PDA

View Full Version : SportingNews ranks the top 10 NBA teams of all-time.



lakers4sho
06-16-2011, 02:42 PM
Based on interviews with current and former coaches, players, executives and journalists, the Sporting News determined in its latest issue that the 1971-72 Lakers and the 1986-87 Lakers are the second- and third-greatest NBA teams of all time. The 1995-96 Chicago Bulls were named as the best team for setting a league-record 72-10 regular-season mark en route to their first title of a second three-peat that decade.

Top 10

1. 1995-96 Bulls
2. 1971-72 Lakers
3. 1986-87 Lakers
4. 1986-86 Celtics
5. 1964-65 Celtics
6. 1966-67 76ers
7. 1982-83 76ers
8. 1970-71 Bucks
9. 1991-92 Bulls
10. 1988-89 Pistons

http://aol.sportingnews.com/125/story/2011-06-15/nbas-best-ever-its-yours-to-debate-chicago-bulls-boston-celtics-los-angeles-lake

Thoughts? I thought the '01 Lakers should've been in that list somewhere. That team was a freak of nature, borderline unstoppable. For crying out loud, they lost 1 game during the entire playoffs and that was in OT!!

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 02:46 PM
2 76ers teams in the top 10. I'll take that.

Ripper Gein
06-16-2011, 02:50 PM
Looks bout right.

knightstemplar
06-16-2011, 02:57 PM
2000-01 Lakers is the greatest ever imo

haggis
06-16-2011, 03:00 PM
2000-01 Lakers is the greatest ever imo

72-10 say hi ;)

knightstemplar
06-16-2011, 03:06 PM
72-10 say hi ;)

15-1 in playoffs says hi

k.smith904
06-16-2011, 03:08 PM
95-96 Bulls were ridiculous.

Nobody can top what they did.

lakers4sho
06-16-2011, 03:09 PM
72-10 say hi ;)

Against a league with a bunch of expansion teams, sure.

GREATNESS ONE
06-16-2011, 03:09 PM
being that I think Shaq in his prime was the most unstoppable force ever. Ever. 01 team should probably make this list somewhere but the whole list is actually good. A lot of great teams throughout time.

knightstemplar
06-16-2011, 03:10 PM
95-96 Bulls were ridiculous.

Nobody can top what they did.

that team went 15-3 in the playoffs, 01 lakers went 15-1

lakers4sho
06-16-2011, 03:17 PM
No one can stop a prime Shaq. Kobe can limit Jordan a bit, but no one can ever guard O'Neal. If you double team him we had the shooters that can hit 3s all night long.

metsbulls1025
06-16-2011, 03:17 PM
15-1 in playoffs says hi

Those Lakers went 56-26 in the regular season and 15-1 in the playoffs.

That is - 71-27

That doesn't even match what the Bulls did in the regular season as far as win totals go.

The Bulls went 72-10 in the regular season and 15-3 in the playoffs.

That is - 87-13

Not only did they bend you over, but the Bulls did it with no lube.

LAKERMANIA
06-16-2011, 03:21 PM
Wow, Somewhere in that list, the 2000-2001 Lakers have to be there.. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE could stop Shaq...

In a 7 game series besides the 80s Celtics and Lakers I think that team comes the closest to beating the 1995-1996 Bulls

knightstemplar
06-16-2011, 03:23 PM
Those Lakers went 56-26 in the regular season and 15-1 in the playoffs.

That is - 71-27

That doesn't even match what the Bulls did in the regular season as far as win totals go.

The Bulls went 72-10 in the regular season and 15-3 in the playoffs.

That is - 87-13

Not only did they bend you over, but the Bulls did it with no lube.

u really think the bulls would go 72-10 in the 2000s?

and no way does the bulls beat the lakers, whos gonna stop shaq lol

Hellcrooner
06-16-2011, 03:24 PM
Those Lakers went 56-26 in the regular season and 15-1 in the playoffs.

That is - 71-27

That doesn't even match what the Bulls did in the regular season as far as win totals go.

The Bulls went 72-10 in the regular season and 15-3 in the playoffs.

That is - 87-13

Not only did they bend you over, but the Bulls did it with no lube.

you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

mRc08
06-16-2011, 03:29 PM
Guys, the 72-10 is unmached. Expansion whatever, it doesn't matter, that is unreal. I'll give you 2001 lakers should be on that list, but lets not say things we can't take back ;)

BigBlueCrew
06-16-2011, 03:39 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

What the heck do you mean big deal? Most of the NBA's big stars were still around '95 - '96. Ewing, Robinson, Stockton, Malone, etc and still playing at a high level mind you. The same cant be said about 2000-2001.

haggis
06-16-2011, 03:44 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

Riiiiight.

And the rest of the NBA was completely devoid of talent then too?

Please Crooner. The overall talent of the league in 95-86 was far better than that of 2000. You know this.

JordansBulls
06-16-2011, 03:46 PM
Here was Hollinger's list

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

1. 1996 CHICAGO BULLS SCORE: 327.9
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 72-10
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +12.2
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.6
Finals result: Beat Seattle, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.4 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 14.9 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.9 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan
Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How could you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were.

2. 1987 LOS ANGELES LAKERS SCORE: 301.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.3
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.4
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Magic Johnson, 23.9 ppg
Rebounds: A.C. Green, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.4 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: Magic Johnson
Fittingly, the great Lakers and Celtics teams are in a virtual dead heat for second place. (You'll note that I just call the Lakers "Los Angeles" in this list -- no risk of confusing them with the Clippers here.) This L.A. team nudged ahead of Boston by virtue of winning 65 games in the regular season and then trashing the West -- 11 wins in 12 games -- to make the Finals. The Lakers beat the Celtics in six, and for the playoffs as a whole outscored their opponents by 205 points -- the best of any team on this list. Seven different players averaged double figures, led by Magic with 23.9 points per game.

3. 1986 BOSTON CELTICS SCORE: 301.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.3
Finals result: Beat Houston, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg
Coach: K.C. Jones
Finals MVP: Larry Bird
The Celtics won 67 games in '86 behind the best frontcourt ever assembled -- Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and Bill Walton -- and followed it up by stampeding through the playoffs in 15 games. They rank behind L.A. mostly because their victory margin wasn't as strong in the playoffs. On the other hand, this isn't a bad list to be No. 3 on. And few teams will ever have five players averaging at least 15 a game in the playoffs, as Boston's legendary quintet did in this postseason.

4. 1991 CHICAGO BULLS SCORE: 294.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 61-21
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +9.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.6
Finals result: Beat Los Angeles, 4-1 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 31.5 ppg
Rebounds: Horace Grant, 8.4 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 6.2 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan
The Bulls' first championship team won "only" 61 games, but had a very impressive victory margin (plus-9.1 per game, the sixth-best on the list) and absolutely romped in the playoffs. Chicago's 15-2 mark in the postseason was amazing, considering it knocked off a two-time champion in four games (Detroit) followed by a four-time champion in five (the Lakers). The Bulls' plus-11.6 playoff victory margin ranks second among the 60 teams. Only three players averaged double figures, but I guess that's not a problem when one of them scores 34.0 per game.

5. 1997 CHICAGO BULLS SCORE: 287.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 69-13
Postseason record: 15-4
Avg. scoring margin: +10.8
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +5.5
Finals result: Beat Utah, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 29.6 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 16.1 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.7 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan
So much for championship hangovers. The '96 Bulls were the best ever, but their successors weren't exactly chopped liver. Chicago won 69 games -- which would have tied the record were it not for the 72 wins the previous season -- and the Bulls' plus-10.8 average victory margin was also second only to the '96 edition. Their longest losing streak was two games, for crying out loud. They weren't quite as strong in the playoffs, needing six tough games to outlast the Jazz in the Finals and dropping two other postseason games, but they were plenty good. Amazingly, Jordan and Pippen were the only Bulls to average more than eight points a game in the postseason -- but 11 guys saw regular action.

6. 1988 LOS ANGELES LAKERS SCORE: 280.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 62-20
Postseason record: 15-4
Avg. scoring margin: +7.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.7
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: K. Abdul-Jabbar, 22.0 ppg
Rebounds: K. Abdul-Jabbar, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.6 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: K. Abdul-Jabbar
The Lakers were so good in '85 and '87 that it's hard to fathom how they lost in five games to Houston in the year between. This edition won 62 games, went on an 11-2 romp through the Western Conference playoffs, then slew the leprechauns by winning Game 6 in Boston Garden to claim the title.

For the postseason, L.A.'s average scoring margin narrowly missed topping the list -- amazing considering that the Lakers lost the "Boston Massacre" 148-114 in Game 1 of the Finals. But 10 of their 15 playoff wins came by 16 points or more -- including a win by 24 points or more in every round -- showing just how dominant these Lakers were.

7. 1992 CHICAGO BULLS SCORE: 277.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-7
Avg. scoring margin: +10.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +6.2
Finals result: Beat Portland, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.1 ppg
Rebounds: Horace Grant, 10.0 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 7.0 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan
These Bulls had a great regular-season run, winning 67 games and joining the '96 and '97 editions as the only teams on the list to have an average scoring margin of plus-10 or more in the regular season. The playoffs were a different story, however -- the Knicks nearly knocked them off in Round 2, and they lost by 26 at home to Cleveland in the conference finals before righting their ship and winning the title. Their seven postseason losses are the most of any team in the top 15. As with the '97 team, everyone got involved -- the Bulls used 11 players regularly and clinched the title in Game 6 against Portland when 12th man Bobby Hansen led a huge fourth-quarter rally.

