GOAT List: Top 25 Greatest Teams in NBA History

[Manute for Ever!]

Great to have you back, GOAT, ignore the trolls and I hope you see this through.

[EarlTheGoat]

Wow, excellent thread idea. Im suscribing to this, should be an interesting read.

The first team you posted kinda reminds me of this season`s Celtics. They didnt win many games in the regular season (in comparison with other contenders), the key stars and players were/are very old, and few people gave them a chance.

They managed to get to the finals with heart, defense and experience, a lot of experience. In the finals they took LA to seven games also, although in 2010 the final result was different, but it still was very close.

I wonder what more teams will be included, I expect some teams from the 80s: Lakers, Celtics and Sixer, some years of the 90s Bulls and perhaps Spurs and Lakers from the 00s. But who knows.

[Gifted Mind]

Quickly, we're on the same page with the Celtics, I believe I ended up with six of their eleven teams on this list, so that say a lot, to make up almost a quarter of the list.

On to the Celtics and Lakers. I will tell you that it came down to the '08 Celtics and '09 Lakers. I ruled out the '10 version because of their lackluster regular season and struggles in the finals against a supremely out-manned Boston squad. The top ten on this list are very special. They dominated the regular season (60+ wins) and Postseason (Either multiple sweeps or no seven game series) Had major win streaks (multiple 8+ game streaks) and with one exception outscored their opponents by at least 8 points per game on average.

I don't see either the Celtics of 2008 or the Lakers of 2009 ever cracking a top 15. You'd have to knock out teams with equal or better resumes in MUCH more competitive and less watered down eras. Look at the drop of in win percentage of those teams come the postseason. Both teams were taken to seven games in the conference semi-finals for goodness sake.

I might have stole a spot from the one of those two I left out by including the '69 Celtics purely out of sentiment and love for the underdog story. But I feel okay about that.

The strongest subjective argument I can make is one based on how much easier it is to win 60 games in today's NBA than it was in the 1960's or even 1980's.

Example

The 1964 Celtics made the final cut. They went 59-21 during the regular season compared to 65-17 by the '09 Lakers and 66-16 from the 2008 Celtics. At first it seems like the Lakers and modern Celtics had significantly better regular seasons, but consider this:

The 1964 Celtics played elite competition in 38 of their 80 games.

Cincinnati with Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas 12 times

The Warriors with Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond 8 times

The Lakers with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor 9 times

The Hawks with Bob Pettit and Lenny Wilkens 9 times

Compare that to todays schedule which had Boston in 2008 playing the leagues elite teams that year (Detroit, LA, SA, New Orleans, Utah and Phoenix) 13 times and Los Angeles playing 2009's elite teams (Denver, San Antonio (barely), Boston, Orlando and Cleveland) a total of 13 games against the elite.

To put it another way, when Boston started the 1963-64 season 23-3 they lost all three games to the Royals (Oscar was MVP that year) who they also beat four times in that stretch.

Imagine if last year the Lakers had to play seven of their first 25 against the Cavs and MVP to be Lebron James, as well as eight more combined games against the Magic, Celtics and Suns. Would they have started 23-3?

Who knows, but in 2009 they started 21-3 and in those 24 games they played a total of three games against the leagues top seven teams after themselves and zero against the top four. (Boston, Orlando, San Antonio, Cleveland)

Anyway...there's that.

I'm aware of the difficulty of posting a stronger record in the 60s. In fact, I mentioned that in my last post while praising the Boston Celtic Dynasty.

Also, many look at their records, but forget that it was a much more difficult task to achieve a high record in those days do to the number of times you face all the strong teams in the league with multiple HOFs.

Nonetheless, I must admit I spoke incorrectly about them being Top 15. Normally when "Greatest Teams of All-Time" lists are made, teams are limited to either 1 team per core players, or 1 team per every 3-4 years. Thus, you would see only the 96 Bulls, and not the 97 and 98 Bulls because of these stipulations. Thinking in terms of this, I said Top 15. However, if you wanted to have a raw list of Top 25 teams, with no limits on teams according to players or time frames, then no they would not be Top 15. And you brought up excellent points demonstrating why.

[Toizumi]

[QUOTE]Down by one with seconds to play, Boston called a time out and, as he had learned to do over his three years as a coach Russell asked

[Gotterdammerung]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation.

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10.

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite )
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9th. 1970 New York Knicks
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

[NY-Knicks]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation.

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10.

