lebron fan, but the idea that the 96 Jazz are 29 spots better than the team they lost to in the WCFs.... I mean one can point out the irony of this at face value and not have anything to do with Lebron James.

[SouBeachTalents]

I haven't seen a single post in response to the OP that adheres to this. Agenda about what exactly?
The obvious LeBron agenda that the ‘96 Jazz shouldn’t be top 40 all time :lol

We need more agenda-less posts like Chris Bosh was a top 4 player and Kevin Love was as good as Kareem.

[Phoenix]

Well admittedly there are also aspects of the game the formula doesn't account for, like crunch time play. In the 96 WCF, the Sonics and Jazz played four very close games and the Sonics won three out of the four. Maybe there's something to that? The Jazz just weren't clutch. It fits into the prevalent narrative lol

Well let's throw out the formula for the time being. Based on their team record, based on what happened in the playoffs....if someone asked you who was the better team, just off your recollection of the teams and season in question....who would you rate as the better team? Even if you still think the Jazz was better for whatever reasons and just lost because the ball didn't bounce their way enough......29 spots better? I expect there to be a tangible gap in level of play to justify that.

As for the Jazz in the clutch, I think their biggest issue was their best scorer and best clutch player were two different people.

[warriorfan]

Right, AW complaining about the Jazz has NOTHING to do with LeBron.


Sorry guys. I must have been mistaken.


Carry on.

[warriorfan]

Well let's throw out the formula for the time being. Based on their team record, based on what happened in the playoffs....if someone asked you who was the better team, just off your recollection of the teams and season in question....who would you rate as the better team? Even if you still think the Jazz was better for whatever reasons and just lost because the ball didn't bounce their way enough......29 spots better? I expect there to be a tangible gap in level of play to justify that.

All metrics have noise and outliers. There’s literally no perfect metric that nails everything. It’s supposed to be used as a guide, not an almanac.

[Phoenix]

Right, AW complaining about the Jazz has NOTHING to do with LeBron.


Sorry guys. I must have been mistaken.


Carry on.

He made the same point I did for the most part, and I don't give a shit about Lebron. Furthermore, the 96 Jazz wasn't the team the Bulls played, it was the 97 and 98 Jazz unless we're saying they're exactly the same team.

[Phoenix]

All metrics have noise and outliers. There’s literally no perfect metric that nails everything. It’s supposed to be used as a guide, not an almanac.

That goes without saying. So what's your opinion on what I asked regarding the teams in questions, instead of speaking in generalities about outliers and perfect metrics.

[warriorfan]

He made the same point I did for the most part, and I don't give a shit about Lebron. Furthermore, the 96 Jazz isn't the team the Bulls played, it was the 97 and 98 Jazz unless we're saying they're exactly the same team.

Well you don’t. The other guy has some different motivations :lol


I just find it funny that out of every team in nba history AW rushes to the Jazz. :lol

[Phoenix]

Well you don’t. The other guy has some different motivations :lol


I just find it funny that out of every team in nba history AW rushes to the Jazz. :lol

:confusedshrug:

In any case, I just happened to hop on AWs post noting the Jazz's rank, noting that the team they lost to was 29 spots lower seemed a reasonable thing to question. I haven't looked through the totality of the list in detail because there are no doubt some other eye-brow raisers.

[Phoenix]

Another point of interest, the only two teams that took the Bulls to 7( 92 Knicks and 98 Pacers) aren't ranked, unless I overlooked them. The 2018 Rockets that possibly take out the 2018 Warriors if CP3 doesn't get injured and Harden doesn't give us his annual playoff meltdown....100th. Quite a few ' well that's interesting' rankings just from a glance.

[dankok8]

Another point of interest, the only two teams that took the Bulls to 7( 92 Knicks and 98 Pacers) aren't ranked, unless I overlooked them. The 2018 Rockets that possibly take out the 2018 Warriors if CP3 doesn't get injured and Harden doesn't give us his annual playoff meltdown....100th. Quite a few ' well that's interesting' rankings just from a glance.

You're right.

The 98 Pacers are +6.3 so they were very close to making it. The 92 Knicks weren't even close.

[Phoenix]

You're right.

The 98 Pacers are +6.3 so they were very close to making it. The 92 Knicks weren't even close.

Who would you take in a 'what if' 92 finals between the Blazers and Knicks?