8. 1999 SAN ANTONIO SPURS SCORE: 267.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 37-13
Postseason record: 15-2
Avg. scoring margin: +8.1
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.2
Finals result: Beat New York, 4-1 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Tim Duncan, 21.7 ppg
Rebounds: Tim Duncan, 11.4 rpg
Assists: Avery Johnson, 7.4 apg
Coach: Gregg Popovich
Finals MVP: Tim Duncan
A forgotten great team because of the lockout, the Spurs began the year 6-8 and then went 46-7 the rest of the way, with nary a losing streak. An awesome defensive squad led by big men David Robinson and Tim Duncan, San Antonio's 84.7 points allowed per game is far and away the least of any of these 66 squads. That 15-2 postseason mark ain't too shabby either, including sweeps of the Blazers and Lakers. So stingy was the defense that only twice in 17 playoff games did San Antonio's opponent muster 90 points.

9. 2009 LOS ANGELES LAKERS SCORE: 267.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 16-7
Avg. scoring margin: +7.7
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +7.2
Finals result: Beat Orlando, 4-1 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Kobe Bryant, 26.8 ppg
Rebounds: Pau Gasol, 9.6 rpg
Assists: Kobe Bryant, 4.9 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Kobe Bryant
Kobe Bryant's first title team sans Shaq -- and Phil Jackson's record 10th as a coach -- was also the best of the Jackson era. That may surprise some who saw Shaq's teams steamroll to three straight titles, but those squads never had a dominating regular season and a dominating playoff run in the same season. This edition of L.A. was pretty strong in both respects, winning 65 times in the regular season and losing only seven times in the postseason; L.A.'s plus-166 playoff scoring margin is seventh all-time.

10. 2008 BOSTON CELTICS SCORE: 263.3
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 66-16
Postseason record: 16-10
Avg. scoring margin: +10.3
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +5.2
Finals result: Beat L.A. Lakers, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Paul Pierce, 19.6 ppg
Rebounds: Kevin Garnett, 9.2 rpg
Assists: Rajon Rondo, 5.1 apg
Coach: Doc Rivers
Finals MVP: Paul Pierce
The Celtics set a record for a champion with 10 postseason losses, so it's a bit of a surprise that they cracked the top 10. But a strong postseason combined with an impressive average margin in the playoffs put them ahead of every Bird-McHale team but one. Certainly helping the Celtics' cause was the 132-93 rout of the Lakers in the clincher, but they also won playoff games by 14,16,19, 23, 25 and 34.




While the 2001 Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs, the fact they were not even the top seed in the playoffs and didn't win 60 games kills them here. How are you the greatest team ever when you don't even win 60 games? To me to be the greatest team ever you had to have a dominant regular season and playoffs.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 03:47 PM
that team went 15-3 in the playoffs, 01 lakers went 15-1

The combined win % of those Lakers' playoff opponents is 66.7 %
The combined win % of those Bulls' playoff opponents is 66.1 %

However that year the Bulls team had not only the best regular season record in the league but the best regular season record of All Time. Not to mention Shaq and Penny's Magic team and Payton and Kemp's Supersonics team is better than any team the Lakers faced in the 00-01 title run (which includes my 76ers lead by my favourite player of all time and the play in my avatar).

Don't even look at the having a harder opponent Win % as a positive because they wouldn't have even had to play those teams if they finished with a better regular season record. There 56-26 record was good for 2nd best in the West and also tied for 2nd in the league. The Bulls were clear and above the best team in the league that year.

None of the teams in the top 10. None of the teams in that top 10 have a sub 70% regular season Win %. The Lakers' that season had a 68.3% win %. I can see reason as to why they weren't included.

Chronz
06-16-2011, 03:47 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

What happened to respecting the elders?

JordansBulls
06-16-2011, 03:48 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

And the Bulls actually lost half of there games that year to teams who were 42-40 and below including the expansion Raptors.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 03:51 PM
u really think the bulls would go 72-10 in the 2000s?

and no way does the bulls beat the lakers, whos gonna stop shaq lol

The Bulls stopped Shaq that very same season. They would have done it again.

And tell me WHO was going to stop Michael? Name me one or two or three or four or five who was going to stop Michael Jordan.

shep33
06-16-2011, 03:53 PM
wow no 2001 lakers? Thats a joke.

JordansBulls
06-16-2011, 03:54 PM
Everyone of those teams on that list won 63+ games and had great SRS rating as well.

metsbulls1025
06-16-2011, 03:56 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

Even if the Bulls lost all 8 of those games we still would have won more overall games than the Lakers by 8 with 79 wins.


Plus lets talk about the amount of talent when the Lakers where steam rolling the league.

For god sakes the Lakers played the Sixers in the finals. That Bulls team played the Sonics with Payton and Kemp.


Bulls Playoff Opponents
Won NBA Finals (4-2) versus Seattle SuperSonics
Won NBA Eastern Conference Finals (4-0) versus Orlando Magic
Won NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals (4-1) versus New York Knickerbockers
Won NBA Eastern Conference First Round (3-0) versus Miami Heat

Lakers Playoff Opponents
Won NBA Finals (4-1) versus Philadelphia 76ers
Won NBA Western Conference Finals (4-0) versus San Antonio Spurs
Won NBA Western Conference Semifinals (4-0) versus Sacramento Kings
Won NBA Western Conference First Round (3-0) versus Portland Trail Blazers

Go look at those rosters from those years and you will see the difference.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 03:58 PM
you mean the bulls that played 8 games agaisnt the raptors and grizziles, that had just joined and were expansion teams?

big deal.....

8 games?

Correct me if I am wrong but weren't the Vancouver Grizzlies a West Coast Team? So how on earth did they play 8 games combined against them both?

They were 5-1 against those teams. Which is good for a .833 Win % and the Bulls 72-10 were good for a .878 Win %. So did they really get fat on those two teams?

Try again Crooner.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 04:01 PM
So a 15-1 post season (the best ever I am in no way trying to discredit the Lake Show they were awesome that year) merits being a top 10 team all time. They didn't even win 60 games in the regular season. All the teams on that list won 63+ games in the regular season against tougher playoff opponents. I am not in any way downplaying what the Lakers did but they did not have the toughest road through the playoffs.

FNM BOY
06-16-2011, 04:04 PM
95-96 Bulls no doubt...the game was alot tougher then too...in terms of hand checking etc...now a days you cant even breathe on these fellas...younger fans would say LA cause they dont realize how soft the game has gotten from what it once was....

bootsy
06-16-2011, 04:05 PM
Even if the Bulls lost all 8 of those games we still would have won more overall games than the Lakers by 8 with 79 wins.


Plus lets talk about the amount of talent when the Lakers where steam rolling the league.

For god sakes the Lakers played the Sixers in the finals. That Bulls team played the Sonics with Payton and Kemp.


Bulls Playoff Opponents
Won NBA Finals (4-2) versus Seattle SuperSonics
Won NBA Eastern Conference Finals (4-0) versus Orlando Magic
Won NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals (4-1) versus New York Knickerbockers
Won NBA Eastern Conference First Round (3-0) versus Miami Heat

Lakers Playoff Opponents
Won NBA Finals (4-1) versus Philadelphia 76ers
Won NBA Western Conference Finals (4-0) versus San Antonio Spurs
Won NBA Western Conference Semifinals (4-0) versus Sacramento Kings
Won NBA Western Conference First Round (3-0) versus Portland Trail Blazers

Go look at those rosters from those years and you will see the difference.

And yet they gave the Lakers the toughest series during that run and gave the Lakers a tougher time than the Sonics did the Bulls. The Bulls were up 3-0 and dominated the Sonics in that series.

I am not arguing for or against either team just thought I would point out you belittling the Sixers is silly.

smith&wesson
06-16-2011, 04:07 PM
it would help if they named some of the guys on the roster...

who was on the 1970-71 Bucks roster ?

JordansBulls
06-16-2011, 04:09 PM
it would help if they named some of the guys on the roster...

who was on the 1970-71 Bucks roster ?

You should know that? Kareem and Oscar the most notable two.

harborboy
06-16-2011, 04:09 PM
u really think the bulls would go 72-10 in the 2000s?

and no way does the bulls beat the lakers, whos gonna stop shaq lol

rodman... he did it in the 90's for the bulls. how soon we forget.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 04:09 PM
For god sakes the Lakers played the Sixers in the finals. That Bulls team played the Sonics with Payton and Kemp.


Yo don't disrespect my 76ers. :mad:

Had we play the 95-96 Bulls we would have smoked them. My man A.I. would have crossed Jordan so many ways he wouldn't have known which way is up.

jk

Chronz
06-16-2011, 04:12 PM
So a 15-1 post season (the best ever I am in no way trying to discredit the Lake Show they were awesome that year) merits being a top 10 team all time. They didn't even win 60 games in the regular season. All the teams on that list won 63+ games in the regular season against tougher playoff opponents. I am not in any way downplaying what the Lakers did but they did not have the toughest road through the playoffs.
Yea if this were a list of the best championship cores that 15-1 record would mean more.


What the heck do you mean big deal? Most of the NBA's big stars were still around '95 - '96. Ewing, Robinson, Stockton, Malone, etc and still playing at a high level mind you. The same cant be said about 2000-2001.

Riiiiight.

And the rest of the NBA was completely devoid of talent then too?

Please Crooner. The overall talent of the league in 95-86 was far better than that of 2000. You know this.

I would like to see a detailed analysis between the 2 leagues

LakersMaster24
06-16-2011, 04:16 PM
I honestly think the 2001 Lakers should be in it. The 1986 (I think thats the year) Lakers team should be there too...Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Magic, McAdoo, Rambis...

GREATNESS ONE
06-16-2011, 04:17 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing the top spot, just saying that the 2001 Laker team should be on that list. In a 7 game series, I think they could beat any one of those teams.

Hellcrooner
06-16-2011, 04:18 PM
where did i say anything bout 00-01 lalers?


thart team wouldny beat any if the ones in the list nor many others not listed.

two superstars and role players is not better than much deeper teams that have won the thing.

