Sansterre's Top 100 Teams of All Time

[Baller234]

Lol, how are there so many spots separating teams that won back to back championships?

The 96 bulls were that much better than tha 97 Bulls? Lol, it was literally the same team. If anything the 97 team had the benefit of experience.

[JBSptfn]

Having that BS 2001 Fluker team over any of the 80's Laker teams is beyond reprehensible. The 00-02 Flukers wouldn't even get out of the first round in the 80's.

The real list:

1. 86 Celtics
2. 62 Celtics
3. 83 Sixers
4. 87 Lakers
5. 85 Lakers
6. 67 Sixers
7. 89 Pistons

The Bulls aren't up there because they won in a watered-down league. The 00-02 Flukers were a BS joke that won titles on the back of the officials. I wouldn't have any of their teams in the top 200 ever.

[dankok8]

Sansterre's formula does underrate teams from the 60's and 70's. With 2-3 playoff rounds, those teams have less time to build up their oSRS which is what the ranking formula heavily depends on. The fact that none of Russell's Celtics are in the top 30 is a bit weird. 1972 Lakers probably look a lot better too if they had a 1st round to beat up on some minnow by 20 points/game...

I would venture a guess that late 90's and early 00's teams are also a bit underrated because that was an era of very low pace. It's tough to generate a large point differential when the pace is lower. Perhaps a better formula would use Net Rating which is normalized per 100 possessions instead of MOV/SRS but the problem with Net Rating is that it's only available for every series since 1974 IIRC. It can be calculated prior to 1974 by taking total playoff numbers but errors probably increase.