PDA

View Full Version : Are the WARRIORS the Greatest NBA Team Ever? (Comprehensive Lineup Breakdowns)



Lionel20
03-05-2016, 06:20 PM
*Since is somewhat difficult to project postseason performance, my work for now is only measuring the top-10 best regular season teams.
*All players are translated by position into 1990s league levels
*All players are listed by my own version of Player Value converted into Wins
* Player Value is based on "Alternative Wins Shares" and "Value Over Replacement Player" formulas, however significantly changed to include more defensive metrics (Primarily SportsVU defensive tracking). ETC.
*All players adjusted for League Quality
*Team total value cutoff = 66.5 wins

Player win contributions listed to the right




10th place

Bulls 1996-97 SCORE 66.568



Michael Jordan 16.45
Scottie Pippen 13.27
Toni Kukoc 6.16
Dennis Rodman 6.10
Steve Kerr 5.90
Ron Harper 4.76
Jason Caffey 3.41
Luc Longley 3.18
Randy Brown 2.38
Jud Buechler 1.58
Bill Wennington 1.47
Robert Parish 1.10
Dickey Simpkins 0.48
Bison Dele 0.31
Matt Steigenga 0.01

Total 67


9th place

Celtics 1985-86 SCORE 66.714


Larry Bird* 17.09
Kevin McHale* 10.45
Dennis Johnson* 7.78
Danny Ainge 6.76
Robert Parish* 10.21
Bill Walton* 5.33
Jerry Sichting 3.79
Scott Wedman 3.18
Rick Carlisle 0.97
Greg Kite 0.17
Sam Vincent 0.49
David Thirdkill 0.60
Sly Williams -0.11

Total 67


8th place

Bucks 1970-71 SCORE 66.886


Lucius Allen 1.99
Bob Dandridge 9.57
Bob Boozer 4.51
Greg Smith 7.07
Jon McGlocklin 7.05
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 18.12
Oscar Robertson* 11.91
Dick Cunningham 2.13
Bill Zopf 0.80
McCoy McLemore 1.32
Gary Freeman 1.73
Bob Greacen -0.25
Jeff Webb 0.24
Marv Winkler 0.68

Total 67


7th place

Lakers 1984-85 SCORE 67.236


Michael Cooper 5.87
Magic Johnson* 14.08
Kurt Rambis 4.63
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 12.56
James Worthy* 9.53
Byron Scott 7.64
Bob McAdoo* 3.37
Larry Spriggs 2.77
Mike McGee 3.68
Jamaal Wilkes 1.35
Mitch Kupchak 1.32
Ronnie Lester 0.52
Chuck Nevitt -0.07
Earl Jones -0.02



Total 67


6th place

Warriors 2014-15 SCORE 68.009


Andrew Bogut 5.96
Festus Ezeli 1.57
Ognjen Kuzmic 0.18
Draymond Green 9.52
Marreese Speights 3.96
David Lee 3.28
James Michael McAdoo 0.46
Stephen Curry 13.43
Shaun Livingston 4.01
Harrison Barnes 5.85
Klay Thompson 10.00
Andre Iguodala 5.76
Leandro Barbosa 2.44
Justin Holiday 1.64
Brandon Rush -0.05


Total 68


5th place

Bulls 1991-92 SCORE 68.290


B.J. Armstrong 5.00
Bill Cartwright 2.93
Bob Hansen 0.82
Chuck Nevitt -0.03
Cliff Levingston 2.59
Craig Hodges 1.10
Dennis Hopson 0.01
Horace Grant 13.18
John Paxson 4.17
Mark Randall 0.10
Michael Jordan 17.84
Rory Sparrow -0.03
Scott Williams 0.59
Scottie Pippen 14.31
Stacey King 2.96
Will Perdue 2.75

Total 68


4th place

Lakers 1986-87 SCORE 68.614


Byron Scott 9.04
A.C. Green 7.82
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 8.66
Magic Johnson* 16.98
Michael Cooper 6.65
Kurt Rambis 4.13
James Worthy* 10.67
Billy Thompson 1.40
Mychal Thompson 1.18
Wes Matthews 0.93
Frank Brickowski 0.55
Mike Smrek -0.05
Adrian Branch 0.65

Total 69


3rd place

Lakers 1971-72 SCORE 69.196


Wilt Chamberlain 16.77
Jerry West 12.39
Happy Hairston 10.84
Gail Goodrich 10.75
Jim McMillian 8.92
Leroy Ellis 2.55
Flynn Robinson 2.56
Pat Riley 1.49
John Trapp 1.29
Elgin Baylor 0.64
Jim Cleamons 0.49
Keith Erickson 0.49