[dankok8]

Who would you take in a 'what if' 92 finals between the Blazers and Knicks?

Definitely favoring the Blazers. That team looked really scary in the 92 playoffs before running into the Bulls. I broke them down in the last thread.


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

[Phoenix]

Definitely favoring the Blazers. That team looked really scary in the 92 playoffs before running into the Bulls. I broke them down in the last thread.

I actually think the Knicks would have ben too physical for them, considering the Bulls barely survived them and needing MJ to go off in game 7 to pull it out. Logically a lesser version of MJ/Bulls fares worse in the same situation, and I don't think this is a case of 'well it's the matchups'. I honestly think both the 92 and 93 Knicks win the title if the Bulls didn't take them out.

[NBAGOAT]

Not surprised the the weird ones like 96 Jazz since realgm poster had same ones in his list. Team record jist doesn’t matter in this formula and im ok with that, enough research has shown net rtg is a much better indicator of team quality. I like the penalty for not advancing in the playoffs but guessing most posters think it’s too low. Still a team could be better even if they lost a 7 game series when healthy. Still lot of variance in a 7 games series and one team has homecourt. You don’t know how many games one team would win if they played say a 50 game series

[NBAGOAT]

Only questions I have now is do you want to cap blowouts in the playoffs(like say counting any blowout as only +20) because they can boost a teams resume. It’s bit weird to only do that for playoffs however and maybe you should get more credit for absolutely destroying a team even a mediocre one in the 1st rd

[Phoenix]

Not surprised the the weird ones like 96 Jazz since realgm poster had same ones in his list. Team record jist doesn’t matter in this formula and im ok with that, enough research has shown net rtg is a much better indicator of team quality. I like the penalty for not advancing in the playoffs but guessing most posters think it’s too low. Still a team could be better even if they lost a 7 game series when healthy. Still lot of variance in a 7 games series and one team has homecourt. You don’t know how many games one team would win if they played say a 50 game series

Yes, but we can only go by the results of what happened. If the 96 Jazz had beaten the Sonics there would be no need to come up with such an argument, but since the result contradicts the rankings we have to now introduce 'what ifs' to the mix. In that series you had 3 blowouts( 2 won by Utah, 1 by the Sonics), the other 4 games were all decided by 4 or less points with Seattle winning three of them. Maybe they performed the late game X's and O's better and put themselves in position where things like HCA( earned through the regular season) made the difference. The 'better' team in Utah could have achieved a better season record and put themselves in the drivers seat, but they didn't.

[ArbitraryWater]

Right, AW complaining about the Jazz has NOTHING to do with LeBron.


Sorry guys. I must have been mistaken.


Carry on.


You think my post about the 1996 Jazz cant stand on its own? The critique can only be explained by the fact that leBron bias exists?

lol

[dankok8]

I actually think the Knicks would have ben too physical for them, considering the Bulls barely survived them and needing MJ to go off in game 7 to pull it out. Logically a lesser version of MJ/Bulls fares worse in the same situation, and I don't think this is a case of 'well it's the matchups'. I honestly think both the 92 and 93 Knicks win the title if the Bulls didn't take them out.

The Knicks were definitely tough and gave any team they faced problems. They played a lot of series going a full 7 games... Some guy on RealGM expressed DRtg as a z-score (number of standard deviations) and the 93 Knicks came out as the best defense in NBA history. Their problem of course was their below average offense!


Not surprised the the weird ones like 96 Jazz since realgm poster had same ones in his list. Team record jist doesn’t matter in this formula and im ok with that, enough research has shown net rtg is a much better indicator of team quality. I like the penalty for not advancing in the playoffs but guessing most posters think it’s too low. Still a team could be better even if they lost a 7 game series when healthy. Still lot of variance in a 7 games series and one team has homecourt. You don’t know how many games one team would win if they played say a 50 game series

Yea a single playoff series still has plenty of variance as you said. The best team won't always win.


Only questions I have now is do you want to cap blowouts in the playoffs(like say counting any blowout as only +20) because they can boost a teams resume. It’s bit weird to only do that for playoffs however and maybe you should get more credit for absolutely destroying a team even a mediocre one in the 1st rd

Thing is I ended up slightly reducing the weight of the playoffs relative to the regular season. In this new version, teams are generally rewarded a bit less for playoffs dominance. With the old formula the 96 Jazz might be like #30... :lol

Not sure whether to cap blowouts. I was thinking of that but not sure if it should apply to every round or just the first round or...

