Where do the Pistons of late 80's early 90's rank in NBA History

This was a team who took out Michael Jordan and the Bulls, Larry Bird and the Bulls, and Magic and the Lakers all in the same season and think they should be ranked among the best teams of all time. They also beat a good Portland team and won 3 in a row on the road in 1990. This team really should have been a three-peat because they got screwed in Game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals.

So where do they rank?

1. 90's Bulls

2. 80's Lakers

3. 80's Celtics

4. ???????

Because the Pistons defeated all 3 of those teams to their championships, #1 I believe.

[QUOTE=sportsfan76] This team really should have been a three-peat because they got screwed in Game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals.
[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting fact that gets glossed over in history. Isiah clearly gets tripped on the final play by Magic, but no foul. Definitely should have been a three peat and maybe 4 Finals in a row if Isiah didn't have the mental fart pass to Bird.

Truly one of the, if not the greatest team in NBA history. Changed a culture.

[QUOTE=sportsfan76]This was a team who took out Michael Jordan and the Bulls, Larry Bird and the Bulls, and Magic and the Lakers all in the same season and think they should be ranked among the best teams of all time. They also beat a good Portland team and won 3 in a row on the road in 1990. This team really should have been a three-peat because they got screwed in Game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals.

So where do they rank?

1. 90's Bulls

2. 80's Lakers

3. 80's Celtics

4. ???????[/QUOTE]


The question has to be asked though.....would they have beaten the Lakers in '89 with a healthy Magic and Scott? Maybe.....maybe not. I don't know the answer to that question.

As far as the greatest teams of all time, I've only ever seen one team that I think might have been able to beat the '67 Sixers in a seven game series and that was the '86 Celtics. A series between those two teams would be something to see.

[QUOTE=Helix]The question has to be asked though.....would they have beaten the Lakers in '89 with a healthy Magic and Scott? Maybe.....maybe not. I don't know the answer to that question.

As far as the greatest teams of all time, I've only ever seen one team that I think might have been able to beat the '67 Sixers in a seven game series and that was the '86 Celtics. A series between those two teams would be something to see.[/QUOTE]


we both know the question to that question which is yes they would have won because

1. They were on a mission and hungry from the year before
2. They have the home court advantage

They dont beat 2nd three peat bulls

[QUOTE=Helix]The question has to be asked though.....would they have beaten the Lakers in '89 with a healthy Magic and Scott? Maybe.....maybe not. I don't know the answer to that question.

As far as the greatest teams of all time, I've only ever seen one team that I think might have been able to beat the '67 Sixers in a seven game series and that was the '86 Celtics. A series between those two teams would be something to see.[/QUOTE]

+1 for the last comment, although I'd also like to see the '87 or '85 Lakers going against either, as well. Also, a matchup between the '67 Sixers and the '72 Lakers would be interesting, to find out which was Wilt's greatest team.

The '89 Lakers got swept, but all 4 games were close. It seems like, even with "only" a healthy Magic and still without Scott, the series could easily be at 2-2 after 4 games. Getting swept like this makes them one of the most underrated teams ever, imo. They swept the West 11-0, including going 8-0 against a 47 and a 55 win team.

[QUOTE=sportsfan76]we both know the question to that question which is yes they would have won because

1. They were on a mission and hungry from the year before
2. They have the home court advantage[/QUOTE]


No, I DON'T know the answer to that question. There's a helluva difference in that Laker team with and without Magic and Scott. I DO agree though that that Piston team was on a mission and were hungry for a title. That's why it's a tough call.

Overrated thugs.

Yeah I hated them...ok, they are one of the greatest teams but both my Bulls threepeat teams >

Probably 9th all time. Here's my old post comparing the 89 pistons to the 04 pistons:

[quote=G

[QUOTE=Helix]The question has to be asked though.....would they have beaten the Lakers in '89 with a healthy Magic and Scott? Maybe.....maybe not. I don't know the answer to that question.

As far as the greatest teams of all time, I've only ever seen one team that I think might have been able to beat the '67 Sixers in a seven game series and that was the '86 Celtics. A series between those two teams would be something to see.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't have been a sweep but I'd imagine the Pistons win in 6 in somewhat convincing fashion. You're right losing Scott before the series was a big hit and losing Magic essentially in game 2 was something they couldn't recover from but the Pistons were also doing things that were giving the Lakers fits and would've continued to do so. Even before Magic got hurt, he wasn't exactly having a good start to the series (and it's likely he would've recovered to an extent) but the Pistons were also pretty relentless in attacking Magic on offense and Dumars had jumped up enough a level that he would have just kept destroying Magic off the bounce all series. This would have forced the Lakers to rejigger their line-up to a certain extent but at the end, it wouldn't have hurt the Pistons. They would've ended up playing Rodman at the 4 (in theory having Magic guard him, which would've been something of a nightmare for how good Rodman was cutting off the ball at that point in his career). It also would have allowed Daly to play Thomas, Johnson, and Dumar together at certain points. The way that Pistons team was constructed (especially with a face up threat like Aguirre instead of a post threat like Dantley) was just a match up nightmare for the Lakers. It just would've been one of those series where a team like the Lakers would've kept searching for an answer and trying to play catch up with the Piston, which is just death when playing against a coach like Daly (who had no issues playing odd ball line-ups).