Total 69


2nd place

Bulls 1995-96 SCORE 70.022


Michael Jordan 17.93
Scottie Pippen 12.07
Toni Kukoc 8.27
Dennis Rodman 6.61
Steve Kerr 5.99
Ron Harper 5.40
Luc Longley 3.11
Jud Buechler 2.98
Bill Wennington 1.75
Dickey Simpkins 1.97
Randy Brown 1.94
Jason Caffey 1.33
James Edwards 0.29
John Salley 0.37
Jack Haley 0.01

Total 70


1st place (Projected)


Andrew Bogut 5.78
Festus Ezeli 3.91
Anderson Varejao 0.06
Draymond Green 13.04
Marreese Speights 1.81
James Michael McAdoo 0.57
Kevon Looney 0.11
Stephen Curry 15.22
Shaun Livingston 3.78
Leandro Barbosa 2.22
Harrison Barnes 4.57
Klay Thompson 9.31
Andre Iguodala 6.63
Brandon Rush 2.26
Ian Clark 1.06
Jason Thompson 0.45

Total 71

JordansBulls
03-05-2016, 07:27 PM
If they lose in the playoffs it will be remembered as much as New England 2007.

Lionel20
03-05-2016, 11:18 PM
If they lose in the playoffs it will be remembered as much as New England 2007.

I think worse. The Patriots don't play 7 game series, and the Super Bowl is on a neutral field. If the Warriors lose in the playoffs, I think Steve Kerr goes on the hot seat. Harrison Barnes is an above-average player. He's like the sixth best player on the team.

I think those 90s Jordan-led Bulls teams had another level:

They took out the '91 Lakers in 5 games
'92 Cavs, Blazers in six
'93 Suns & Knicks combined for 122 RS wins, Bulls in six
Then 1996 & 1997 Bulls go 30 - 7 in the postseason
Lastly, another 60+ win Jazz team in six

The Warriors had a relatively easy path to the championship last season, including beating a 53 win Cav team, missing two of its stars, in six games. They need to do more in the postseason this year before I rank this team in my top 3. I don't think this particular Warriors team, with it's current nucleus of stars, has shown that they can elevate their performance in postseason to the degree the Bulls did. I mean that Cavs team was depleted, and the Warriors from my memory were almost if not fully healthy. So either LeBron is the greatest player in NBA History, or that 2015 Warriors team (ranked 6th all-time in my rankings), wasn't performing up to it's par.

Cavs v Warriors

Game 1 OT GS win - Kyrie went down
Game 2 OT Cavs win
Game 3 Cavs win

It's was pretty close to Cavs 3 - 0, which would've made it the biggest upset in NBA history.

The only time the Jordan-led 90s Bulls teams struggle like that in the postseason, was in the Pacers series in '98. It was a 34 year old Michael Jordan against a Pacers team that won 58 that year. The '95 season featured #45 Jordan trying to work himself into his usual top form after coming out of retirement.

ewing
03-05-2016, 11:29 PM
i am so impressed by the Warriors this year. I know they were great last year but i really think this team grew a lot since last year. i really don't see anyone beating them. I don't think the Spurs can do it but i will never count Pop out. I think it will take an superstar performance from Durrant or someone plus some choking or god forbid and injury issue for the Warriors not to roll.

Scoots
03-06-2016, 01:11 AM
I mean that Cavs team was depleted, and the Warriors from my memory were almost if not fully healthy. So either LeBron is the greatest player in NBA History, or that 2015 Warriors team (ranked 6th all-time in my rankings), wasn't performing up to it's par.


That Warriors team was younger than those Bulls teams and a lot less experienced in the playoffs. They were shook in the finals. The Cavs changed up everything they were doing before that series and it took a little time to adjust. I think the series wasn't as close as Cavs fans would like to believe ... but no question LeBron played a brilliant series.

I think to some extent the quality of the Western conference and it's depth contributed to the perception that the Warriors missed out on the tougher opponents. I don't buy that the Clippers were all that tough as the Warriors had no problem dealing with them in the regular season. The Spurs were a different matter, but we'll never know.

But last year doesn't matter when it comes to this year. Those Warriors didn't know what they could do ... this team has confidence and experience far beyond that team.

Still these debates are all just mental masturbation since we can't ever know.

ghettosean
03-06-2016, 01:51 AM
Under the new rules I think they are the best ever but if they play in the 90's they are not beating the bulls. Though if you bring the 95-96 bulls to current rules I don't think they could stop the warriors.

