Trying to Rank the Best Playoff Teams in History

[dankok8]

Here are the best 3-year postseason stretches ranked by rNet which adjusts for both offensive and defensive rating of competition.

Calculated using Basketball Reference data.

https://i.postimg.cc/SsQ4xpJw/Top-20-3-Year-Postseason-Streches-by-r-Net.jpg

[dankok8]

Bump

[Da_Realist]

Here are the best 3-year postseason stretches ranked by rNet which adjusts for both offensive and defensive rating of competition.

Calculated using Basketball Reference data.

https://i.postimg.cc/SsQ4xpJw/Top-20-3-Year-Postseason-Streches-by-r-Net.jpg

Should be ranked by the number of titles won first then rNet and any other consideration after that.

[NBAGOAT]

spurs were unlucky running into heat and the cavs running into he warriors. People only think that way with the 80s teams but based on this list you can argue the 2010's teams were even more unlucky

[tpols]

spurs were unlucky running into heat and the cavs running into he warriors. People only think that way with the 80s teams but based on this list you can argue the 2010's teams were even more unlucky

If anything the cavs net rating is inflated due to how they plowed through the East those years. The warriors still had to face legit contenders out West like the Thunder who had them down 3-1.

Overall it's a good list though. I'm surprised the spurs are ranked ahead of the Shaq Kobe Lakers.

[tpols]

Also this list proves Lebron + Kyrie > Lebron + Wade.

[1987_Lakers]

Also this list proves Lebron + Kyrie > Lebron + Wade.

Wade was playing injured in both the 2012 & 2013 playoff runs.

East was also better in 2011-2013 compared to 2015-2017.

[ShawkFactory]

Also this list proves Lebron + Kyrie > Lebron + Wade.

Well yea they complimented each other better.

[tpols]

Wade was playing injured in both the 2012 & 2013 playoff runs.

East was also better in 2011-2013 compared to 2015-2017.
Lebron lost with Wade even when he was at peak health in 2011.

And competition wise... eh, nah it really wasn't. The East was weak in both periods. Facing bums up to the ECF and having to beat derrick rose and Noah or Paul George and Hibbert is a weak path.

[1987_Lakers]

Lebron lost with Wade even when he was at peak health in 2011.

And competition wise... eh, nah it really wasn't. The East was weak in both periods. Facing bums up to the ECF and having to beat derrick rose and Noah or Paul George and Hibbert is a weak path.

3ball who is your idol called those Pacers teams as good as the 90's Knicks.

https://i.ibb.co/XCD6m9n/3-Ball-Le-Bron-is-the-GOAT.png

https://media.tenor.com/8zUyU3lh7csAAAAM/vince-carter-its-over.gif

[Axe]

Funny how the jazz had to be listed rt, even though they're the only team that doesn't have any rings until now. :oldlol:

[tpols]

That was the weakest "gotcha" attempt ever. The East was trash in both time periods due to the collusion of star talent.

Which is what OPs list doesn't quite factor in. If Shaq Kobe played in the East in either time period and had to face that competition they'd have a higher net rating than having to play the Kings, Spurs, and Blazers.

[tpols]

Funny how the jazz had to be listed rt, even though they're the only team that doesn't have any rings until now. :oldlol:

Jazz were good enough to win. They have a top 10 rating all time and played brutal gauntlets. Unfortunately they ran into the MJ buzz saw.

[Axe]

Jazz were good enough to win. They have a top 10 rating all time and played brutal gauntlets. Unfortunately they ran into the MJ buzz saw.
They should made have made the finals again shortly after '98. Yet nothing like that happened at all.

[1987_Lakers]

That was the weakest "gotcha" attempt ever. The East was trash in both time periods due to the collusion of star talent.

Which is what OPs list doesn't quite factor in. If Shaq Kobe played in the East in either time period and had to face that competition they'd have a higher net rating than having to play the Kings, Spurs, and Blazers.

A weak attempt is somehow justifying LeBron/Kyrie > LeBron/Wade strictly from this list. Kyrie and Bron were a better fit together, but LeBron and Wade at one point won 27 straight games together.

The list disregards other factors like injury (Wade), & competition.

Nobody is picking the 2015 Hawks, 2016 Raptors, & 2017 Celtics over the 2011 Bulls, 2012 Celtics, & 2013 Pacers.

[dankok8]

That was the weakest "gotcha" attempt ever. The East was trash in both time periods due to the collusion of star talent.