Agreed with the '67 Sixers. I don't think people quite fathom how bonkers that team was. Having a player like Billy Cunningham (who even at that point in his early career was an All-NBA talent) come off the bench, is something that just can't be quantified and his ability to spell just about anyone in their starting five.

[QUOTE=Psileas]+1 for the last comment, although I'd also like to see the '87 or '85 Lakers going against either, as well. Also, a matchup between the '67 Sixers and the '72 Lakers would be interesting, to find out which was Wilt's greatest team.

The '89 Lakers got swept, but all 4 games were close. It seems like, even with "only" a healthy Magic and still without Scott, the series could easily be at 2-2 after 4 games. Getting swept like this makes them one of the most underrated teams ever, imo. They swept the West 11-0, including going 8-0 against a 47 and a 55 win team.[/QUOTE]


Yea, ANY of those match-ups would be a sight to see. I've always felt that the 85 Lakers were slightly better than the 87 team, but I don't think either would have beat the 86 Celtics. A relatively healthy Bill Walton in 86 is what really put that team over the top. As for the 67 Sixers vs those Laker teams.....I just think that Sixer frontline would have been too much for either Laker team.

The Sixers vs the 72 Lakers.....hehe, Wilt vs Wilt. Wilt always said he felt the Sixer team was easily the better team, and I think he DID downplay somewhat just how GOOD that 72 Laker team was. Once again though, I just think that Sixer frontline would have been too much.

Your points about that 89 Laker team have to be considered. I think most people see the Pistons won the series 4-0 and even with Magic and Scott, they don't think there would have been much difference. I don't agree at all.....that was a very good Laker team and I think they were on a mission of their own that year.

[QUOTE=Helix]Your points about that 89 Laker team have to be considered. I think most people see the Pistons won the series 4-0 and even with Magic and Scott, they don't think there would have been much difference. I don't agree at all.....that was a very good Laker team and I think they were on a mission of their own that year.[/QUOTE]

Something to keep in mind when looking at this: The Pistons beat the Lakers in the regular season twice in very similar games to the ones they played in the Finals (in fairness, Magic was out during the second game but it was also before the Pistons acquired Aguirre). Also, after inserting Aguirre into the starting line-up (this is after 4 games with the Pistons), the Pistons went 28-4 for the rest of the regular season and 39-6 including the playoff before they made the Finals. Again, the Lakers obviously would've taken a game or two but this Pistons team was just a match up problem across the board for the Lakers.

No legacy. If Magic doesn't get hurt in 89 they're another one and done team

Do people talk about the 04 pistons as some era defining team? Because that's the bad boys pistons if not for a timely Magic injury

Imagine if Duncan had gone down for the count in game 2 of the 2005 NBA finals and the Pistons win and the everyone talked them up with the Lakers and Spurs as the team of the decade. They'd have the same legacy as the bad boys

You mean like how Duncan went down before the '00 playoffs (and the Spurs going 3-1 against the Lakers in the regular season)?

1. The '89 Lakers had trouble with the Pistons even with a completely healthy roster.

2. Dumars was just destroying Magic in the series before Magic got hurt. It was unlikely that would have changed even with a healthy Scott (which would have resulted in the Lakers rejiggering their line-up which would have benefited the Pistons more).

[QUOTE=steve]You mean like how Duncan went down before the '00 playoffs (and the Spurs going 3-1 against the Lakers in the regular season)?

1. The '89 Lakers had trouble with the Pistons even with a completely healthy roster.

2. Dumars was just destroying Magic in the series before Magic got hurt. It was unlikely that would have changed even with a healthy Scott (which would have resulted in the Lakers rejiggering their line-up which would have benefited the Pistons more).[/QUOTE]
Its funny how Laker fans always dismiss their teams losses to injuries. But refuse to acknowledge that every time they won, a key player to the opposition was inured or missing as well.

[QUOTE=steve]Something to keep in mind when looking at this: The Pistons beat the Lakers in the regular season twice in very similar games to the ones they played in the Finals (in fairness, Magic was out during the second game but it was also before the Pistons acquired Aguirre). Also, after inserting Aguirre into the starting line-up (this is after 4 games with the Pistons), the Pistons went 28-4 for the rest of the regular season and 39-6 including the playoff before they made the Finals. Again, the Lakers obviously would've taken a game or two but this Pistons team was just a match up problem across the board for the Lakers.[/QUOTE]


Just so you know, I think a lot of what you're saying is spot on. I'm not at all saying that with a healthy Scott and Magic the Lakers win. What I am saying is that with Scott and Magic healthy and playing, the Lakers certainly would have had a better chance to have won the series. I don't rule out the "possibility" that they might have, although I DO think it would have been an uphill battle for them.

[QUOTE=steve]You mean like how Duncan went down before the '00 playoffs (and the Spurs going 3-1 against the Lakers in the regular season)?