What i do say is tha t 95-96 bulls 72 wins are overated because of the situation.

D Roses Bulls
06-16-2011, 04:19 PM
lmao @ the people saying the league was more talented in the 2000's then the 90's. the east was really good and the west was also really good as well in the 90's. the east sucked in the 2000's and wasn't really a challenge for the west rodman stopped shaq in the 90's all the time. shaq hated to play rodman.

I know this isn't like watching game footage, but watch the story of the 95-96 bulls here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTdjVyEg2H0

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 04:29 PM
where did i say anything bout 00-01 lalers?


thart team wouldny beat any if the ones in the list nor many others not listed.

two superstars and role players is not better than much deeper teams that have won the thing.

What i do say is tha t 95-96 bulls 72 wins are overated because of the situation.

What situation? You said they played 8 games against Raps and Grizz earlier... that was proven to be wrong. What situation? Do you think the teams were worst than ever before in that era/season.

They played and won. Thats whats we play sports to do play and win who you are matched against. What more could they ask for? To get a time machine and go back to the era's in which YOU think was the strongest and play against all the best players for the past. C'mon Crooner. Give respect where respect is due.

210Don
06-16-2011, 04:33 PM
no spurs :(

Hellcrooner
06-16-2011, 04:34 PM
What situation? You said they played 8 games against Raps and Grizz earlier... that was proven to be wrong. What situation? Do you think the teams were worst than ever before in that era/season.

They played and won. Thats whats we play sports to do play and win who you are matched against. What more could they ask for? To get a time machine and go back to the era's in which YOU think was the strongest and play against all the best players for the past. C'mon Crooner. Give respect where respect is due.

having two expansion teams does not only affect the games vs those two teams, it also afects the DEPTH of the whole league.

and star power sorry but mid 90s dont come anywhere close to the depth of stars ( and the depth of teams) in the mid 80s with 5 less teams

mlisica19
06-16-2011, 04:35 PM
LOOK AT THAT LIST. Its horrible! Its the same 3 franchises besides 1. It goes to show you how horrible the competition is in the NBA. Not as bad, but their is a reason the NHL went over to a hard cap.

Make an even playing field for all teams. Why cant we install a cap in the NBA. Since 1950, only 15 different teams have won the cup. Since 1980, 9 different teams.

Its basically if you are in a great city, you can offer alot of money... your going to get the best players or the players you desire. So put a limit on each teams spending do we dont have to see a all star team. Theres too big of a gap between good teams and bad teams in the NBA. Decrease that gap and you will have a more exciting, more fair game.

I dont want to see a team like Miami be put together, or worse... have every team talk about trying to accomplish what they did in the offseason. Having a cap will now rely more on owners and managers and coaches doing more than just bringin in the best talent.

I rather see every team in the NBA have 2 superstars each, then only 6 teams have 3 superstars or big name guys and the rest of them have role players.

Ripper Gein
06-16-2011, 04:37 PM
Those Lakers went 56-26 in the regular season and 15-1 in the playoffs.

That is - 71-27

That doesn't even match what the Bulls did in the regular season as far as win totals go.

The Bulls went 72-10 in the regular season and 15-3 in the playoffs.

That is - 87-13

Not only did they bend you over, but the Bulls did it with no lube.

Your analogy sounds pretty GGay.....and telling:D

210Don
06-16-2011, 04:38 PM
wow no lube those bulls were hardcore

Lakers + Giants
06-16-2011, 04:44 PM
I'm just surprised and glad no one has said "this years mavs have to be on there"

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 04:47 PM
having two expansion teams does not only affect the games vs those two teams, it also afects the DEPTH of the whole league.

and star power sorry but mid 90s dont come anywhere close to the depth of stars ( and the depth of teams) in the mid 80s with 5 less teams

So blame the Bulls for that?

Basically what you are trying to say because they played in what you deemed as an easier league they weren't that good of a team. Crooner do you think the style of play in the 80s had anything to do with the amount of star power.

Also aren't you suppose to BEAT who you are matched up against. You can BLAME the Bulls because of whom they were matched up against. They played winning basketball beat everyone they played and at the end of the day that is all that matter. Its not as if they went and dominated the international arena or against college teams, the played against the BEST of the BEST at that time and beat them all.

They are not overrated. If the Bulls were overrated because of the fact that they didn't play against top notch talent.

Tell me something.... Why do you think George Mikan is SUCH a great player as you call him the original G.O.A.T. When he played in the NBA they weren't as great talent as there is today but you still think he's a much better player than Dirk.

Hellcrooner
06-16-2011, 04:57 PM
So blame the Bulls for that?

Basically what you are trying to say because they played in what you deemed as an easier league they weren't that good of a team. Crooner do you think the style of play in the 80s had anything to do with the amount of star power.

Also aren't you suppose to BEAT who you are matched up against. You can BLAME the Bulls because of whom they were matched up against. They played winning basketball beat everyone they played and at the end of the day that is all that matter. Its not as if they went and dominated the international arena or against college teams, the played against the BEST of the BEST at that time and beat them all.

They are not overrated. If the Bulls were overrated because of the fact that they didn't play against top notch talent.

Tell me something.... Why do you think George Mikan is SUCH a great player as you call him the original G.O.A.T. When he played in the NBA they weren't as great talent as there is today but you still think he's a much better player than Dirk.
mikan had a bigger impact on the league in his era that dirk has had in his.

and i have NOT advocated for the minnie lakers to be in the list.

hgtiger32
06-16-2011, 04:57 PM
People need to read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Learned a lot from it.

His top 10 teams were:

1-1986 Boston Celtics
2-1996 Chicago Bulls
3-1987 Los Angeles Lakers
4-1989 Detroit Pistons
5-2001 Los Angeles Lakers
6-1997 Chicago Bulls
7-1971 Milwaukee Bucks
8-1983 Philadelphia 76ers
9-1972 Los Angeles Lakers
10-1991 Chicago Bulls

He had very good information and explanations for each ranking

Pierzynski4Prez
06-16-2011, 04:58 PM
LOOK AT THAT LIST. Its horrible! Its the same 3 franchises besides 1. It goes to show you how horrible the competition is in the NBA. Not as bad, but their is a reason the NHL went over to a hard cap.

Make an even playing field for all teams. Why cant we install a cap in the NBA. Since 1950, only 15 different teams have won the cup. Since 1980, 9 different teams.

Its basically if you are in a great city, you can offer alot of money... your going to get the best players or the players you desire. So put a limit on each teams spending do we dont have to see a all star team. Theres too big of a gap between good teams and bad teams in the NBA. Decrease that gap and you will have a more exciting, more fair game.

I dont want to see a team like Miami be put together, or worse... have every team talk about trying to accomplish what they did in the offseason. Having a cap will now rely more on owners and managers and coaches doing more than just bringin in the best talent.

I rather see every team in the NBA have 2 superstars each, then only 6 teams have 3 superstars or big name guys and the rest of them have role players.

:confused::confused::confused:

Can't tell if serious or not, I think you are though. So you're not aware that a salary cap has been in the NBA for quite some time now?

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 05:01 PM
mikan had a bigger impact on the league in his era that dirk has had in his.

and i have NOT advocated for the minnie lakers to be in the list.

I never said you did. It just shows the flaws and double standards in your arguments. Dirk didn't have such a huge impact on his era because it is full of better players/teams than Mikan's.

Same as the Bulls. They impacted the league in their era in a way that NO OTHER TEAM impacted theirs.

That is all.

Fla.SticKy
06-16-2011, 05:02 PM
95-96 Bulls were ridiculous.

Nobody can top what they did. Agreed!!!! That was serious team, I remember thinking like OMG their only gonna lose 3-4 games!!!!!! WOW !!!!

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 05:02 PM
People need to read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Learned a lot from it.

His top 10 teams were:

1-1986 Boston Celtics
2-1996 Chicago Bulls
3-1987 Los Angeles Lakers
4-1989 Detroit Pistons
5-2001 Los Angeles Lakers
6-1997 Chicago Bulls
7-1971 Milwaukee Bucks
8-1983 Philadelphia 76ers
9-1972 Los Angeles Lakers
10-1991 Chicago Bulls

He had very good information and explanations for each ranking

If that's the case then I don't know how much I can respect his opinion on this topic because his list changed a lot since then.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

CHI CITY FAN 93
06-16-2011, 05:08 PM
if im not mistaking, didnt rodman stop shaq in the 90's?

okay without a question the 01 lakers should be in their, whoever made this list shouldve put them in their. now as far as saying they wouldve beat the 96 bulls, PSD world and bulls haters, their is no way in Gods world, that the 01 lakers couldve beat the damn 96 bulls, i dont care what anyone says. Bulls won almost more games in the regular season then the lakers won all season including the playoffs.

too put the 01 lakers in front of the 96 bulls is pretty hard, givin that the bulls were the team of the 90's, i mean if jordan doesnt retire, we win all the way from 91-98, and jordan even said it himself if reinsodrf wouldve resigned him to a one year deal they wouldve won it in 99.

saying the 01 lakers are better then the 96 bulls is like saying, lebron is better then jordan, it wont happen.

lakers4sho
06-16-2011, 05:09 PM
People need to read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Learned a lot from it.

His top 10 teams were:

1-1986 Boston Celtics
2-1996 Chicago Bulls
3-1987 Los Angeles Lakers
4-1989 Detroit Pistons
5-2001 Los Angeles Lakers
6-1997 Chicago Bulls
7-1971 Milwaukee Bucks
8-1983 Philadelphia 76ers
9-1972 Los Angeles Lakers
10-1991 Chicago Bulls

He had very good information and explanations for each ranking

Bill Simmons didn't even have the 60s Celtics? :speechless:


If that's the case then I don't know how much I can respect his opinion on this topic because his list changed a lot since then.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10

Bill Simmons, not Hollinger.