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite )
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
-->9th. 1970 New York Knicks <--
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

[AJ2k8]

Welcome back G.O.A.T.. Good to see you around

[Gotterdammerung]

The 1970 edition was possibly the most intelligent team ever: completely resourceful, unsulfish, and due to their tremendous savvy, they controlled the tempo of almost every game. Strong line-up, strong bench, impeccable philosophy by Holzman: "hit the open man." A cohesive ball club, in which the whole was much better than the sum of their parts. The Knicks inherited the principles of the Russellian Celtics that a powerful defense could generate sufficient offense to win titles.

Their weaknesses? Not enough size in the frontcourt. No overwhelming speed. No power players off the pench.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm very glad to see you posting again, GOAT. This board has improved slightly since your departure, because of an influx of historians and older, wiser posters that isn't crippled by the ESPN generation.

What's often missing from the top all-time team list are reasons why team# 10 would beat team# 15 in a neutral setting. One day I may manage to pull that off, perhaps with only the top 10.

Here's my list:


15th. 1983 Philadelphia Sixers
14th. 1995 Houston Rockets (my all time favorite )
13th. 2008 Boston Celtics
12th. 2005 San Antonio Spurs
11th. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks
10th. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers
9th. 1970 New York Knicks
8th. 2001 LA Lakers
7th. 1989 Detroit Pistons
6th. 1984 Boston Celtics
5th. 1965 Boston Celtics
4th. 1992 Chicago Bulls
3rd. 1972 LA Lakers
2nd. 1996 Chicago Bulls
1st. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.


Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt. I've seen a few posts like that around, as I've still browsed the site for news, just never logged in. The more I seen and the now that the volume of posters is down a lot, I thought it'd be a good time to get some more perspective on some of the things I've been working on.

Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation. I mean there's never really been anything like the 1960'sa Celtics since them, which leads me to believe that it's probably not possible. Not just the winning, but the fact that almost everyone of those guys who started as Celtics and retired as Celtics. And the outgoing players trained the guys who replaced them. To put it biblically Cousy and Sharman beget KC and Sam, Ramsey beget Hondo, Heinsohn begat Sanders and to some extent Auerbach beget Russell. In my opinion the of the eleven greatest players to ever where the Celtics uniform (prior to KG) Nine of them were career Celtics (Russ, Cousy, Hondo, Bird, McHale, Cowens, Pierce, Heinsohn, Sam Jones) and the other two (Parrish and Sharman) joined Boston very early in their careers and played out at least their prime there.

Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.

[jlauber]

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.


Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt. I've seen a few posts like that around, as I've still browsed the site for news, just never logged in. The more I seen and the now that the volume of posters is down a lot, I thought it'd be a good time to get some more perspective on some of the things I've been working on.

Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation. I mean there's never really been anything like the 1960'sa Celtics since them, which leads me to believe that it's probably not possible. Not just the winning, but the fact that almost everyone of those guys who started as Celtics and retired as Celtics. And the outgoing players trained the guys who replaced them. To put it biblically Cousy and Sharman beget KC and Sam, Ramsey beget Hondo, Heinsohn begat Sanders and to some extent Auerbach beget Russell. In my opinion the of the eleven greatest players to ever where the Celtics uniform (prior to KG) Nine of them were career Celtics (Russ, Cousy, Hondo, Bird, McHale, Cowens, Pierce, Heinsohn, Sam Jones) and the other two (Parrish and Sharman) joined Boston very early in their careers and played out at least their prime there.

Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.

The '86 Celtics were a great team, but unfortunately, we never got to see them play the Lakers that year. In any case, here is my top-5, and I could go into detail while the '72 Lakers are #1 (they absolutely DOMINATED the league, and EVERY team.) Perhaps later I will post the reasons, but here is my list...

1. 71-72 LA
2. 66-67 Philaldephia
3. 95-96 Chicago
4. 70-71 Milwaukee
5. 86-87 LA

As for those great Celtic teams... most all of them were deserving. Later on I'll give you MY take on them.

BTW, an interesting fact about the '69 Celtics...the Lakers were ONE PLAY away from winning the Finals, 4-1. Had Johnny Egan been able to hold onto the ball in that pivotal game four, the Lakers would have won that game, and been up 3-1. In game five Wilt finally asserted himself, and crushed Russell, and LA won easily, 117-104. So, ONE PLAY separated those two teams from a 4-1 series loss to a 4-3 series win.