[NBAGOAT]

Yes, but we can only go by the results of what happened. If the 96 Jazz had beaten the Sonics there would be no need to come up with such an argument, but since the result contradicts the rankings we have to now introduce 'what ifs' to the mix. In that series you had 3 blowouts( 2 won by Utah, 1 by the Sonics), the other 4 games were all decided by 4 or less points with Seattle winning three of them. Maybe they performed the late game X's and O's better and put themselves in position where things like HCA( earned through the regular season) made the difference. The 'better' team in Utah could have achieved a better season record and put themselves in the drivers seat, but they didn't.

Well yes but at a few points in history you can say a better team lost a series. Not saying Jazz are one because on surface it seems that way but there are other series people would argue that way

[Phoenix]

Well yes but at a few points in history you can say a better team lost a series. Not saying Jazz are one because on surface it seems that way but there are other series people would argue that way

Sure, whether that was the case in this situation is kind of pointless to speculate, so we can only go on the results we have.

[NBAGOAT]

Sure, whether that was the case in this situation is kind of pointless to speculate, so we can only go on the results we have.

But I would argue one playoff series shouldn’t be everything results wise. Your resume as a team is a whole season though yes playoffs matter more, the finals the most. You can question ops methodology but a team being ranked ahead of a team they lost to doesn’t invalidate the methodology by itself imo. We haven’t discussed also how some teams matchup better with some teams. It’s speculation but you can tell sometimes by eye test for regular season

[Phoenix]

But I would argue one playoff series shouldn’t be everything results wise. Your resume as a team is a whole season though yes playoffs matter more, the finals the most. You can question ops methodology but a team being ranked ahead of a team they lost to doesn’t invalidate the methodology by itself imo. We haven’t discussed also how some teams matchup better with some teams. It’s speculation but you can tell sometimes by eye test for regular season

I would argue the one result is better to go off than a bunch of speculatory counterpoints, because it's all we can go off. It was a case of two teams that actually played in the same season and went head to head in a high stakes playoff encounter. It's easier to discuss that in a vacuum than comparing teams that didn't match up against each other or played in different seasons, in many cases in entirely different decades.

But, if you go back a few pages. I specifically questioned the Jazz being 29 spots higher than a team they lost to the playoffs and mainly said it was ironic. The gap between them is moreso my issue than the Jazz being ranked above them in general. That part I don't particularly care about. If they played 50 time and the Jazz won most of the encounters, or if the Sonics were 'lucky', or if some teams can lose to 'worse' teams based on whatever conditions wasn't really the main point of my initial post. Nor was it intended to invalidate the methodology in and of itself, but it does produce some rankings I disagree with. I'm not spending pages over pages like the last thread about it though.

[Phoenix]

The Knicks were definitely tough and gave any team they faced problems. They played a lot of series going a full 7 games... Some guy on RealGM expressed DRtg as a z-score (number of standard deviations) and the 93 Knicks came out as the best defense in NBA history. Their problem of course was their below average offense!





Yeah those Knicks lacked the offense, but having a GOAT tier defense can be a great equalizer if you can knock a great offense down a peg or two and grind the game to a halt. That 93 team took a whole 10 percentage points off MJ's efficiency for him to get his usual 30ppg, and it was really that 54 point game 4 that boosted his numbers. I don't see Drexler, as good as he was in 92, capable of producing that kind of game in that situation. Portlands bigs would have been neutralized by New York's, with Ewing having an advantage in the middle, and Starks( commonly known as the grocery bagger on ISH) would have played Drexler tough.

[Baller234]

But I would argue one playoff series shouldn’t be everything results wise. Your resume as a team is a whole season though yes playoffs matter more, the finals the most. You can question ops methodology but a team being ranked ahead of a team they lost to doesn’t invalidate the methodology by itself imo. We haven’t discussed also how some teams matchup better with some teams. It’s speculation but you can tell sometimes by eye test for regular season

What choice do we really have? We can't speculate on things that never took place. We can only go off on what we see.

Is a 7 game series a large enough sample size to determine which team is truly better? I would say yes, because part of being a great team means being able to execute when it counts. It means being able to perform and thrive under pressure.