Swashcuff
06-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Bill Simmons didn't even have the 60s Celtics? :speechless:



Bill Simmons, not Hollinger.

Brain Fart! My bad.

PatsSoxKnicks
06-16-2011, 05:35 PM
Here's the top 13 teams in SRS who won championships:


Rk Season Tm W L W-L% MOV SOS SRS Pace ORtg DRtg
1 1970-71 MIL* 66 16 0.805 12.26 -0.34 11.91
2 1995-96 CHI* 72 10 0.878 12.24 -0.44 11.8 91.1 115.2 101.8
3 1971-72 LAL* 69 13 0.841 12.28 -0.63 11.65
4 1996-97 CHI* 69 13 0.841 10.8 -0.11 10.7 90 114.4 102.4
5 1991-92 CHI* 67 15 0.817 10.44 -0.37 10.07 94.4 115.5 104.5
6 2007-08 BOS* 66 16 0.805 10.26 -0.95 9.31 90.9 110.2 98.9
7 1985-86 BOS* 67 15 0.817 9.41 -0.36 9.06 101.2 111.8 102.6
8 1990-91 CHI* 61 21 0.744 9.1 -0.53 8.57 95.6 114.6 105.2
9 1966-67 PHI* 68 13 0.84 9.44 -0.94 8.5
10 1969-70 NYK* 60 22 0.732 9.09 -0.66 8.42
11 1999-00 LAL* 67 15 0.817 8.55 -0.14 8.41 93.3 107.3 98.2
12 2006-07 SAS* 58 24 0.707 8.43 -0.08 8.35 89.8 109.2 99.9
13 1986-87 LAL* 65 17 0.793 9.3 -0.98 8.32 101.6 115.6 106.5


Teams who were in the top 10 in SRS like the 71-72 Bucks who didn't win the championship weren't included.

lakers4sho
06-16-2011, 07:15 PM
Here's the top 13 teams in SRS who won championships:

mmm that chick... :drool:

PatsSoxKnicks
06-16-2011, 07:41 PM
mmm that chick... :drool:

Blake Lively. Sooooo hot.

amos1er
06-16-2011, 08:34 PM
Not adding the 01 Lakers makes this list a complete joke. 15-1 in the playoffs...back to back champs...not mentioning the 01 Lakers is just hating. probly some nostalgic sports writer who only give credit to the older teams and hates on newer ones. This guy should lose his job...the list is a joke.

Chronz
06-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Here's the top 13 teams in SRS who won championships
Its a good start what about SOS vs scoring margin in the playoffs?

Chronz
06-16-2011, 08:42 PM
I'm just surprised and glad no one has said "this years mavs have to be on there"
Hard to know what to make of them, in a way how they play as champions defines them almost as much as winning it. When guys 3 peet thats remarkable dominance. Shaqobe didnt have 1 remarkably epic year, they had dominating runs.

PatsSoxKnicks
06-17-2011, 01:35 AM
Its a good start what about SOS vs scoring margin in the playoffs?

Yeah, this would be interesting to see. Unfortunately, basketball-reference's play index doesn't keep track of SRS, SOS, or MOV for the playoffs.

For MOV, the thing to do would be to look at either the efficiency differential (ORtg - DRtg) or just look at the Pythag Wins/Losses. Since basketball-reference doesn't calculate efficiency differential, it might be easier to just look at the Pythag Wins/Losses, which should give you a good indication on the MOV. Although, this obviously wouldn't solve the SOS issue.

Unfortunately, I think you'd have to go through each individual playoffs and look at the SRS of each team played and then factor in the MOV for that series. I could probably do that for the 13 teams in that table but don't have the time or energy to do that for every champion (which probably isn't needed since some are obviously weaker then others, such as this years' Mavs).

I'm assuming that you could just take the SRS of the opponent, say Portland for Dallas this year, and then add the MOV for each game in that series giving you an SRS rating for the series. But then for the 2nd round, you'd have to do it for the other teams first round matchup. Although, I think you could get away with doing it for just the teams the champions played (so for example, the Bulls SRS would just be the regular season SRS). Maybe give a round by round weighting (though maybe this isn't needed since the farther you advance, the higher the SRS of your opponent is likely to be).

I might try this out.

knightstemplar
06-17-2011, 01:41 AM
rodman... he did it in the 90's for the bulls. how soon we forget.

lol, shaq was 7'1" 315 lbs, he would **** on dennis

jp611
06-17-2011, 01:50 AM
lol, shaq was 7'1" 315 lbs, he would **** on dennis

Well Dennis didn't give a ****, he owned shaq in the 90's

Chronz
06-17-2011, 02:13 AM
Well Dennis didn't give a ****, he owned shaq in the 90's
LOL well said

iggypop123
06-17-2011, 02:57 AM
suprise no spurs, well not suprised. cant beleive AI was the only thing that stopped the lakers from pulling off the fo fo fo fo

HouRealCoach
06-17-2011, 03:01 AM
I gotta say 96 Bulls, 72 Lakers, 87 Lakers... 2000-2002 Lakers should be on that list tho(Atleast Top 5)

2008 Celtics or 2004 Pistons couldve also made the list

24/7
06-17-2011, 03:16 AM
2000-01 Lakers is the greatest ever imo

15-1 playoff run... gotta be on this list.

LAcowBOMBER
06-17-2011, 03:53 AM
NO ONE could stop Shaq in 2001 and I don't even like Shaq. plus Kobe would have been more of a hindrance to Jordan than anyone else. I'd LOCe to see what would happen between any Bulls team and those Lakers

YourTeamSucks
06-17-2011, 04:14 AM
2010-2011 Mavs should be on the list

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 04:26 AM
2001-2002 Lakers would have raped any of Jordan's Bulls with a sandpaper condom.

If Kobe's/Shaq's Lakers played in the same era as Jordan's/Pippen's Bulls we'd be comparing Jordan to Kobe. Not the other way around. Shaq's prime would have taken some MVP's from Jordan as he'd be destroying the opposition.

* Coach Jackson had more experience when he coached the Lakers BUT had he stayed with Chicago who would be coaching Los Angeles?

SACNYY
06-17-2011, 04:37 AM
Anyone who says the 2000 Lakers are better than the Bulls needs to be slapped. That's straight up ignorance.

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 05:02 AM
Anyone who listens to gay *** bands liked Avenged Sevenfold need to be bent over.

tonyd3b54
06-17-2011, 05:12 AM
I would take the 86 celtics far before the 01 lakers. cool shaq will go for 30 every game. so will larry bird. and whos gonna stop mchale and parrish and walton? 5 guys avg 15ppg or more, the team was just so well rounded

tonyd3b54
06-17-2011, 05:14 AM
Anyone who says the 2000 Lakers are better than the Bulls needs to be slapped. That's straight up ignorance.

its ok most of them are 12 so they dont matter.

NYKalltheway
06-17-2011, 06:18 AM
How are the 83 Sixers not the best team in the 80s???

bagwell368
06-17-2011, 07:22 AM
Wow, Somewhere in that list, the 2000-2001 Lakers have to be there.. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE could stop Shaq...

In a 7 game series besides the 80s Celtics and Lakers I think that team comes the closest to beating the 1995-1996 Bulls

At least two of the Lakers, one of the Celt, one of the Pistons, and one of the 76'ers teams of the 80's would have destroyed any of the Bulls teams of the 90's. Without a shadow of a doubt.

The Bucks team didn't impress me at the time as an all time top 10 team, hardly. Weak league had a lot to do w/ their success. '08 Celts would have crushed them like a rotten grape.

Also I agree the '01 Lakers should be on the list. Also the I think it's '05 Spurs. Kick both the Bulls teams off the list to make room.

bagwell368
06-17-2011, 07:25 AM
How are the 83 Sixers not the best team in the 80s???

I think that's the best defensive team of all time. But the Lakers and Celt teams that followed a couple of years later were better. The 2nd Pistons Championship team vs the '83 Sixers would have been a total war.

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 08:35 AM
At least two of the Lakers, one of the Celt, one of the Pistons, and one of the 76'ers teams of the 80's would have destroyed any of the Bulls teams of the 90's. Without a shadow of a doubt.

The Bucks team didn't impress me at the time as an all time top 10 team, hardly. Weak league had a lot to do w/ their success. '08 Celts would have crushed them like a rotten grape.

Also I agree the '01 Lakers should be on the list. Also the I think it's '05 Spurs. Kick both the Bulls teams off the list to make room.

A clear Bulls hater here.

jp611
06-17-2011, 08:43 AM
At least two of the Lakers, one of the Celt, one of the Pistons, and one of the 76'ers teams of the 80's would have destroyed any of the Bulls teams of the 90's. Without a shadow of a doubt.

The Bucks team didn't impress me at the time as an all time top 10 team, hardly. Weak league had a lot to do w/ their success. '08 Celts would have crushed them like a rotten grape.

Also I agree the '01 Lakers should be on the list. Also the I think it's '05 Spurs. Kick both the Bulls teams off the list to make room.

:laugh:

WOW, that's just wrong, wake up bucko

jp611
06-17-2011, 08:46 AM
2001-2002 Lakers would have raped any of Jordan's Bulls with a sandpaper condom.

If Kobe's/Shaq's Lakers played in the same era as Jordan's/Pippen's Bulls we'd be comparing Jordan to Kobe. Not the other way around. Shaq's prime would have taken some MVP's from Jordan as he'd be destroying the opposition.

* Coach Jackson had more experience when he coached the Lakers BUT had he stayed with Chicago who would be coaching Los Angeles?

If MJ played in the era of no hip-checks he'd average 40 a game, man this is some hardcore ignorance going on here

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 09:47 AM
If MJ played in the era of no hip-checks he'd average 40 a game, man this is some hardcore ignorance going on here

Athletes evolve every 7-9 years, so Kobe played against 2 generations of athletes who were far superior to Jordan's competition.