Corey
03-06-2016, 02:10 AM
If they lose in the playoffs it will be remembered as much as New England 2007.

:oldguy:

Kush McDaniels
03-06-2016, 02:18 AM
Adam Morrison 0.01

85 Lakers had this guy ^

TylerSL
03-06-2016, 04:17 AM
They have to finish the job, but they are on pace to be the greatest team ever. I hope they can win 74 or 75 games as opposed to just 73 and put the conversation to bed. They also have to repeat as champions and to do that they have to stay healthy. San Antonio is on pace to win 68 games and have a historically great margin of victory, so a Golden State championship is no forgone conclusion. The league is better today than it was 20 years ago when Chicago won 72, so yes the Warriors are on pace to be the greatest ever.

tredigs
03-06-2016, 04:56 AM
2016 Spurs didn't make your cut? They're the team with the best SRS in NBA history and on pace for the 2nd best win total in NBA history (or 3rd behind these Warriors). In many regards, from a stats-head standpoint, they'd be the bigger disappointment were they to lose.

tredigs
03-06-2016, 05:01 AM
They have to finish the job, but they are on pace to be the greatest team ever. I hope they can win 74 or 75 games as opposed to just 73 and put the conversation to bed. They also have to repeat as champions and to do that they have to stay healthy. San Antonio is on pace to win 68 games and have a historically great margin of victory, so a Golden State championship is no forgone conclusion. The league is better today than it was 20 years ago when Chicago won 72, so yes the Warriors are on pace to be the greatest ever.

PJ is on record saying a west coast team could never break the Bulls record; that the rigors of the travel schedule were too daunting for West Coast teams. Warriors have traveled the most miles of any team this season.

Gander13SM
03-06-2016, 06:20 AM
Surprised at those Celtics being so low. Would have had them as the 3rd best team ever personally. Interested to hear more about the formula used.

Also odd the Spurs aren't there anywhere. Having a great year.

Munkeysuit
03-06-2016, 06:31 AM
Numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole story...greatest team ever? that will be debatable at best and this Warriors team can live with that argument seeing as how that 96 Bulls team set this bar in the first place.
You can literally throw any number you want out there to validate who's better, the Warriors can even beat that 72 win record and they still wont be standing at the top alone, because that Bulls team set the record while this Warriors team is just simply trying to beat it or match whats already been done...there is nothing like the original.

Munkeysuit
03-06-2016, 06:32 AM
I also wanted to add, that even that 72 win Bulls team isn't the clear cut greatest team of all time, they too are subject to that debate, some might say the Showtime Lakers or even Russel's Celtics team.

tredigs
03-06-2016, 09:18 AM
You say that your player ratings here are based on VORP and Alternative Win Shares but "significantly changed to include more defensive metrics include SportsVu player tracking, etc". 2 questions: Where is "Alternative" win shares found? And how did you find SportsVu data for any of the listed players other than Curry?

Mind sharing the actual formula?

ewing
03-06-2016, 09:25 AM
PJ is on record saying a west coast team could never break the Bulls record; that the rigors of the travel schedule were too daunting for West Coast teams. Warriors have traveled the most miles of any team this season.

do they pick their cars up and run with them like Fred Flintstone?

Lionel20
03-06-2016, 12:06 PM
Adam Morrison 0.01

85 Lakers had this guy ^

No deduct that.. mistype

Lionel20
03-06-2016, 12:30 PM
2016 Spurs didn't make your cut? They're the team with the best SRS in NBA history and on pace for the 2nd best win total in NBA history (or 3rd behind these Warriors). In many regards, from a stats-head standpoint, they'd be the bigger disappointment were they to lose.

The Spurs, at least from my projections through 62 games, are just outside of my top-10 @ a projected value of 66.41 Wins. I think the 2008-9 Lakers recorded a 66.4 score as well. These current Spurs, are likely the best Regular Season Spurs team all-time, and 11th or 12th in my historic rankings. The projections can fluctuate however, and I'll recalculate their final team performance at the conclusion of the regular season. The Spurs over the last decade or so, much like the 90s Bulls, seem to perform at a higher level in the postseason. Remember, my team rankings are put on an All-time scale, in others words I had to place every player in a neutral period for fairness.