Which is what OPs list doesn't quite factor in. If Shaq Kobe played in the East in either time period and had to face that competition they'd have a higher net rating than having to play the Kings, Spurs, and Blazers.

It's not net rating. It's relative net rating so it already adjusts for the strength of opponents.

Now of course, you can claim that the East was super weak and those teams were paper tigers. Some teams just don't have an extra playoff gear.

[Manny98]

Also this list proves Lebron + Kyrie > Lebron + Wade.
Yep :applause:

[Xiao Yao You]

They should made have made the finals again shortly after '98. Yet nothing like that happened at all.

'99 lockout happened

[dankok8]

Here is a list using cNet from Thinking Basketball which is relative to opponent's playoff performance instead of regular season.

It's more noisy and only since 1985 but maybe still informative.

Postseason cNet: Top 15 Unique 3-Year Stretches
*minimum two Finals or three Conference Finals; since 1985

2016-2018 Warriors: +15.4
1996-1998 Bulls: +15.2
1991-1993 Bulls: +13.9
1985-1987 Lakers: +13.9
2012-2014 Spurs: +13.5
2015-2017 Cavaliers: +13.5
2011-2013 Heat: +12.6
2000-2002 Lakers: +12.2
1996-1998 Jazz: +11.9
2008-2010 Lakers: +11.1
2004-2006 Pistons: +10.8
1988-1990 Pistons: +10.5
1984-1986 Celtics: +10.3
2003-2005 Spurs: +10.1
1993-1995 Rockets: +9.4

[Im Still Ballin]

Very cool. Do you prefer rNet or cNet?

[dankok8]

Very cool. Do you prefer rNet or cNet?

If I had to choose one I'd take rNet just because postseason performance is more noisy. But honestly averaging the two might produce the best metric. I'll look more into it. The rNet provides a good baseline and then cNet can give signals when playoff opposition is stronger or weaker than expected.

[Da_Realist]

Here is a list using cNet from Thinking Basketball which is relative to opponent's playoff performance instead of regular season.

It's more noisy and only since 1985 but maybe still informative.

Postseason cNet: Top 15 Unique 3-Year Stretches
*minimum two Finals or three Conference Finals; since 1985

2016-2018 Warriors: +15.4
1996-1998 Bulls: +15.2
1991-1993 Bulls: +13.9
1985-1987 Lakers: +13.9
2012-2014 Spurs: +13.5
2015-2017 Cavaliers: +13.5
2011-2013 Heat: +12.6
2000-2002 Lakers: +12.2
1996-1998 Jazz: +11.9
2008-2010 Lakers: +11.1
2004-2006 Pistons: +10.8
1988-1990 Pistons: +10.5
1984-1986 Celtics: +10.3
2003-2005 Spurs: +10.1
1993-1995 Rockets: +9.4

The 96-98 Jazz stick out like a sore thumb

[Im Still Ballin]

If I had to choose one I'd take rNet just because postseason performance is more noisy. But honestly averaging the two might produce the best metric. I'll look more into it. The rNet provides a good baseline and then cNet can give signals when playoff opposition is stronger or weaker than expected.

How would you weigh the two components?

[jayfan]

Here are the best 3-year postseason stretches ranked by rNet which adjusts for both offensive and defensive rating of competition.

Calculated using Basketball Reference data.

https://i.postimg.cc/SsQ4xpJw/Top-20-3-Year-Postseason-Streches-by-r-Net.jpg


Respect to the data for listing '87-'89 Pistons rather than '88-'90 Pistons despite the fact that '88-'90 was three consecutive Finals appearances and two consecutive Championships. The '87 team lost in the ECF, but they were great.


.

[Phoenix]

The 96-98 Jazz stick out like a sore thumb

As do the 84-86 Celtics near the bottom, who were running neck and neck with the 85-87 Lakers nine spots ahead of them.

[dankok8]

As do the 84-86 Celtics near the bottom, who were running neck and neck with the 85-87 Lakers nine spots ahead of them.

The 1984-86 Celtics played a lot of close series where they underperformed.

[Phoenix]

The 1984-86 Celtics played a lot of close series where they underperformed.

I'm sure that's what leads to those ratings, but there isn't that wide of a chasm between the two of them head to head which is where I'm coming from moreso than how they matched up against other teams. But I don't put the same degree of stock into this stuff that you do. Its interesting for challenging pre-conceived notions if nothing else.

