Where the Warriors rank among the NBA's 50 greatest teams of all time

[HOoopCityJones]

You can tell the analytic guys have been waiting for this, the fact 14 Spurs and 15 GSW are so high is a testament to the era of Basketball we're in.

[SecondFiddle]

Yeah they are a fringe 10-spot All Time Great Team. The amazing part about this is how they are such a high ranking all time great team with only one hall of famer. All the other All Time Great teams have multiple Hall of Famers while Steph Curry didn't need anyone besides himself to propel a team to these heights. He is the GOAT PG and will be very high in the All Time Rankings when his career is all said and done.

You have the lowest rep i've ever seen, its amazing, astounding, astonishing and a little f..cked up. Remember, Don't just troll, troll harder!!!

[warriorfan]

You have the lowest rep i've ever seen, its amazing, astounding, astonishing and a little f..cked up. Remember, Don't just troll, troll harder!!!

What can you say? Some people just can't handle the truth.

Who else on the Warriors is making Hall of Fame besides Curry? Klay and Iguodala are probably not. Lee is a no. Bogut is a no. It's a pretty safe bet to place that Curry is going to be the only Hall of Fame member on the '15 GS team. I just don't see any of those other guys making it.

[1987_Lakers]

What can you say? Some people just can't handle the truth.

Who else on the Warriors is making Hall of Fame besides Curry? Klay and Iguodala are probably not. Lee is a no. Bogut is a no. It's a pretty safe bet to place that Curry is going to be the only Hall of Fame member on the '15 GS team. I just don't see any of those other guys making it.

Basketball Hall of Fame is easy to get into.

Iggy does have an Olympic Gold Medal and the Finals MVP, maybe voters will vote him in one day?

Klay is still very young and just made the All-Star Team, if he makes a few more and has a long career he will get votes too.

[SHAQisGOAT]

'96 Bulls had the best record and were a tremendous team but much more comes to the table and I'd most likely have the '86 Celtics at #1, all things considered.

Imo, '83 76ers and '72 Lakers make the top10... How about '01 LA?

'85 Lakers were stacked like crazy, mighty potent offense, one of the best ever... but not top10 all-time team, in my book.

And were the **** are the Bad Boys? Just a joke to see all those teams above them...

'08 Celtics are way too low.

Oh, and how about the '73 Knicks? Have them coming up the same but with the 3pt-line and they'd be champions TODAY (on the other hand, if '15 GS played in the 70's, without a 3pt-line, much more physicality, true handchecking... they wouldn't beat those Knicks).

Wasn't '65 Boston the best out of those Russell's dynasty teams? Either that or '62.

Too many older teams in the top 10. They wouldn't be championship contender in today's NBA. Warriors at top 10 sounds about right.

They're rightfully there, to say the least...
That's like saying these Warriors wouldn't be/do shit in a time where the NBA didn't have a 3pt-line, that's like calling out Curry because he wouldn't even be close to the MVP in the 80's due to the superstars in the league, much more physicality, non-guard oriented league (look at Zeke, Price, KJ, Stockton...), little dudes not lasting all that long, and even way less emphasis on the 3pt-shot while players didn't come up with it... And these hold much more water than what you've just said.

And, tbh, '15 Warriors wouldn't beat all but a couple - at the most - from those teams in that top10; given the same "circumstances", in a 7-games series.
Hell, they wouldn't beat teams like the '83 76ers or the '72 Lakers, that didn't even make that top10...

Shit, anybody really thinks these Warriors could beat the 2001 Lakers in a 7-game series? They're ranked above there Gimme a break...

Calling '15 GS a top10 all-time team is too much of stretch in my book, easily...

37. 1983-84 Celtics

Boston's plus-4.2 playoff margin of victory ranks 42nd among NBA champions. The Celtics needed seven games to dispatch of a 47-win New York Knicks team in the conference semifinals and went the distance again in the NBA Finals against a relatively weak Lakers squad that had gone 54-28 in the regular season. Boston ranks this high by virtue of leaguewide quality of play; 1983-84 rates as the most competitive season since the NBA expanded beyond eight teams.

Weak Lakers squad?
Kareem still playing extremely well, Magic really coming into his own, sophomore Worthy already pretty good, McAdoo very serviceable off the bench, Michael Cooper, Rambis, rookie Byron Scott, Wilkes who got injured for good along the way, Swen Nater in his last season... One of the most stacked teams you'll see, killing in the Playoffs too, most people expected them to win it all at some point... Let's talk about that rs record though

Thing with the '84 Celtics is that many people only look at names and record, while they weren't even close to the '86 C's, for example, at all... McHale wasn't at his best yet, Cornbread wasn't close to his previous best level, Ainge wasn't yet doing much at all, DJ was coming in overweight and after injuries and other "issues" while he had not developed into that very good "PG-version" of himself from later on, Wedman dealt with injuries... Plus, they all played well below their standards throughout the Playoffs.
Bird carried that team all the way, like I've said many times for the PS he led them in points, rebounds, assists, steals, FG% and FT% all the way to the title against stacked teams.

[rmt]

This is the fallacy I was talking about in the 2000-2015 thread - ranking a team based on advanced metrics vs the competition of that year instead of thinking about the match ups between the different teams. No matter what advanced stats, point differentials, etc teams like 2014 Spurs and 2015 Warriors have - can they defend against great teams with dominant big men? I think the answer is no and therefore they can't be ranked higher than them.

Then people will say - which rules are they playing under? It's like comparing tennis players these days with the current racquet and string technology vs wooden racquets. Take Nadal and put him back in the 70s with the wooden racquets and faster surfaces - would he win 14 GSs? No way.

[D-Wade316]

15 GSW are nowhere near historically great. Just stop. Healthy Cavs would beat this team 100% sure. Hobbled Kyrie gave Curry fits. Cavs played good defense enough to slow down the Warriors but were lacking firepower to compete in the 4th. The Spurs and Clippers(disregarding the choke) would also beat them. Lots of teams from 00-15 could dispatch this Warriors.

14 Spurs
13 Spurs
13 Heat
12 Heat
12 Thunder???
11 Heat(outside the choke job)
11 Mavs
09 Lakers
08 Boston
07 Spurs
05 Spurs
05 Pistons
04 Pistons
04 Lakers(yes)
03 Spurs(yes)
03 Lakers(yes)
02 Kings
00-02 Lakers
00 Blazers

That's just from 00-15. How much more if I enumerate the Bulls, 80s Celtics and Lakers, etc. Pretty much every year Shaq was with the Lakers, they would beat the Warriors. This Warriors team would get hammered by any teams with great bigs.

Now I'm an analytic guy. But everything I saw from the Warriors this year clearly shows they come nowhere near as good as their stats might indicate.