2015-16 Spurs breakdown:


Kawhi Leonard 12.85
LaMarcus Aldridge 9.61
Danny Green 4.17
Tony Parker 5.81
Patrick Mills 4.54
Tim Duncan 5.78
Boris Diaw 4.39
David West 4.83
Ray McCallum 0.56
Andre Miller 0.45
Manu Ginobili 4.57
Kyle Anderson 2.92
Jonathon Simmons 1.36
Rasual Butler 1.73
Boban Marjanovic 2.25
Matt Bonner 0.61


Total 66

Lionel20
03-06-2016, 12:47 PM
You say that your player ratings here are based on VORP and Alternative Win Shares but "significantly changed to include more defensive metrics include SportsVu player tracking, etc". 2 questions: Where is "Alternative" win shares found? And how did you find SportsVu data for any of the listed players other than Curry?

Mind sharing the actual formula?

Here's an article on Linear Weights that contains the Alternate Win Score formula.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1985

I only used SportsVu defensive tracking info, specifically the Player Opponent FG Differentials to score individual player defense for the last two seasons. For any season prior to 2015, I used DWS from BB-ref, I implemented the linear weights from AWS and Vorp as well, assessed Arturo's league quality measures, and factored in my own league level adjustments from the 90s. All I can do is summarize right now, I don't have time to show all the equations.

Scoots
03-06-2016, 12:48 PM
PJ is on record saying a west coast team could never break the Bulls record; that the rigors of the travel schedule were too daunting for West Coast teams. Warriors have traveled the most miles of any team this season.

This Warriors team is going to travel an insane number of miles compared to Cleveland. 54k to 35k miles. And anybody who says in modern day travel doesn't matter. Ask Bosh's blood clots. Ask any psychologist. Travel is a physical and mental drain.

tredigs
03-06-2016, 12:49 PM
do they pick their cars up and run with them like Fred Flintstone?

Lol fair comment. That said, I'm not sure how much traveling you have done, but constant time changes and always being up and on the move in different cities on road trips takes a massive tole on the body. It's why a 7+ game road trip has exactly zero cases of the team going undefeated (warriors this year tied the best ever 7 and 8 game road trips). But that game in Milwaukee to snap the start of the year streak was lost before they entered the building. They were devastatingly/noticeably worn down.

I saw a stat on the miles traveled this season, and the Warriors had the most,Cavs the least. And the difference was enormous (tens of thousands of miles). I do think it matters.

Scoots
03-06-2016, 12:51 PM
Numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole story...greatest team ever? that will be debatable at best and this Warriors team can live with that argument seeing as how that 96 Bulls team set this bar in the first place.
You can literally throw any number you want out there to validate who's better, the Warriors can even beat that 72 win record and they still wont be standing at the top alone, because that Bulls team set the record while this Warriors team is just simply trying to beat it or match whats already been done...there is nothing like the original.

The Bulls didn't set the wins in a season record first though ... they beat the teams with 69 wins ... so they "own" the record as the "original"? But wait, the teams who had the record before that were "the original".

I don't see how this makes any difference ... where the Bulls record would be somehow more special than the Warriors record?

ewing
03-06-2016, 01:01 PM
This Warriors team is going to travel an insane number of miles compared to Cleveland. 54k to 35k miles. And anybody who says in modern day travel doesn't matter. Ask Bosh's blood clots. Ask any psychologist. Travel is a physical and mental drain.


You want me to ask Chris Bosh's blood clots a question? You Warrior fans are getting ridiculous. they deserve credit for being a great basketball team. they don't have it so much harder then Clev b/c they travel more miles. Maybe Clev has it much harder the GS b/c it actually gets cold there. OMG, they have winter and still win games OMG!!!!!!! Not only are they 1st in the East they have winter

ewing
03-06-2016, 01:02 PM
If you don't think winter matters ask a homeless dude

Scoots
03-06-2016, 01:38 PM
You want me to ask Chris Bosh's blood clots a question? You Warrior fans are getting ridiculous. they deserve credit for being a great basketball team. they don't have it so much harder then Clev b/c they travel more miles. Maybe Clev has it much harder the GS b/c it actually gets cold there. OMG, they have winter and still win games OMG!!!!!!! Not only are they 1st in the East they have winter

I used to live there, I know winter matters.

Bosh's blood clots are made worse by travel. He has to get up and walk around every 30 minutes on a plane. Travel sucks.

The Warriors travel to cold cities too so they have to deal with that too.

A little more travel doesn't make much of a difference, the Warriors are travelling 54% more than Cleveland is within the same calendar time. That is a big difference.