In that moment, one team was better. That has to count for something.

[ArbitraryWater]

But I would argue one playoff series shouldn’t be everything results wise. Your resume as a team is a whole season though yes playoffs matter more, the finals the most. You can question ops methodology but a team being ranked ahead of a team they lost to doesn’t invalidate the methodology by itself imo. We haven’t discussed also how some teams matchup better with some teams. It’s speculation but you can tell sometimes by eye test for regular season


A 7-game series is pretty damn long...

[dankok8]

Yeah those Knicks lacked the offense, but having a GOAT tier defense can be a great equalizer if you can knock a great offense down a peg or two and grind the game to a halt. That 93 team took a whole 10 percentage points off MJ's efficiency for him to get his usual 30ppg, and it was really that 54 point game 4 that boosted his numbers. I don't see Drexler, as good as he was in 92, capable of producing that kind of game in that situation. Portlands bigs would have been neutralized by New York's, with Ewing having an advantage in the middle, and Starks( commonly known as the grocery bagger on ISH) would have played Drexler tough.

Sure but there are matchups that favour the Blazers too. Portland has Buck Williams who is an elite defensive big to throw at Ewing. I could see Ewing playing worse than he did against the Bulls. And Terry Porter is another guy they would have to worry about as he was cooking some teams in the postseason.

You're right that slowing the pace down and making it super physical is the great equalizer though. And the formula can't really account for that. I see the 1990's Knicks in the same mold I see the 2004 and 2005 Pistons.

[Phoenix]

Sure but there are matchups that favour the Blazers too. Portland has Buck Williams who is an elite defensive big to throw at Ewing. I could see Ewing playing worse than he did against the Bulls. And Terry Porter is another guy they would have to worry about as he was cooking some teams in the postseason.

You're right that slowing the pace down and making it super physical is the great equalizer though. And the formula can't really account for that. I see the 1990's Knicks in the same mold I see the 2004 and 2005 Pistons.

Of course, it's about who best leverages each advantage. Horace was also all Defensive caliber big, so I'm not sure Buck presents any greater challenge for Ewing depending on how Portland chose to defend him. Porter could be an X-factor, depends on how he responds to the Knicks physicality.

[dankok8]

I looked at a couple of more patterns just for fun.

Number of Teams by Decade (% of All Teams)

50's: 4
60's: 9 (9.3%)
70's: 10 (5.4%)
80's: 15 (6.5%)
90's: 17 (6.1%)
00's: 18 (6.1%)
10's: 22 (7.3%)
20's: 5 (4.2%)

Number of Teams by Franchise

Celtics: 19
Lakers: 16
Spurs: 8
Warriors: 7
Bulls: 6
Bucks: 5
Pistons: 5
Suns: 5
Cavaliers: 4
Heat: 3
Sixers: 3
Jazz: 3
Blazers: 3
Thunder/Sonics: 3
Knicks: 2
Mavericks: 2
Rockets: 2
Raptors: 1
Kings: 1
Magic: 1
Wizards/Bullets: 1

[kawhileonard2]

Not bad. Goes to show Cavs 2016 were stacked and still needed a suspension.

[NBAGOAT]

What choice do we really have? We can't speculate on things that never took place. We can only go off on what we see.

Is a 7 game series a large enough sample size to determine which team is truly better? I would say yes, because part of being a great team means being able to execute when it counts. It means being able to perform and thrive under pressure.

In that moment, one team was better. That has to count for something.

It does question is how much. Op elevated a team for going deeper in playoffs but it still wasn’t enough for some teams. Should he be giving more? I would just argue it’s easily statistically possible for a team who should win say 60% of games(so clearly better team) to lose in a 7 game series. In basketball even in previous eras so much of winning is making jump shots and there’s a lot of variance there

[dankok8]

It does question is how much. Op elevated a team for going deeper in playoffs but it still wasn’t enough for some teams. Should he be giving more? I would just argue it’s easily statistically possible for a team who should win say 60% of games(so clearly better team) to lose in a 7 game series. In basketball even in previous eras so much of winning is making jump shots and there’s a lot of variance there

Teams can definitely get hot or cold for a playoff series. That's why these and most other rankings are still partly rooted in regular season records too. Otherwise we'd just look at the playoffs.