[dankok8]

I'm sure that's what leads to those ratings, but there isn't that wide of a chasm between the two of them head to head which is where I'm coming from moreso than how they matched up against other teams. But I don't put the same degree of stock into this stuff that you do. Its interesting for challenging pre-conceived notions if nothing else.

I just think that the Celtics were exceptional in 1986 but not in the surrounding years. Their second best team was probably 1981 and that team was ways behind.

They got outplayed by the Lakers in every single head-to-head series including the one they won in 1984.

[Phoenix]

I just think that the Celtics were exceptional in 1986 but not in the surrounding years. Their second best team was probably 1981 and that team was ways behind.

They got outplayed by the Lakers in every single head-to-head series including the one they won in 1984.

Sure, but your list is telling me a few teams that no-one would consider historically great were better by using the 3 year period. Where would the 86 Celtics rank just as a singular entity against those teams?

[dankok8]

1986 on its own would be 2nd after the 1996-98 Bulls but isn't it unfair to compare a single year to 3-year spans?

1984 Celtics: +6.9 rNet
1985 Celtics: +5.7 rNet
1986 Celtics: +13.1 rNet

Average: +8.3 rNet

[Phoenix]

1986 on its own would be 2nd after the 1996-98 Bulls but isn't it unfair to compare a single year to 3-year spans?

1984 Celtics: +6.9 rNet
1985 Celtics: +5.7 rNet
1986 Celtics: +13.1 rNet

Average: +8.3 rNet
I don't know about fair or unfair, usually when we talk about 'GOAT' teams it's based off singular seasons. Case in point, the 2001 Lakers being completely dominant does alot of the heavy lifting for 2000 and 2002 which were more competitive. Same for the 2017 Warriors vs the 2016 and 2018 versions. Some of those teams aren't even the same rosters from year 1 to year 3, for that matter. Anyways, it's just kind of...odd seeing the 96-98 Jazz being ranked over teams that went all the way. Yes I understand that you can have teams that didn't win a chip be better than a team that did in a different season, but where does that apply out of the teams presented?

[dankok8]

I don't know about fair or unfair, usually when we talk about 'GOAT' teams it's based off singular seasons. Case in point, the 2001 Lakers being completely dominant does alot of the heavy lifting for 2000 and 2002 which were more competitive. Same for the 2017 Warriors vs the 2016 and 2018 versions. Some of those teams aren't even the same rosters from year 1 to year 3, for that matter. Anyways, it's just kind of...odd seeing the 96-98 Jazz being ranked over teams that went all the way. Yes I understand that you can have teams that didn't win a chip be better than a team that did in a different season, but where does that apply out of the teams presented?

More playoff data...

2000 Lakers: +7.9 rNet
2001 Lakers: +19.7 rNet
2002 Lakers: +10.2 rNet

Average: +11.9 rNet

2016 Warriors: +8.7 rNet
2017 Warriors: +17.2 rNet
2018 Warriors: +14.4 rNet

Average: +12.9 rNet

Of course GOAT teams should be ranked based on singular seasons. Agree completely with that. The point of this thread is to broaden it and provide a bit more postseason sample size because data from even one long run of ~20 playoff games is still quite noisy.

Now of course we have confounding variables you mentioned like changing rosters, aging etc.

I think at some point we have to accept that postseason data is noisy but surrounding years can still help increase our confidence. For instance the 2017 Warriors given their also insane 2018 postseason are most probably the real deal when it comes to GOAT level teams. The 1986 Celtics who never once repeated their dominance in surrounding years, I'm much less confident of. Not to mention that they avoided the other best team (obviously the Lakers) in that epic season.

Likewise the strong postseason play of the 1996 and 1998 Jazz makes me pretty confident in saying that the 1997 Jazz are on the short list of the best teams not to win the title. More confident than just the 1997 data would make me.

For a full analysis, I'd also look at the large regular seasons samples too of course but here we're just discussing postseason.


How would you weigh the two components?

Not sure yet but would probably weigh more heavily towards rNet. Will have to look into it but it seems promising to blend the two metrics.

[Im Still Ballin]

Is it not impossible to account for the entire strength of the league? The '80s were post-merger and pre-expansion. rNet and cNet only tell you how a team played relative to its opposition, correct?