39% of the League was Caucasian and 9% Other. As opposed to Kobe's 16%/6%.

Man, you're ignorant. Kinda easy to pad stats vs. Jud Bucheler, Mark Price, Craig Ehlo, Marty Conley, Paul Sherley, Joe Wolf, Greg Kite, John Concak, Jim mcIlvaine, Jack Haley, Travis Knight, Mike Penberthy, Joe Klein, Tom Tolbert, Eric Montross, Tom Fuller, Shawn Bradley, a washed up Danny Ainge, Dan Marjerle, Danny Ferry, and every other stiff named Dan.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 10:05 AM
Athletes evolve every 7-9 years, so Kobe played against 2 generations of athletes who were far superior to Jordan's competition.

39% of the League was Caucasian and 9% Other. As opposed to Kobe's 16%/6%.

Man, you're ignorant. Kinda easy to pad stats vs. Jud Bucheler, Mark Price, Craig Ehlo, Marty Conley, Paul Sherley, Joe Wolf, Greg Kite, John Concak, Jim mcIlvaine, Jack Haley, Travis Knight, Mike Penberthy, Joe Klein, Tom Tolbert, Eric Montross, Tom Fuller, Shawn Bradley, a washed up Danny Ainge, Dan Marjerle, Danny Ferry, and every other stiff named Dan.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I haven't done this in quite some time but :facepalm:

Mc Uncle Cola
06-17-2011, 10:08 AM
yeahh that 01 lakers needs to be up there

pentel1980
06-17-2011, 10:20 AM
The 00-01 season actually had the 'same' bad teams that the 95-96 season had.

The Grizzlies team noted in the Bulls title season had a horrible 15-67 record, which ironically, was the Bulls' team record during the 00-01 season.

Bad = < 30 wins:

The "bad" teams in the 95-96 season: Grizzlies (15 wins), 76ers (18 wins), Raptors (21 wins), Bucks (25 wins), Mavs (26 wins), T-Wolves (26 wins).

The "bad" teams in the 00-01 season: Bulls (15 wins), Warriors (17 wins), Wizards (19 wins), Grizzlies (23 wins), Hawks (25 wins), Nets (26 wins).

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 10:23 AM
To all those who are say that the 00-01 Lakers do indeed deserve to be a part of the list could you kindly state you case. Everyone says its a shame that they are not their but aren't given reason to back their claim other than a 15-1 playoff run, like if their 56-26 record has nothing to do with the thought process in putting together such a list.

ne3xchamps
06-17-2011, 10:29 AM
95-96 Bulls no doubt...the game was alot tougher then too...in terms of hand checking etc...now a days you cant even breathe on these fellas...younger fans would say LA cause they dont realize how soft the game has gotten from what it once was....

this. amen brother.

ne3xchamps
06-17-2011, 10:35 AM
2001-2002 Lakers would have raped any of Jordan's Bulls with a sandpaper condom.

If Kobe's/Shaq's Lakers played in the same era as Jordan's/Pippen's Bulls we'd be comparing Jordan to Kobe. Not the other way around. Shaq's prime would have taken some MVP's from Jordan as he'd be destroying the opposition.

* Coach Jackson had more experience when he coached the Lakers BUT had he stayed with Chicago who would be coaching Los Angeles?

:laugh: Thanks for the laugh man. Apparently you weren't old enough to watch the bulls in the 90's because it was probably past your bed time. :laugh:

Get real.

JordansBulls
06-17-2011, 10:42 AM
http://www.nba.com/features/bullsbestever_top10.html




In 41 home games, the Bulls averaged 107 points while holding their opponents to 89.9, a winning margin of 17 points per game. The Bulls may have finally lost a home game but not before establishing an NBA record by winning its first 37.





November Record: 12-2
Highlights: Began the season with five consecutive wins, establishing a franchise record. Embarked on a six game Western road trip, going 5-1 as Michael Jordan became the Bulls’ all-time career-leader in games played with 697 games, surpassing Jerry Sloan.

December Record: 13-1
Highlights: Bulls win its first 11 games en route to a 13-1 record, dropping its only game to the Indiana Pacers. Phil Jackson surpasses Dick Motta (356-300) in becoming the Bulls all-time winningest coach. Scottie Pippen earns NBA Player of the Month honors (25.5 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.36 spg and 39.4 mpg).

January Record: 14-0
The Bulls go undefeated for the first time in its 30-year history as Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson earn NBA Player and Coach of the Month honors, respectively.

February Record: 11-3
Bulls lose twice in a row? It only happened once all season and it happened in early February on the road, losing to the Denver Nuggets and Phoenix Suns. The Bulls ended up winning the next seven straight and finish the month 11-3 for a 50-6 record, establishing an NBA mark for a team reaching 50 wins with the fewest losses.

March Record: 12-2
The Bulls largest defeat of the season happened on March 10 at New York as the Bulls lost by 32, 104-72. The Bulls won the next six games and set a new NBA record for most consecutive home games won at the start of the season --- 33.

April Record: 10-2
The Bulls accumulated the honors this month and missed one as well. The home loss to Charlotte ended the record for most consecutive regular season home games won at the start of the season at 37. On April 16, in Milwaukee, the Bulls set the NBA regular season record with a 70-9 mark, surpassing the ’72 Lakers’ 69-13 record. The Bulls missed an opportunity to tie the ’86 Celtics and its 40-1 mark when it lost to Indiana in the last regular-season game of the season. The Bulls did win the following day in Washington, finishing the regular season with a 72-10 record. Phil Jackson earned NBA Coach of the Month honors.



It's interesting to note our only losses in April came at home and it was our only 2 home losses of the year.





Regular Season - margin of victory
'72 Lakers - 15.9
'96 Bulls - 15.0
’87 Lakers --14
’64 Celtics – 13.3
'67 Sixers - 13.2
'86 Celtics - 13.0

Playoffs - margin of victory
’87 Lakers –15.6
'96 Bulls - 15.0
'86 Celtics - 14.3
'67 Sixers - 13.5
’64 Celtics –11.8
'72 Lakers - 9.75

Combined Regular Season and Playoff margin of victory
'96 Bulls - 15.0
’87 Lakers -14.8
'86 Celtics - 13.7
'67 Sixers - 13.4
'72 Lakers - 12.84
’64 Celtics – 12.6

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 10:48 AM
To all those who are say that the 00-01 Lakers do indeed deserve to be a part of the list could you kindly state you case. Everyone says its a shame that they are not their but aren't given reason to back their claim other than a 15-1 playoff run, like if their 56-26 record has nothing to do with the thought process in putting together such a list.

Kinda like Johnny Podres going 9-10 with a 3.95 ERA in the '54-'55 season before going on to post a game 4 and game 7 shutout vs. the famed '55 Yankees in the World Series?

Stats are like women; They're nice to look at but they don't tell the whole story.

You guys alluding to the toughness of the game in the '90s yet fail to state that the '90a was marshmallow in comparison to the '80s era. The '80s teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers) would take a Jordan and wipe their Pippen with any Bulls team.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

ne3xchamps
06-17-2011, 10:52 AM
Kinda like Johnny Podres going 9-10 with a 3.95 ERA in the '54-'55 season before going on to post a game 4 and game 7 shutout vs. the famed '55 Yankees in the World Series?

Stats are like women; They're nice to look at but they don't tell the whole story.

You guys alluding to the toughness of the game in the '90s yet fail to state that the '90a was marshmallow in comparison to the '80s era. The '80s teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers) would take a Jordan and wipe their Pippen with any Bulls team.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

comparing baseball from the 50's and women to what the thread topic is. priceless.

bbcmillionaire
06-17-2011, 10:57 AM
Lmao so the bull hate goes all the way back huh?

JordansBulls
06-17-2011, 10:59 AM
Kinda like Johnny Podres going 9-10 with a 3.95 ERA in the '54-'55 season before going on to post a game 4 and game 7 shutout vs. the famed '55 Yankees in the World Series?

Stats are like women; They're nice to look at but they don't tell the whole story.

You guys alluding to the toughness of the game in the '90s yet fail to state that the '90a was marshmallow in comparison to the '80s era. The '80s teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers) would take a Jordan and wipe their Pippen with any Bulls team.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

This is horse ****

the 90's competition was much greater than the 80's competition in the Western Conference. No one could really challenge the Lakers. Every team the Bulls faced in the Conference finals and NBA Finals was just as deep and had 2 superstars or a deep 5. 1991 Lakers, 1991 Pistons, 1992 Cavs (3 allstars), Knicks (Ewing, X-man and deep roster), 1992 Blazers (Best Starting 5 around with 2 stars and a loaded frontcourt). 1993 Cavs, Knicks and Suns. 1996 Knicks, Magic (Penny and Shaq with the best starting 5 around) and Sonics (2 stars and a 3rd player that was a star in '95 and '97 in Detlef along with another great player in Hawkins). 1997 Heat with Zo and Hardaway and Mashburn with Majerle and PJ Brown as well. 1997 Hawks with Smith, Blaylock, Deke, Laettner (allstar that year). 1997 Jazz one of the best teams to never win the title and beat a Houston team with Hakeem, Chuck and Drexler. 1998 Pacers (Deep team with 2 stars that year in Miller and Smits along with guys who could control the paint and limit Rodman and a team that had at least 4-5 defenders they could throw at you). 1998 Jazz team that took out the Rockets with Hakeem, drexler and Barkley and then Duncan and Robinson who both were getting 20+ and 10+ rpg that year and then the Lakers who had 4 allstars that year and won 61 games. They even swept them. Not sure how many 60 wins teams got swept in a series, but that was one and the 1996 Magic was another.