Of course, the Warriors don't have nearly that much more travel than the Spurs who IIRC are around 50k miles this year. The mid-west teams do have a big advantage in travel ... always do, always will.

ewing
03-06-2016, 01:56 PM
I used to live there, I know winter matters.

Bosh's blood clots are made worse by travel. He has to get up and walk around every 30 minutes on a plane. Travel sucks.

The Warriors travel to cold cities too so they have to deal with that too.

A little more travel doesn't make much of a difference, the Warriors are travelling 54% more than Cleveland is within the same calendar time. That is a big difference.

Of course, the Warriors don't have nearly that much more travel than the Spurs who IIRC are around 50k miles this year. The mid-west teams do have a big advantage in travel ... always do, always will.


Whatever, the Cavilers experience 86.4% more goose pimples over the course of a season. I mean in 1984 World B Free's blood actually froze before a game in Cleveland.

Scoots
03-06-2016, 02:17 PM
Whatever, the Cavilers experience 86.4% more goose pimples over the course of a season. I mean in 1984 World B Free's blood actually froze before a game in Cleveland.

Having lived there I agree that the Bay Area is superior in most ways compared to Cleveland.

ewing
03-06-2016, 02:20 PM
Having lived there I agree that the Bay Area is superior in most ways compared to Cleveland.


Whatever, just keeping a little of the homerism in check. If i ever root for a team as good as GS someone will likely have to do it to me.

Scoots
03-06-2016, 02:50 PM
Whatever, just keeping a little of the homerism in check. If i ever root for a team as good as GS someone will likely have to do it to me.

I don't think I'm a homer, I'm an NBA fan more than a Warriors fan ... I still can't believe this is happening to my hometown team though.

valade16
03-07-2016, 10:45 AM
They have to finish the job, but they are on pace to be the greatest team ever. I hope they can win 74 or 75 games as opposed to just 73 and put the conversation to bed. They also have to repeat as champions and to do that they have to stay healthy. San Antonio is on pace to win 68 games and have a historically great margin of victory, so a Golden State championship is no forgone conclusion. The league is better today than it was 20 years ago when Chicago won 72, so yes the Warriors are on pace to be the greatest ever.

What do you mean? Do you mean the league in general is just more talented than it was back then or that specifically there were better teams or the league was deeper that season?

urban85disciple
03-07-2016, 11:18 AM
I think he means he's too young to have watched, or remember, the NBA 20 years ago.

Chronz
03-07-2016, 02:15 PM
What do you mean? Do you mean the league in general is just more talented than it was back then or that specifically there were better teams or the league was deeper that season?
Think he's talking about rampant expansion of the time.

valade16
03-07-2016, 03:31 PM
Think he's talking about rampant expansion of the time.

I mean, I just don't think it was that different to this season given how bad some of the teams are.

Here were the 5 lowest win% of 96:

Vancouver 15-67 (18.3%)
Philadelphia 18-64 (22.0%)
Toronto 21-61 (25.6%)
Milwaukie 25-57 (30.5%)
T-Minny/Dallas 26-56 (31.7%)

And here is today:

Philadelphia 8-55 (12.7%)
Lakers 13-51 (20.3%)
Phoenix 17-46 (27.0%)
Brooklyn 18-46 (28.6%)
Minnesota 20-43 (31.7%)


Outside GS having to face the historically good SA this season, I think in terms of overall depth, there were actually more quality teams in 96 and just as few terrible teams as this season.

tredigs
03-07-2016, 03:47 PM
I mean, I just don't think it was that different to this season given how bad some of the teams are.

Here were the 5 lowest win% of 96:

Vancouver 15-67 (18.3%)
Philadelphia 18-64 (22.0%)
Toronto 21-61 (25.6%)
Milwaukie 25-57 (30.5%)
T-Minny/Dallas 26-56 (31.7%)

And here is today:

Philadelphia 8-55 (12.7%)
Lakers 13-51 (20.3%)
Phoenix 17-46 (27.0%)
Brooklyn 18-46 (28.6%)
Minnesota 20-43 (31.7%)


Outside GS having to face the historically good SA this season, I think in terms of overall depth, there were actually more quality teams in 96 and just as few terrible teams as this season.
You can't just look at win%. That's relative to their own league obviously. The fact of the matter is that MJ/Bulls came to rise in the midst of 4 expansion teams being introduced to the league (88 and 89), along with another 2 expansion teams and an expansion draft just before the 72 win season. It waters down all the mid-tier teams significantly. There is no question the teams were not of the caliber that season than this league faces day in/day out. Aside from the expansion draft, the hundreds upon hundreds of millions in basketball research/improvements over the past 20 years all but guarantee that.