A team that should win 60% of the games will OFTEN lose the series.

How to balance the regular season vs. postseason exactly is one of the toughest things about lists like this. At the end you kind of have to go with your hunch...

[L.Kizzle]

No you in particular, but I don't like the raking of teams without any significant player personal switching taking up multiple spots..

You have the 96 Bulls at 1 and 97 Bulls at 5. Basically the exact same team in the top 5.

91 Bulls at 4 is totally fine as it's a totally different team besides MJ and Pip.

[dankok8]

No you in particular, but I don't like the raking of teams without any significant player personal switching taking up multiple spots..

You have the 96 Bulls at 1 and 97 Bulls at 5. Basically the exact same team in the top 5.

91 Bulls at 4 is totally fine as it's a totally different team besides MJ and Pip.

I see your point but then we get into an issue of what is "similar enough" player personnel. Someone can say the 92 Bulls are also similar to the 96 Bulls because the two best players are the same. We are opening a whole new can of worms doing that.

Also, as you surely realize, the rankings aren't gospel. You can put the 97 Bulls at #11 and you wouldn't see me bat an eye. Or you could point out that in games Rodman played, the 97 Bulls were at 73-win pace and put them #1. The ranges are quite wide in reality. This list is just one analytical approach to ranking teams and there's obviously a lot of context a simple formula can never capture.

[Phoenix]

I see your point but then we get into an issue of what is "similar enough" player personnel. Someone can say the 92 Bulls are also similar to the 96 Bulls because the two best players are the same. We are opening a whole new can of worms doing that.

Also, as you surely realize, the rankings aren't gospel. You can put the 97 Bulls at #11 and you wouldn't see me bat an eye. Or you could point out that in games Rodman played, the 97 Bulls were at 73-win pace and put them #1. The ranges are quite wide in reality. This list is just one analytical approach to ranking teams and there's obviously a lot of context a simple formula can never capture.

Not really. 92 Jordan/Pippen were smack dab in their primes vs end of prime MJ/Pippen in 96, plus the entire roster was around them was different. 96 and 97 Bulls are more or less the same cast of characters at roughly the same career points, with Bison Dele off the bench as the biggest difference.

[dankok8]

Not really. 92 Jordan/Pippen were smack dab in their primes vs end of prime MJ/Pippen in 96, plus the entire roster was around them was different. 96 and 97 Bulls are more or less the same cast of characters at roughly the same career points, with Bison Dele off the bench as the biggest difference.

Oh I agree. I'd say that same.

My point was simply that what constitutes a similar roster is subjective.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Few questionable rankings, but a pretty good list overall.

The 01 Lakers (in the playoffs) might still be the best team I've seen live. Complete dominance, inside and out.

[dankok8]

I was also curious and so looked into how team Net Rating affects Title Odds and plotted a little graph. I sort of broadly divided teams into groups.

https://i.postimg.cc/mkL5sQwM/Teams-Title-Odds-vs-Net-Rating-With-Notes.jpg

Under +3 Net: Not Contenders
+3 to +6 Net: Weak Contenders ~5% title odds
+6 to +8 Net: Strong Contenders ~25% title odds
+8 to +10 Net: Title Favorites ~50% title odds
Over +10 Net: Historic Teams ~75% title odds

A few interesting clues from this:
- bad teams almost never win and good but not great teams very rarely win
- even the best teams ever don't always win
- improving in Net to above +8 is tough; the number of teams in history who have very high Net is very very low
- only ten teams in history have a Net over +10
- the biggest jumps in title equity for a small jump in Net is improving from +5 to +7 or +6 to +8; the teams that "need one more piece"

[dankok8]

The playoff rNet is a little noisy for a single run because of small sample size so I decided to look at the best three-year stretches of postseason dominance.

Postseason rNet: Best Unique 3-Year Stretches (Since 1985; minimum 50 games or 10 series)

1996-1998 Bulls: +14.5
2016-2018 Warriors: +12.9
1991-1993 Bulls: +12.8
2015-2017 Cavaliers: +12.7
2012-2014 Spurs: +12.5
2000-2002 Lakers: +11.9
1985-1987 Lakers: +11.6
1987-1989 Pistons: +10.5
1996-1998 Jazz: +10.5
2008-2010 Lakers: +10.3