1. The '89 Lakers had trouble with the Pistons even with a completely healthy roster.

2. Dumars was just destroying Magic in the series before Magic got hurt. It was unlikely that would have changed even with a healthy Scott (which would have resulted in the Lakers rejiggering their line-up which would have benefited the Pistons more).[/QUOTE]

And how many times have we seen the regular season not matter at all in the playoffs?

Best case scenario for the Spurs in 2000 is that they learn how badly Shaq crushes Duncan/D-Rob a year early

[QUOTE=Bodhi]And how many times have we seen the regular season not matter at all in the playoffs?

Best case scenario for the Spurs in 2000 is that they learn how badly Shaq crushes Duncan/D-Rob a year early[/QUOTE]

Well, the Spurs were worse against the Lakers in '01. Duncan put up 23/12/4 in that series to Shaq's 27/13/2.5, not to mention the Spurs essentially lost their third best player in the series before. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here?

The point is we were work with information we have on hand and there's enough evidence present that signals the '89 Lakers had a lot of trouble with the Pistons (this doesn't even bring up how much trouble they had with them the season before, which required a Thomas injury and a phantom foul to pull out the series).

[QUOTE=ZMonkey11]This is an interesting fact that gets glossed over in history. Isiah clearly gets tripped on the final play by Magic, but no foul. Definitely should have been a three peat and maybe 4 Finals in a row if Isiah didn't have the mental fart pass to Bird.

Truly one of the, if not the greatest team in NBA history. Changed a culture.[/QUOTE]

The Pistons were down three when Isiah was fouled, one second left. Isiah would have to miss intentionally on his second FT and hope for a miracle tip in at the buzzer to tie the game. Not going to happen.

Also, I don't get the crying over Laimbeer's obvious foul on Kareem. You can't bump someone mid-air while they're in the act of shooting. Thats a foul every time.

[QUOTE=steve]It wouldn't have been a sweep but I'd imagine the Pistons win in 6 in somewhat convincing fashion. You're right losing Scott before the series was a big hit and losing Magic essentially in game 2 was something they couldn't recover from but the Pistons were also doing things that were giving the Lakers fits and would've continued to do so. Even before Magic got hurt, he wasn't exactly having a good start to the series (and it's likely he would've recovered to an extent) but the Pistons were also pretty relentless in attacking Magic on offense and Dumars had jumped up enough a level that he would have just kept destroying Magic off the bounce all series. This would have forced the Lakers to rejigger their line-up to a certain extent but at the end, it wouldn't have hurt the Pistons. They would've ended up playing Rodman at the 4 (in theory having Magic guard him, which would've been something of a nightmare for how good Rodman was cutting off the ball at that point in his career). It also would have allowed Daly to play Thomas, Johnson, and Dumar together at certain points. The way that Pistons team was constructed (especially with a face up threat like Aguirre instead of a post threat like Dantley) was just a match up nightmare for the Lakers. It just would've been one of those series where a team like the Lakers would've kept searching for an answer and trying to play catch up with the Piston, which is just death when playing against a coach like Daly (who had no issues playing odd ball line-ups).

Agreed with the '67 Sixers. I don't think people quite fathom how bonkers that team was. Having a player like Billy Cunningham (who even at that point in his early career was an All-NBA talent) come off the bench, is something that just can't be quantified and his ability to spell just about anyone in their starting five.[/QUOTE]


Games 2, 3, and 4 were nip and tuck until well into the 4th quarter. Games 2 and 3 came down to the final possessions. That was [I]without[/I] Magic and Scott. The Lakers starting backcourt would have made a huge difference in that series. The Pistons were not nearly as invincible as you're making them out to be, and Worthy's unstoppable attack would have been even more unstoppable with a full Lakers lineup.

[QUOTE=steve]Well, the Spurs were worse against the Lakers in '01. Duncan put up 23/12/4 in that series to Shaq's 27/13/2.5, not to mention the Spurs essentially lost their third best player in the series before. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here?

The point is we were work with information we have on hand and there's enough evidence present that signals the '89 Lakers had a lot of trouble with the Pistons (this doesn't even bring up how much trouble they had with them the season before, which required a Thomas injury and a [B]phantom foul to pull out the series[/B]).[/QUOTE]

This I don't get. There was contact and it could have gone either way. But I hear Celtics fans (especially Simmons) complain constantly about all the cheap shots the Pistons took and how they tried to step on McHale's foot and hurt Bird's back in the 88 series

Are you really shocked that the refs might error ever so slightly on the side of caution against the dirtiest team in league history?

And it was a 7 game series

Sorry but if all your hopes came down to getting a favorable call in game 6 then you weren't the better team

You can ask the Spurs all about that

[QUOTE=Bodhi]No legacy. If Magic doesn't get hurt in 89 they're another one and done team

Do people talk about the 04 pistons as some era defining team? Because that's the bad boys pistons if not for a timely Magic injury[/QUOTE]

Considering that the refs screwed them out of a title in '88 with the worst call in playoff history, there legacy is not where it should be because they should have won 3 straight.