All in all those teams were good and could hang with any team and upset some in the 80's as well. They weren't the Sixers or Celtics or teams of that quality but good enough to win especially considering even the Lakers were losing to teams in the playoffs in the 80's that were inferior to any of those teams in Houston in '81 and '86 and the Celtics when they lost to the Sixers in '82 and Bucks in '83 with HCA and then went 7 with the Knicks in 1984. Also the Sixers team that won it all in 1983 lost in the 1st round the next year to the Nets.

So just because the competition may not seem to be the greatest ever or anything, teams still lose to teams they shouldn't in the playoffs. Bulls never did. They never lost to a team that had a worse record or seeding than they had. All other great teams have at one point.

They were 9 games better than the best team they played to make the finals that year and it was one of their hardest trips. Doesnt seem anyone gives a damn how weak the west was for much of the 80s when discussing Magic. And nobody will care about the east for Lebron.

Besides that series vs the Pistons made it irrelevant how they got to the ECF.

They beat the best possible team they could face on the way to the finals.



Magic in 12 season frorm 1980 to 1991, faced a gut wrenching 10 50+ wins teams in the Western Conference portion of the play offs. Jordan in the 6 championship yrs alone, the Bulls faced the same amount of 50 win teams in the eastern conference portion of the playoffs you idiot. Oh yeah, the 80s Lakers faced 10 teams that were at .500 or less in the playoffs (including 39-43 Seattle in the WCF once) while the Bulls in their entire 6 seasons faced just two teams below 500.
The Bulls faced the 91 Pistons, 92 Knicks, 92/93 Cavs, 93 Knicks, 96 Magic, 97 Heat, 97 Hawks, 98 Pacers, all who were tough teams.
I'll give you the 80 Sonics but the 91 Pistons and 93 Knicks were better. LMAO @ the 82 and 83 Spurs who won an amazing 48 and 53 wins. Both teams were horrible defensively and outside of Gervin and Gilmore for the 83 season, who did they have?

The 84 Suns won 41 *****ng games (which makes it more sad considering they made it to the WCF with 41 wins), ranked 12th defensively, and featured Larry Nance as their best player?
Wow the 85 Nuggs who didn't play D and only won 52 games? Wow such a tough team. Dan Issel was a bench player that season you btw.
The 88 Mavs only finished 53-29 and were 15th in defense. That team's 3 best players were Aguirre/Harper/Blackman. Compared to the talent the 88 Lakers team had, that team is nothing.
The 91 Blazers were a legit tough team, but they played in the era you happen to be mocking. Also, Chicago beat virtually the same Portland team the next season.
The 80s Western Conference was weak as hell. The teams the Lakers faced during that decade in the West were weak talent wise compared to the Lakers. It isn't a coincidence that a 39 win team made the EC once during that decade.
Bulls beat hof players in Magic, Worthy, Zeke, Dumars, Clyde, Ewing, Barkley, Shaq, GP, Zo (possibly a hof) Stockton, Malone, Deke, and Miller. They faced plenty of greats as well .
Where did I say 90s>80s? The Eastern Conference in 80s was tougher then Balls but the Western conference was a cake walk.


I knew the WC was much weaker than the EC outside of the lakers but I was stunned at what a pile of crap the lakers faced for several years in the conference when I went through on a year by year basis. By 88 their quality of opponents really picked up and 1980 was very hard, but from 81-87 it was just LOL, especially 84 and 87.

Lakers opponents from 81-87

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

1. The overall record of their opponents was 733-661 (.526). This averages out to 43-39 over an 82 game schedule.
2. Over a 7 year span, they only faced 3 WC teams that won 50 games. None ever won 55 games. It isn't like they dominated these the 50 win teams either (2-1 series, 9-7 overall).


And then you compare them to teams they played that won 50+ or not and here are there records with HCA.


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Jordan: 14-0 (100%)/ 10-0 (100%)
Jabbar: 11-3 (79%)/ 23-2 (92%)
Russell: 10-0 (100%)/ 12-1 (92%)
Wilt: 4-3 (57%)/ 9-2 (82%)
Magic: 9-2 (82%)/ 20-1 (95%)
Bird: 10-6 (63%)/ 14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/ 5-2 (71%)
Shaq: 11-3 (79%)/ 13-2 (87%)
Duncan: 13-4 (76%)/ 8-1 (89%)

So MJ faced more 50+ win teams with HCA than not and is undefeated in both. He also was 4-0 against 60+ win teams with HCA.

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Kinda like Johnny Podres going 9-10 with a 3.95 ERA in the '54-'55 season before going on to post a game 4 and game 7 shutout vs. the famed '55 Yankees in the World Series?

Stats are like women; They're nice to look at but they don't tell the whole story.

You guys alluding to the toughness of the game in the '90s yet fail to state that the '90a was marshmallow in comparison to the '80s era. The '80s teams (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers) would take a Jordan and wipe their Pippen with any Bulls team.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Again you make yourself an even worst case.

What stats did I mention. I didn't mention anything about stats. Did I?

So because in your opinion the 90s were marshmallow why hold that against the Bulls? The beat everyone they played against!!!! So do you want us to get a time machine go back in the past and match those teams against eachother?

Dude you are delusional. You bring a baseball reference of a player to justify your claim and say that I am embarrassing myself. Do you really understand anything about sports? I didn't even mention stats.

Do you understand what it takes to win 72 games over the course of an 82 game season?

Wanna talk baseball then lets talk. My 1906 Cubs are widely regarded as one of the top 20 teams of all time due to the fact that they hold the National League Record for most wins in a season and the highest WIN% of all time at .763 all that and they never won the world series. Still regard as a top team however. Why because it takes a serious high degree of testicular fortitude for a team to maintain that high level of play during the course of a regular season. Tell me something how many all time greats were there on that team.

You really make NO sense in anything you say.

bagwell368
06-17-2011, 11:10 AM
A clear Bulls hater here.

Not so. Clearly aware that the rosters of the 90's for the elite teams was much thinner then the 80's. Also aware that many of 70's Champs are questionable because of dilution due to the ABA.

Overall league talent might have been better in '95 then '86, but where is the concentration of talent on one to three teams like in the 80's??

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Thompson, Rambis, Scott, Wilkes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pippen, Rodman Grant, Kukoc, Weddington, Jordan, Paxson, Cartwright

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 11:30 AM
Not so. Clearly aware that the rosters of the 90's for the elite teams was much thinner then the 80's. Also aware that many of 70's Champs are questionable because of dilution due to the ABA.

Overall league talent might have been better in '95 then '86, but where is the concentration of talent on one to three teams like in the 80's??

So whats your reason for saying get both the Bulls franchises out of there and getting the 00-01 Lakers team in?

I agree with this post however. Not at all with the earlier one.

I'll say this to you though. Talent doesn't make the team great.

The US had by farrrr more talent than any other team in the 04 Olympics and 06 FIBA championship. That didn't mean that they were the best T.E.A.M.

The Heat has the more talent than any other team in the league that didn't win them a championship. The 04 Lakers were easily the most talented team in the league and lost to a team with no superstars.

Because the Lakers, Celts, and my 76ers had considerably more talent that the 90s Bulls doesn't automatically mean that they are a better team and would wipe the floor with the Bulls. As you well know there is a whole lot more to basketball than mere talent.

Overall talent doesn't mean that one T.E.A.M. is better than another.

Swashcuff
06-17-2011, 11:32 AM
Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Thompson, Rambis, Scott, Wilkes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pippen, Rodman Grant, Kukoc, Weddington, Jordan, Paxson, Cartwright

Kobe, Shaq, Malone, Payton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Billups, Ben, Rasheed, Taysaun, Rip.

Oh wait that Lakers team didn't win a title. :speechless:

GTFO!!!

JordansBulls
06-17-2011, 11:34 AM
Not so. Clearly aware that the rosters of the 90's for the elite teams was much thinner then the 80's. Also aware that many of 70's Champs are questionable because of dilution due to the ABA.

Overall league talent might have been better in '95 then '86, but where is the concentration of talent on one to three teams like in the 80's??

Disagree with this

It isn't a bad argument, but the arguments of those are usually one-sided.
The Bulls sucked in the 80s.
Jordan's supporting cast those years were nowhere near what they were in the championships,yet they still pushed the Pistons to 6-7 games in 89 and 90.
People talk about how great the Lakers are, but who were they playing in the West?
Maybe you can say the Lakers faced tougher competition in the Finals,
but you might be able to say that the Bulls faced tougher competition in the earlier rounds.
And in the early 80s, they actually lost to a team in the playoffs that didn't even have a .500 record. And as great as the Celtics were, they lost in most years WITH home-court advantage. And even in one of their title years, 1984, they were pushed to 7 games to a Knicks team that wouldn't be that impressive in either era. Then of course, there's the whole thing about the Bulls being a much greater defensive team then the Celtics and Lakers.

JordansBulls
06-17-2011, 11:36 AM
Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Thompson, Rambis, Scott, Wilkes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pippen, Rodman Grant, Kukoc, Weddington, Jordan, Paxson, Cartwright

Explain to me how you win in 1985 and 1987 and with the same team in 1986 you lose with HCA to an up and coming team? If you lose in the middle of your reign to a team not as good imagine playing a championship level team?

PatsSoxKnicks
06-17-2011, 11:37 AM
The 80s might have had more talent and maybe the East was weaker in the 90s but none of that changes the fact that the Bulls consistently beat the **** out of their opponents.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=team_totals&lg_id=NBA&year_min=1955&year_max=2011&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=mov

Thats 3 different Chicago teams with a MOV over 10 points, which has only been done 7 times in the history of the shot clock era. The 90-91 Bulls are in the top 12 in MOV.

So clearly, those Bulls teams were FAR superior to their competition. And I can't imagine the 80s teams were that much superior to the 90s teams.