Jayb587
03-07-2016, 04:17 PM
wheres the 2001 lakers. no one is beating them in a 7 game series.

Bostonjorge
03-07-2016, 04:28 PM
wheres the 2001 lakers. no one is beating them in a 7 game series.

Nope

valade16
03-07-2016, 04:28 PM
You can't just look at win%. That's relative to their own league obviously. The fact of the matter is that MJ/Bulls came to rise in the midst of 4 expansion teams being introduced to the league (88 and 89), along with another 2 expansion teams and an expansion draft just before the 72 win season. It waters down all the mid-tier teams significantly. There is no question the teams were not of the caliber that season than this league faces day in/day out. Aside from the expansion draft, the hundreds upon hundreds of millions in basketball research/improvements over the past 20 years all but guarantee that.

As I mentioned, those 2 expansion teams that season were not any worse than the 76ers or Lakers are today comparatively. And as for the other expansion teams, one of those 4 from the late 80's was the Orlando Magic, a 60 win team that season.

I'm talking about relative to the league they played in. If you want to go by SRS the modern 76ers are the worst team of the bunch.

Despite the "watered down" mid-tier teams, I don't think beyond the Spurs the teams this season are much better than their counterparts.

Warriors - Bulls
Spurs - Sonics
Cavaliers - Magic
Thunder - Spurs
Raptors - Jazz
Clippers - Lakers
Grizzlies - Pacers
Celtics - Rockets
Heat - Knicks
Hawks - Cavaliers
Hornets - Pistons
Mavericks - Hawks
Pacers - Blazers

Would you pick the Cavaliers this season to defeat the Magic that season? The Thunder to defeat the Spurs? The Raptors to beat the Jazz? The Heat to defeat those Knicks?

If you want to argue the teams today are simply better than their counterparts of that season, then tell me how many of those matchups do you see current teams winning?

tredigs
03-07-2016, 05:05 PM
These Thunder over those Spurs? Yep. This OKC team has had some struggles with late game execution, but I'm taking a healthy KD/Westbrook/Ibaka over every team in '96 other than the Bulls. The Spurs are better than every team outside of the Bulls as well. The Clippers - if they can work it out to have Blake smooth back into the lineup - are going to be an absolute force in the playoffs. That's a team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs last year with talent that rivals Payton + Kemp's Sonics (and really it was mutually assured destruction based on how much gas it took out of them). Though I'd lean with the Sonics there due to better role players.

I'm not going to sit here and break down each team of this NBA and a comparative example from back then, but suffice to say, if we had added two new teams last season and they were picking players off of other teams in our NBA, we would have a worse product as a result. Not just due to the dilution of the talent pool (a talent pool that had nowhere close to the totality of international players/impact that we see today), but because it disrupts the continuity of so many programs.

Bottom line, I am of the opinion that the hundreds of millions (probably more like billions) of dollars of research/adjustments that the game has received over the past 2+ decades has created a product where it is flat out tougher to win basketball games now than it was in the past. It's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument, though, and I frankly don't think it's fair to compare the two leagues on the same plane. They should be compared to their dominance relative to their own peers.

valade16
03-07-2016, 05:43 PM
These Thunder over those Spurs? Yep. This OKC team has had some struggles with late game execution, but I'm taking a healthy KD/Westbrook/Ibaka over every team in '96 other than the Bulls. The Spurs are better than every team outside of the Bulls as well. The Clippers - if they can work it out to have Blake smooth back into the lineup - are going to be an absolute force in the playoffs. That's a team that beat the Spurs in the playoffs last year with talent that rivals Payton + Kemp's Sonics (and really it was mutually assured destruction based on how much gas it took out of them). Though I'd lean with the Sonics there due to better role players.

I'm not going to sit here and break down each team of this NBA and a comparative example from back then, but suffice to say, if we had added two new teams last season and they were picking players off of other teams in our NBA, we would have a worse product as a result. Not just due to the dilution of the talent pool (a talent pool that had nowhere close to the totality of international players/impact that we see today), but because it disrupts the continuity of so many programs.

Bottom line, I am of the opinion that the hundreds of millions (probably more like billions) of dollars of research/adjustments that the game has received over the past 2+ decades has created a product where it is flat out tougher to win basketball games now than it was in the past. It's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" argument, though, and I frankly don't think it's fair to compare the two leagues on the same plane. They should be compared to their dominance relative to their own peers.