[Phoenix]

Likewise the strong postseason play of the 1996 and 1998 Jazz makes me pretty confident in saying that the 1997 Jazz are on the short list of the best teams not to win the title. More confident than just the 1997 data would make me.




How would you rank the 97 Jazz against the 85 Celtics? The data is telling me you'd probably pick Utah, but if that data weren't available where would your instincts lead you as far as knowledge/experience watching those teams?

[Xiao Yao You]

How would you rank the 97 Jazz against the 85 Celtics? The data is telling me you'd probably pick Utah, but if that data weren't available where would your instincts lead you as far as knowledge/experience watching those teams?

Boston

[dankok8]

Is it not impossible to account for the entire strength of the league? The '80s were post-merger and pre-expansion. rNet and cNet only tell you how a team played relative to its opposition, correct?

Yes but I wish you could expand on this point. I'm not sure that strength of the league is a well defined concept to begin with. Assuming an 82 game season the average number of wins in the league is 41. It comes down to how those wins are distributed. I'm not sure facing 4 medium teams is harder than facing 2 bad teams and 2 good teams. I would have to investigate this more. In other words, leagues that lack parity such as post-expansion are not necessarily weaker. At least not obviously so. They just have their wins distributed in a more lop-sided manner.

Something that is easily more impactful and quantifiable than league strength is conference strength. Teams obviously play more regular season games against their own conference so that affects regular season records. In the modern league with 30 teams and 82 games a season, teams play 52 games in their own conference and 30 against the other conference. In the 80's with fewer teams, it was even more lopsided. For instance the 1986 Celtics played 58 games vs. East opponents and 24 games vs. West opponents. Since the East was the tougher conference, it was MUCH easier for the Lakers than for the Celtics. If there is one argument for the 80's Celtics, this is precisely it. And not to mention that in the playoffs, being in the tougher conference can make the playoff run much more difficult too. The Celtics were likely worn down by the time they got to the Lakers in those Finals...

So to summarize, would a team from the expansion era like say the 1996 Bulls win 72 games in 1986? I say on average yes but how many they wins depends in which conference. In the 1986 East they probably win 69 and in the 1986 West they probably win 75. Looking at the 1986 West, they honestly might go 55-3 or something stupendously good against that conference. Other than Houston, no other team had an SRS higher than +1. Of course this is just a guess. I'm working on an actual formula to correct for conference imbalance. I will integrate it into my top 100 list at some point.

[dankok8]

How would you rank the 97 Jazz against the 85 Celtics? The data is telling me you'd probably pick Utah, but if that data weren't available where would your instincts lead you as far as knowledge/experience watching those teams?

My instinct would say Boston but that's doesn't mean I'd be correct. We have to be wary of picking a team just because they "look" more talented. Utah was a team better than its talent alone because Malone/Stockton were always healthy in the playoffs, they had an unstoppable pick and roll and they were so well coached. That's why they disposed of several teams that were more talented like the 1997 Rockets and 1998 Lakers.

Boston was kind of in a transition in 1985. Maxwell was on a downward spiral and got hurt in the Finals, McHale hadn't emerged and they didn't have Walton. Bird also broke his hand before the Finals. The bottom line is they didn't live up their potential.

[Im Still Ballin]

Yes but I wish you could expand on this point. I'm not sure that strength of the league is a well defined concept to begin with. Assuming an 82 game season the average number of wins in the league is 41. It comes down to how those wins are distributed. I'm not sure facing 4 medium teams is harder than facing 2 bad teams and 2 good teams. I would have to investigate this more. In other words, leagues that lack parity such as post-expansion are not necessarily weaker. At least not obviously so. They just have their wins distributed in a more lop-sided manner.

Something that is easily more impactful and quantifiable than league strength is conference strength. Teams obviously play more regular season games against their own conference so that affects regular season records. In the modern league with 30 teams and 82 games a season, teams play 52 games in their own conference and 30 against the other conference. In the 80's with fewer teams, it was even more lopsided. For instance the 1986 Celtics played 58 games vs. East opponents and 24 games vs. West opponents. Since the East was the tougher conference, it was MUCH easier for the Lakers than for the Celtics. If there is one argument for the 80's Celtics, this is precisely it. And not to mention that in the playoffs, being in the tougher conference can make the playoff run much more difficult too. The Celtics were likely worn down by the time they got to the Lakers in those Finals...