PatsSoxKnicks
06-17-2011, 11:44 AM
A panel of media members selected the top 10 in 96: http://www.nba.com/history/toptenteams_index.html

This was part of the 50 anniversary celebration during the 96-97 season. Not sure what to think of the list. Of course, it doesn't include any teams recently since it was done awhile ago.

SoxBearsBulls!
06-17-2011, 12:30 PM
People need to read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Learned a lot from it.

His top 10 teams were:

1-1986 Boston Celtics
2-1996 Chicago Bulls
3-1987 Los Angeles Lakers
4-1989 Detroit Pistons
5-2001 Los Angeles Lakers
6-1997 Chicago Bulls
7-1971 Milwaukee Bucks
8-1983 Philadelphia 76ers
9-1972 Los Angeles Lakers
10-1991 Chicago Bulls

He had very good information and explanations for each ranking

Could the fact that he's a diehard Celtics fan be a reason he puts the 86 Celtics over the 96 Bulls?

Chronz
06-17-2011, 01:10 PM
2001-2002 Lakers would have raped any of Jordan's Bulls with a sandpaper condom.
Shaqobe was great but the Bulls of 91 or 92 were better IMO.


If Kobe's/Shaq's Lakers played in the same era as Jordan's/Pippen's Bulls we'd be comparing Jordan to Kobe. Not the other way around. Shaq's prime would have taken some MVP's from Jordan as he'd be destroying the opposition.

Your acting as if Shaq hadnt already been a part of MJ's era.

Dash
06-17-2011, 01:18 PM
No love for Pistons 2004!

Mile High Champ
06-17-2011, 01:21 PM
YES the Raptors in their very first seasn beat the best team in the league ever.. Good to hear.

Chronz
06-17-2011, 01:31 PM
Not so. Clearly aware that the rosters of the 90's for the elite teams was much thinner then the 80's. Also aware that many of 70's Champs are questionable because of dilution due to the ABA.

Overall league talent might have been better in '95 then '86, but where is the concentration of talent on one to three teams like in the 80's??
Agreed, if you notice the list is basically compiled of teams from when the league was at its most diluted(not sure if thats the right word). Still creating that separation is what you would expect of a team your comparing to greats of yesteryear.

You also cant lean too much towards parity, or youd value one of those teams from the late 70's.

Its hard boundary to cross because you want your GOAT to have the ability to create separation but it has to be in context with your own subjective opinion of the leagues talent level. I like the 3-4 limit of elite teams depending on the size of the league but that seems like a good figure.

Chronz
06-17-2011, 01:35 PM
No love for Pistons 2004!

True, its a shame Sheed wasnt there from the start or else their body of work would have been more impressive. Also their struggles in the playoffs cant be overlooked.

celtisox41
06-17-2011, 01:48 PM
Why aren't there more celtics teams? The 86 team was basically all hall of famers and all stars and what about any of the teams during the stretch they won 8 in a row? The bulls won 72 games against a weak league, its still amazing though

DoJoTheSlasher
06-17-2011, 01:57 PM
1. Miami Heat 10-11
2. Miami Heat 11-12
3. Miami Heat 12-13
4. Miami Heat 13-14
5. Miami Heat 14-15
6. Miami Heat 15-16
7. Miami Heat 16-17
8. Miami Heat 17-18
9. Miami Heat 18-19
10. Miami Heat 19-20

Hands down not even close.

jp611
06-17-2011, 03:56 PM
Athletes evolve every 7-9 years, so Kobe played against 2 generations of athletes who were far superior to Jordan's competition.

39% of the League was Caucasian and 9% Other. As opposed to Kobe's 16%/6%.

Man, you're ignorant. Kinda easy to pad stats vs. Jud Bucheler, Mark Price, Craig Ehlo, Marty Conley, Paul Sherley, Joe Wolf, Greg Kite, John Concak, Jim mcIlvaine, Jack Haley, Travis Knight, Mike Penberthy, Joe Klein, Tom Tolbert, Eric Montross, Tom Fuller, Shawn Bradley, a washed up Danny Ainge, Dan Marjerle, Danny Ferry, and every other stiff named Dan.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Hard to pad stats against your own teammate

Bruno
06-17-2011, 05:01 PM
The most dominant team in playoff history left out of the top 10?

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 05:51 PM
Kobe, Shaq, Malone, Payton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Billups, Ben, Rasheed, Taysaun, Rip.

Oh wait that Lakers team didn't win a title. :speechless:

GTFO!!!

LMAO Apparently you're one of the ignorant fans who count Payton and Malone. Both were well past their prime and subsequently retired. Malone because of his knee (played in the Finals at 50%) and Payton who had no business starting over Fisher.

Its safe to assume further that your ignorance doesn't take into account; age, extreme locker room chemistry issues throughout the team, and multiple players (KEY PLAYERS) ie. Malone and Payton not getting fully assimilated to the most complex system, the triangle, in basketball.

Again, you may not care about yourself, but you're embarrassing those who truly do care and believe in you.

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 05:54 PM
Hard to pad stats against your own teammate

I'm making a case for the NBA as a whole; I conducted a field-study on it in college and found the results overwhelmingly conclusive to the watered down talent in the league.

S-Dot
06-17-2011, 06:01 PM
I dont understand how u can argue the 01 lakers over the 96 bulls. They're not even on the list. Compare them against the teams that are #6 through 10, not the #1 team. You gotta crawl before you can walk. They deserve to be on the list, but that doesn't mean they need to be #1.

valade16
06-17-2011, 06:10 PM
I'm making a case for the NBA as a whole; I conducted a field-study on it in college and found the results overwhelmingly conclusive to the watered down talent in the league.

Weren't you the guy that said Talent recycles after 7-9 years? Well, 7 years ago weren't the top players in the league LeBron, Dirk, Wade, Kobe, Howard, etc.

That was a lot of rollover :rolleyes:

The league wasn't as watered down as you make it sound compared to todays game. Look at the T-Wolves, Wizards, Nets (pre-Williams), Cavs, Raptors...

They aren't exactly dominant teams, and they would be just as terrible in 1996.

Trueblue2
06-17-2011, 06:24 PM
lol, shaq was 7'1" 315 lbs, he would **** on dennis

You know they played eachother right? Rodman got under his skin and limited his effectiveness unlike any defender shaq faced in his prime.

The Final Boss
06-17-2011, 06:29 PM
Weren't you the guy that said Talent recycles after 7-9 years? Well, 7 years ago weren't the top players in the league LeBron, Dirk, Wade, Kobe, Howard, etc.

That was a lot of rollover :rolleyes:

The league wasn't as watered down as you make it sound compared to todays game. Look at the T-Wolves, Wizards, Nets (pre-Williams), Cavs, Raptors...

They aren't exactly dominant teams, and they would be just as terrible in 1996.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble reading. After all, this is, PSD.:facepalm:

I said ATHLETES continue to evolve. Athletes get stronger, quicker, and faster due to bad/weak genes being filtered.

Since 1920 man has gained an average of 1.5 inches in height and 11 pounds of muscle. It's an endless cycle.

Bolt>Lewis>Owens

That's a big examle there. Same sport, TOTALLY different athlete.

haggis
06-17-2011, 06:36 PM
I'm not surprised you're having trouble reading. After all, this is, PSD.:facepalm:

I said ATHLETES continue to evolve. Athletes get stronger, quicker, and faster due to bad/weak genes being filtered.

Since 1920 man has gained an average of 1.5 inches in height and 11 pounds of muscle. It's an endless cycle.

Bolt>Lewis>Owens

That's a big examle there. Same sport, TOTALLY different athlete.

Ok. So by this example, we are currently in the best era of the NBA since all the athletes are the most recent in this cycle? Correct?

theheatles
06-17-2011, 06:40 PM
2 teams from the 60's? gtfoh

Korman12
06-17-2011, 07:04 PM
1996 Bulls
1986 Celtics
1972 Lakers
1987 Lakers
1983 Sixers

Bos_Sports4Life
06-17-2011, 07:41 PM
'96 bulls isn't top 5 imo...those 80's laker/c's teams on paper were simply....better on paper and thats all we have too work with

72 wins is without a doubt overrated, most teams coast, esp if they have the 1st seed pretty much in hand. There's NO POINT for teams too risk injury/tire out ect too try and win games after they have hca locked up....

Also, point differintial/Record ect isn't the end all too be all when talking about teams accross era's. Differint era=differint competition

The Final Boss
06-18-2011, 01:53 AM
Spoken like a true fan with knowledge of the game.

LA_Raiders
06-18-2011, 01:56 AM
2000-01 Lakers is the greatest ever imo

Agree....

#1 ever

Bos_Sports4Life
06-19-2011, 02:49 PM
the 2000-2001 Lakers? Please...Those 80's lakers would of won in 5 or 6

The 87 Lakers team (who i believe is top 2 teams in the history) in particular wouldn't lose too the 01 lakers..

They had 65 wins, They also may have lost 3 playoff games but 2 were against the boston celtics another verrrrry good team that featured 4 hof'ers (Bird,Mchale,Parrish,DJ.) Those laker teams were also flat out deeper and played with better chemistry

heyman321
06-19-2011, 02:58 PM
Agree....

#1 ever

Lol wtf? Not even close.

JordansBulls
06-19-2011, 03:02 PM
'96 bulls isn't top 5 imo...those 80's laker/c's teams on paper were simply....better on paper and thats all we have too work with

72 wins is without a doubt overrated, most teams coast, esp if they have the 1st seed pretty much in hand. There's NO POINT for teams too risk injury/tire out ect too try and win games after they have hca locked up....

Also, point differintial/Record ect isn't the end all too be all when talking about teams accross era's. Differint era=differint competition



Disagree.


For that 87 title run they played a 37, 39, and 42 win opponents thru the Western conference and ended up losing a game to a 39 win team that postseason.