[Gotterdammerung]

You forgot an obvious one...(probably) It's a lot of peoples #1 all-time.

Crap. I put down 1984 when I meant 1986. Was thinking of a whackjob fan who argued that the 84 celtics was superior to the 86 edition, and he actually had a decent case.

The 1986 Celts was definitely the strongest of the Bird Celtics, but they fall short due to extenuating circumstances (86 Lakers wilted to the upstart Rockets).

Also, I could shove in the 1980 Lakers and the 1977 Blazers in there somewhere in the teens.

Anyway, one of the main reasons I decided to come back for the off-season was the post you did on Shaq and Wilt.

Why, thanks. Its always great to know that I inspired others!

Anyway, I think it's really hard to say why a team from the 1960's specifically would beat a team from the 1990's. They were two different games. The three-point line changes everything, not to mention the rate of league expansion vs. growth of talent pool equation.

No question.

If you transplanted any of the 1960s team to today, they would more than likely lose, due to a lack of familarity with many sophisticated things (illegal defenses, new rules, athleticism, tattoos, plastic surgery, etc.). But I wonder what would happen if they were given a month or so worth of training, preperation, a training camp of sorts, maybe a summer's worth of updating, and then the round robin tournament of the GOAT teams kicks off.

Also, vice versa: wht happens when you send, say, the 2010 Lakers to 1965? Will they be able to up the pace and play with the faster teams? Be able to score without the advent of the 3 point line, without modern rules, survive all that physical play?

Getting back on track though...I think a discussion about why Team A beats Team B in a hypothetical is a lot of fun, but I don't think it provides for a very interesting list because it's opinion based.

On the contrary:

Because we do pre-season speculation, and pre-game speculation, and playoff predictions, that makes for all the interest in the game. Now, if we chose to adhere to the rules why teams win or lose championships (chemistry, maturity, talent, savvy, coaching, etc.) Then we can sort of guess which GOAT would have the edge over another.

But if we're simple homers who grew up worshipping a team, we'll bend those principles in the favor of our teams. I'd argue for the 1995 Rockets over every team, and pick a stat that elevates them over the other GOATs.

What I've tried to do is demonstrate specific characteristics and accomplishments that set these specific teams apart from the numerous other deserving candidates.

One drawback to that is if you stick to an abstract standard, a stat-heavy criteria, you'll end up with an implausible list, like Hollinger.

A legit case can be made for any team that has ever won an NBA title, the fact that they beat everyone who was put in front of them suggests nothing to make us assume that they would certainly lose to any other team, fellow Champions or not.

You're not gonna sabotage your list that easily.

So when I post #24 later today and people start complaining because they think (and are probably right) that a team they like better and are more familiar with could easily beat this team, I'll not be surprised and I won't shy away from expressing a counterpoint, but I'm not going to expect anyone to change their mind.

Don't worry. As long you educate us ig'nant fools, you've done your job.

[G.O.A.T]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]#24 1950 Minneapolis Lakers[/FONT]

[FONT="Arial"]Head Coach: Johyn Kundla
Most skilled Player: George Mikan
Most Important Player: George Mikan
Other Starters: Jim Pollard, Vern Mikkelsen, Arnie Ferrin, Slater Martin
Key Bench Players: Herm Schaefer, Bob Harrison, Swede Carlson

Regular Season Record: 51-17 (1st Central Division)
Postseason Record: 11-2
NBA Finals: Beat the Syracuse Nationals four games to two.
Longest Winning Streak: 14 games
Points Scored per Game: 84.1
Points Allowed per Game: 75.7[/FONT]

[SIZE="3"][URL=

[magnax1]

50's NBA teams and players=confusing. I have no idea what to think of them.

[G.O.A.T]

50's NBA teams and players=confusing. I have no idea what to think of them.

This article will give you a little background on why they were so important.

Think of them as any other pro athletes in the 1950's. They were playing the game at the highest level that existed at that time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nice write up on the 1969 Celtics, one of the more interesting teams in NBA history. I'll be interested to see if you have one of the 3peat Laker teams, if so, which one? The 2001 team destroyed the playoffs, but had a modest regular season for an all-time great team and the 2000 team started 67-13 and they didn't seem to care much about the last 2 games and they were 64-12, but lost a game Shaq missed, but they didn't dominate the playoffs and lacked a 3rd guy in the playoffs, they didn't have a true 3rd guy the following year, but Kobe improved and gave them 2 superstars, hence their dominance.