So to summarize, would a team from the expansion era like say the 1996 Bulls win 72 games in 1986? I say on average yes but how many they wins depends in which conference. In the 1986 East they probably win 69 and in the 1986 West they probably win 75. Looking at the 1986 West, they honestly might go 55-3 or something stupendously good against that conference. Other than Houston, no other team had an SRS higher than +1. Of course this is just a guess. I'm working on an actual formula to correct for conference imbalance. I will integrate it into my top 100 list at some point.

Good post.


My instinct would say Boston but that's doesn't mean I'd be correct. We have to be wary of picking a team just because they "look" more talented. Utah was a team better than its talent alone because Malone/Stockton were always healthy in the playoffs, they had an unstoppable pick and roll and they were so well coached. That's why they disposed of several teams that were more talented like the 1997 Rockets and 1998 Lakers.

Boston was kind of in a transition in 1985. Maxwell was on a downward spiral and got hurt in the Finals, McHale hadn't emerged and they didn't have Walton. Bird also broke his hand before the Finals. The bottom line is they didn't live up their potential.

McHale began starting late in the season once Maxwell went down with an injury. Including the playoffs, he averaged something like 24/10 on 57% FG over 48 games. Maybe he wasn't at his brilliant best ('86 playoffs and '87 regular season) but he wasn't far off. His passing leveled up once he had an offseason to acclimate to the new role as a starter.

[Phoenix]

My instinct would say Boston but that's doesn't mean I'd be correct. We have to be wary of picking a team just because they "look" more talented. Utah was a team better than its talent alone because Malone/Stockton were always healthy in the playoffs, they had an unstoppable pick and roll and they were so well coached. That's why they disposed of several teams that were more talented like the 1997 Rockets and 1998 Lakers.



You seem wary to just say the 97 Jazz were better. Everything you said after your first sentence doesn't align with what you're saying your instinctual pick would be, so if you think Utah was better just own it.

[dankok8]

You seem wary to just say the 97 Jazz were better. Everything you said after your first sentence doesn't align with what you're saying your instinctual pick would be, so if you think Utah was better just own it.

You asked me what I would do without the data.

Of course given the data, the 97 Jazz were better. It's actually hard to argue otherwise unless you make a fictitious argument.

[RogueBorg]

You asked me what I would do without the data.

Of course given the data, the 97 Jazz were better. It's actually hard to argue otherwise unless you make a fictitious argument.

I would take Boston. Who's going to guard MVP Bird and there's a rather significant mismatch at center, Ostertag was a bum. I also like my chances with DJ guarding Stockton and McHale matching up with Malone both offensively and defensively. I think McHale can do enough to cause Utah problems. Not outplay him, but give him fits. But it's Larry Bird...Utah has no answer for that guy. If everyone's healthy, I'm taking the Celtics.

[dankok8]

I would take Boston. Who's going to guard MVP Bird and there's a rather significant mismatch at center, Ostertag was a bum. I also like my chances with DJ guarding Stockton and McHale matching up with Malone both offensively and defensively. I think McHale can do enough to cause Utah problems. Not outplay him, but give him fits. But it's Larry Bird...Utah has no answer for that guy. If everyone's healthy, I'm taking the Celtics.

Well that's a fictitious argument because Boston wasn't healthy.

I also would take a healthy Boston team hypothetically but if we're comparing them as they were, I'm taking the Jazz.

[Phoenix]

You asked me what I would do without the data.

Of course given the data, the 97 Jazz were better. It's actually hard to argue otherwise unless you make a fictitious argument.

Yes but your comments here:

"Utah was a team better than its talent alone because Malone/Stockton were always healthy in the playoffs, they had an unstoppable pick and roll and they were so well coached. That's why they disposed of several teams that were more talented like the 1997 Rockets and 1998 Lakers."

aren't data driven talking points. I'm just saying if you think Utah was better with or without data backing it based on observations like the above, just say so.

[Xiao Yao You]

I would take Boston. Who's going to guard MVP Bird and there's a rather significant mismatch at center, Ostertag was a bum. I also like my chances with DJ guarding Stockton and McHale matching up with Malone both offensively and defensively. I think McHale can do enough to cause Utah problems. Not outplay him, but give him fits. But it's Larry Bird...Utah has no answer for that guy. If everyone's healthy, I'm taking the Celtics.

Ostertag was hardly a bum. One of the best offensive rebounders and rim protectors in the league at the time. Sloan loved Collins though. That would have been the bigger problem