Explain to me how the Lakers win a title in 1980 and 1982 but lose in round 1 in 1981 to a team below .500? They win in 1985 and 1987 and lose in the WCF in 1986 to a 51 win team?
The Celtics win in 1981 and then lose in 1982 with HCA and then get swept in 1983 with HCA.
The Sixers win in 1983 and then in 1984 they lose in round 1 to a team that hadn't made it out of round 1 in 7 years.
Notice the pattern here? Each of those teams that were so called juggernauts ended up losing in between there runs to teams clearly inferior even with HCA.

Jay
06-19-2011, 03:11 PM
Against a league with a bunch of expansion teams, sure.

The expansion Raps beat the Bulls that year.

C-Style
06-19-2011, 03:16 PM
01 Lakers should be ranked 6th! without a doubt

gilly
06-19-2011, 03:32 PM
'96 bulls isn't top 5 imo...those 80's laker/c's teams on paper were simply....better on paper and thats all we have too work with

1983 Sixers had the best record in the NBA and swept the Lakers in the finals, going 12-1 in the play offs that year.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-19-2011, 05:07 PM
Disagree.


For that 87 title run they played a 37, 39, and 42 win opponents thru the Western conference and ended up losing a game to a 39 win team that postseason.

Explain to me how the Lakers win a title in 1980 and 1982 but lose in round 1 in 1981 to a team below .500? They win in 1985 and 1987 and lose in the WCF in 1986 to a 51 win team?
The Celtics win in 1981 and then lose in 1982 with HCA and then get swept in 1983 with HCA.
The Sixers win in 1983 and then in 1984 they lose in round 1 to a team that hadn't made it out of round 1 in 7 years.
Notice the pattern here? Each of those teams that were so called juggernauts ended up losing in between there runs to teams clearly inferior even with HCA.


And all of that means next too nothing too me.

If you go STRICTLY on titles/wins..the 60's c's would be the greatest ever...

But when judging teams Accross era's, I ignore all of that and look at the teams on paper and quite simply, those 90's bulls teams don't have the deph those other teams do. Those bulls were EXTREMLY weak down low (even with rodman in the 2nd 3-peat) compared too other all time great teams

Swashcuff
06-19-2011, 05:18 PM
And all of that means next too nothing too me.

If you go STRICTLY on titles/wins..the 60's c's would be the greatest ever...

But when judging teams Accross era's, I ignore all of that and look at the teams on paper and quite simply, those 90's bulls teams don't have the deph those other teams do. Those bulls were EXTREMLY weak down low (even with rodman in the 2nd 3-peat) compared too other all time great teams

On paper the 2010-2011 Heat are one of the 10 teams of all time. Paper doesn't merit being the best dude. Paper doesn't equate to greatness.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-19-2011, 05:48 PM
On paper the 2010-2011 Heat are one of the 10 teams of all time. Paper doesn't merit being the best dude. Paper doesn't equate to greatness.


On paper the heat are NOT one of the 10 greatest teams ever...(not top 30 either)

On paper, they have 2 players that play VERY simmilar too eachother and 2 players who don't really compliment eachother much at all which can cause a half court offense that can struggle at times

The Heat didn't have any legit big man who could grab a tough board or have any one down low much at all.

Too say the heat is top 10 on paper of ALL TIME is laughable.

KnicksR4Real
06-19-2011, 06:02 PM
no knicks teams?

Swashcuff
06-19-2011, 06:06 PM
On paper the heat are NOT one of the 10 greatest teams ever...(not top 30 either)

On paper, they have 2 players that play VERY simmilar too eachother and 2 players who don't really compliment eachother much at all which can cause a half court offense that can struggle at times

The Heat didn't have any legit big man who could grab a tough board or have any one down low much at all.

Too say the heat is top 10 on paper of ALL TIME is laughable.

LeBron has potential to become a top 3 SF all time Wade has potential to become the a top 3-5 SG all time. Both could potentially become top 20 players all time by the time their career ends. Not to mention they also current top 10 PF alongside them. There was a reason why many believed they could have won more than 70 games.

Paper matters not how similar two players are to eachother paper is paper it doesn't take that into consideration. What you are bringing up there is not what we see on paper. That's what we see when the game is actually being played.

Name me 30 teams that have had 2 top 5 players and a top 20 player at the point of the formation on it at the same time. Matter of a fact name me 10, matter of a fact name me 5. Go!

LA_Raiders
06-19-2011, 06:53 PM
2000-01 Lakers is the greatest ever imo

Agree, season wins is overated, Its all about the POffs...

D Roses Bulls
06-19-2011, 07:10 PM
come on guys, please go back and watch the 95-96 bulls. jordan made a point winning the finals in 6 games. he wanted to win it on fathers day, first championship since his father died. they could have easily swept through the playoffs. that team was unstoppable.

bootsy
06-19-2011, 07:12 PM
Agree, season wins is overated, Its all about the POffs...

Yeah right.:facepalm: Season wins tell the COMPLETE story and not justa team that turned it on once the playoffs begin.If that was the case you could put the 95 Rockets in the mix. They won 47 games in the regular season and then beat two 60 win teams(Utah, San Antonio) and then beat a 57 win team(Phoenix) and a 59 win team and the East's number 1 seed(Orlando) in the playoffs. Doesn't quite work that way. That Lakers team made a great run in the playoffs but that whole entire season needs to be looked at.

Swashcuff
06-19-2011, 07:15 PM
Agree, season wins is overated, Its all about the POffs...

Had the Lakers won 70+ games in any season you wont be saying this. :rolleyes: Much hard to win 72 out of 82 than 15 out 16 albeit in the playoffs. As I stated earlier if you want to make that claim you need to look being just 15-1 and understand the circumstances which took play to see them getting there. But no you guys see 15-1 and say it was the greatest team ever. Purely comical.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-19-2011, 08:09 PM
LeBron has potential to become a top 3 SF all time Wade has potential to become the a top 3-5 SG all time. Both could potentially become top 20 players all time by the time their career ends. Not to mention they also current top 10 PF alongside them. There was a reason why many believed they could have won more than 70 games.

Paper matters not how similar two players are to eachother paper is paper it doesn't take that into consideration. What you are bringing up there is not what we see on paper. That's what we see when the game is actually being played.

Name me 30 teams that have had 2 top 5 players and a top 20 player at the point of the formation on it at the same time. Matter of a fact name me 10, matter of a fact name me 5. Go!


I didn't realize a team was built on 3 people...thats nice too know.

Also, you took me the wrong way a little. By looking at the paper, i also use logic and use common sense on how the players on paper play together

Also, Until Lebron gets mentally tougher and becomes a big time player in big games, he won't be top 3...

Fact is..If someone believes the heat of this yr..on paper even, are better than the 80's celtics/lakers, 2000's lakers ect ect..they are joking themself

Bos_Sports4Life
06-19-2011, 08:12 PM
come on guys, please go back and watch the 95-96 bulls. jordan made a point winning the finals in 6 games. he wanted to win it on fathers day, first championship since his father died. they could have easily swept through the playoffs. that team was unstoppable.

:facepalm:

D Roses Bulls
06-19-2011, 11:17 PM
:facepalm:

dude, I'm old enough where I watched the game and remember what was going around and being talked about then. that is what was going around at the time. I know wtf I'm talking about.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-20-2011, 01:08 PM
dude, I'm old enough where I watched the game and remember what was going around and being talked about then. that is what was going around at the time. I know wtf I'm talking about.


Dude...your making NO SENSE

Jordan, the competitor he was would have not lost 2 games on purprose. Your talking about 1 of the most competitive players of all time and guy who HATED losing. Too say this man TRIED too lose 2 games, too than get too a game 6 is laughable and downright ignorant

Sly Guy
06-20-2011, 01:33 PM
Against a league with a bunch of expansion teams, sure.

hey the raps took one of those 10 games off those bulls. I know, I was there.

ink
06-20-2011, 01:55 PM
So basically the Sporting News is saying that the NBA went downhill after the Bulls 72-10 season. I'd agree. If you saw that Bulls team or the Lakers team of the 80s you'd know that we have been watching some pretty mediocre, over-hyped ball for the last 15 years. I'd take the better basketball over this era's better marketing any day ...

ink
06-20-2011, 02:02 PM
come on guys, please go back and watch the 95-96 bulls. jordan made a point winning the finals in 6 games. he wanted to win it on fathers day, first championship since his father died. they could have easily swept through the playoffs. that team was unstoppable.

They went to 6 because of stellar D from Seattle and a very tough roster including amazing performances from Kemp and Payton, balanced supplementary scoring from guys like Hawkins and Perkins, and a gutsy performance from a very intelligent Nate McMillan. They took games 4 and 5 when the Bulls thought they had it locked up. Seattle made them work for that crown. George Karl also coached an exceptional series.

The Final Boss
06-20-2011, 08:32 PM
Is this the same Jordan who one on Fathers Day that previously was the reason behind his fathers murder? Lmao just stop guys, its getting embarrassing.

effen5
06-20-2011, 09:17 PM
u really think the bulls would go 72-10 in the 2000s?

and no way does the bulls beat the lakers, whos gonna stop shaq lol

Apparently some kids forget Shaq was drafted in 92 and Rodman played against Shaq in his prime and shitted all over him the same way Rodman shitted on Malone and any other big men that got in the Bulls' way.

effen5
06-20-2011, 09:18 PM
People here are underrating the east in the 90s.....Some of those teams in the east including the Heat and Knicks would have taken that 01 Lakers team to seven games.

wjmoffatt
06-20-2011, 09:28 PM
01 Lakers should def be on this list. Who cares if the list is dominated by 3 teams; Chicago, Lakers, and Celtics. Those teams could easily make out the top ten throughout the years. Bulls could and should have 2 oe 3 teams, as should Celtics 3, and Lakers 3.