First Bolded: To each his own, but I'd take the Magic over the current Thunder considering outside of KD/Russ/Ibaka the team is hot garbage.

Second Bolded: This is a false equivalent. Who cares whether it would hypothetically make the current league worse, I'm arguing that even with those 2 expansion teams this league has just as many abjectly terrible teams. One could easily argue given the 76ers strategy that if they had to give up all their players and get players via an expansion draft they'd actually be better record wise (though obviously their future wouldn't look as bright).

So whether the expansion teams made the league more diluted than 95, we can still look at the records and say, even with the dilution you claim, they had a comparable floor and a comparable middle.

Also, if you want to claim that the expansion draft messed up the teams at the top, name the players from Vancouver or Toronto that season taken from one of the top 8 teams in the league and whether that adversely affected them. I just don't see it. Let's get past the theoretical logic and show me the application; where did these teams actually get worse as a result of players they had to give up that season?

Third Bolded: I agree, and that was what I was referring to. I don't think that season was much weaker top to bottom than this league in terms of relativity to the Bulls. The biggest difference is while 96 was more balanced and had a better complement of middle teams, there was no team on the level of the current Spurs.

tredigs
03-07-2016, 05:49 PM
Why are you focusing on the top 8 teams? I'm talking about the league as a whole. They did not get their 72 wins beating the top 8 teams every night.

tmacsc2
03-07-2016, 06:02 PM
If they blaze through the playoffs and chip, i think it finally has to come to fruition that they could hang with that bulls team.

Scoots
03-07-2016, 06:16 PM
You can't just look at win%. That's relative to their own league obviously. The fact of the matter is that MJ/Bulls came to rise in the midst of 4 expansion teams being introduced to the league (88 and 89), along with another 2 expansion teams and an expansion draft just before the 72 win season. It waters down all the mid-tier teams significantly. There is no question the teams were not of the caliber that season than this league faces day in/day out. Aside from the expansion draft, the hundreds upon hundreds of millions in basketball research/improvements over the past 20 years all but guarantee that.

For the NBA as a whole winning percentage is a zero sum game. The fact that there are 2 teams winning at a historic rate means that other teams win % will be necessarily reduced in comparison to other seasons.

valade16
03-07-2016, 09:57 PM
Why are you focusing on the top 8 teams? I'm talking about the league as a whole. They did not get their 72 wins beating the top 8 teams every night.

As am I.

Though ironically the Warriors DID get all their wins beating the top 8 teams every night, it's the other teams where they have mental lapses or bad games.

valade16
03-07-2016, 10:09 PM
[xQUOTE=Scoots;30779904]For the NBA as a whole winning percentage is a zero sum game. The fact that there are 2 teams winning at a historic rate means that other teams win % will be necessarily reduced in comparison to other seasons.[/QUOTE]

But not by much compared to 96 since the Bulls also won at a historic rate and the Sonics also won 64 games.

By the end of the season the difference could be very small.

Kush McDaniels
03-07-2016, 10:50 PM
You gotta admit that the overall pool of talent is greater now than it ever was, and will only continue to grow as basketball gets more popular, and as populations grow. Coaching and game preparation has evolved miles above what it used to be. I've heard so many people point out recently that players in the 90's used to "work out" but guys today "train". Competitive sports are just at another level these days.

The talk about whether players are learning to play the right way, or if the rule changes have created an entirely different league can be debated. I would like to think this Warriors team would give the 96' Bulls a tough time, with or without 90's rules, as could many great teams from this era.

ewing
03-08-2016, 12:51 AM
i don't know who would win but AI really does remind me of gerald wilkins- you know the Jordan stopper :hide:

ghettosean
03-08-2016, 03:26 AM
I mean, I just don't think it was that different to this season given how bad some of the teams are.

Here were the 5 lowest win% of 96:

Vancouver 15-67 (18.3%)
Philadelphia 18-64 (22.0%)
Toronto 21-61 (25.6%)
Milwaukie 25-57 (30.5%)
T-Minny/Dallas 26-56 (31.7%)

And here is today:

Philadelphia 8-55 (12.7%)
Lakers 13-51 (20.3%)
Phoenix 17-46 (27.0%)
Brooklyn 18-46 (28.6%)
Minnesota 20-43 (31.7%)


Outside GS having to face the historically good SA this season, I think in terms of overall depth, there were actually more quality teams in 96 and just as few terrible teams as this season.
You can't just look at win%. That's relative to their own league obviously. The fact of the matter is that MJ/Bulls came to rise in the midst of 4 expansion teams being introduced to the league (88 and 89), along with another 2 expansion teams and an expansion draft just before the 72 win season. It waters down all the mid-tier teams significantly. There is no question the teams were not of the caliber that season than this league faces day in/day out. Aside from the expansion draft, the hundreds upon hundreds of millions in basketball research/improvements over the past 20 years all but guarantee that.

Out of the losses the bulls had that year one of them was to an expansion team (Toronto). Just to add the other pick of Big Country by Vancouver definitely didn't deprecate the talent in the league when Toronto and Vancouver were introduced.

Just saying.

ChicagoJ
03-08-2016, 09:46 PM
Well I think the 96 Bulls beat the warriors in the 90s or today. The reason why is that bulls team was so dominating defensively, on the boards, and at creating turnovers they took teams out of their rhythm.

That's the one thing I'm still waiting to see with golden state. They are a great team when they run up and down the floor, playing their game in their comfort zone and scoring at will. But how will they react when a team takes them out of that game, forces them to play a defefensive half court game, where virtually no passing lanes exist (without high risk of turning it over). How will they react mentally when what has worked so easily for them all the sudden stops working and they have to gut it out and win defensive battles?

Against the 90s Bulls it wouldn't have been a high scoring series, most games would end in the 91-95 pt range. I think the Warriors deserve credit for being a great team, one of the all time greats. But I don't see them beating the 90s Bulls and I'm hoping to see them challenged by someone in the postseason who can take them out of their rythum and comfort zone, see how well they do. Seems unlikely, but I want to see them challenged in that way.

tredigs
03-08-2016, 10:22 PM
Well I think the 96 Bulls beat the warriors in the 90s or today. The reason why is that bulls team was so dominating defensively, on the boards, and at creating turnovers they took teams out of their rhythm.

That's the one thing I'm still waiting to see with golden state. They are a great team when they run up and down the floor, playing their game in their comfort zone and scoring at will. But how will they react when a team takes them out of that game, forces them to play a defefensive half court game, where virtually no passing lanes exist (without high risk of turning it over). How will they react mentally when what has worked so easily for them all the sudden stops working and they have to gut it out and win defensive battles?

Against the 90s Bulls it wouldn't have been a high scoring series, most games would end in the 91-95 pt range. I think the Warriors deserve credit for being a great team, one of the all time greats. But I don't see them beating the 90s Bulls and I'm hoping to see them challenged by someone in the postseason who can take them out of their rythum and comfort zone, see how well they do. Seems unlikely, but I want to see them challenged in that way.

Ridiculously rare for a team who did not add a star to go from 1st round exit to ship in one season. I think they faced that slowing of pace and overbearing defense at multiple times in their run. They were inexperienced and faltered at first (multiple times), but quickly adjusted and dominated the tail end of every series.

Nothing they faced were the Bulls level, but they are also no longer at that level.

The Spurs are that test. We will see.

brandt
03-08-2016, 11:55 PM
Are the WARRIORS the Greatest NBA Team Ever? (Comprehensive Lineup Breakdowns)

NO!!!

Scoots
03-09-2016, 01:17 AM
Well I think the 96 Bulls beat the warriors in the 90s or today. The reason why is that bulls team was so dominating defensively, on the boards, and at creating turnovers they took teams out of their rhythm.

That's the one thing I'm still waiting to see with golden state. They are a great team when they run up and down the floor, playing their game in their comfort zone and scoring at will. But how will they react when a team takes them out of that game, forces them to play a defefensive half court game, where virtually no passing lanes exist (without high risk of turning it over). How will they react mentally when what has worked so easily for them all the sudden stops working and they have to gut it out and win defensive battles?

Against the 90s Bulls it wouldn't have been a high scoring series, most games would end in the 91-95 pt range. I think the Warriors deserve credit for being a great team, one of the all time greats. But I don't see them beating the 90s Bulls and I'm hoping to see them challenged by someone in the postseason who can take them out of their rythum and comfort zone, see how well they do. Seems unlikely, but I want to see them challenged in that way.

The Warriors last year absolutely dominated on D for stretches of games. It was no coincidence that they were the first team ever to finish first in pace and first in defense. They were brutal on D ... it's just that the pace made people think they were an offensive team.

valade16
03-09-2016, 09:40 AM
It's important to remember that if you had said the MJ/Pippen Bulls were the best team ever in 1992 you would have been ridiculed. But they went on to win 5 more Championships from that initial one and then people started to change their minds.

It's easy to sit here and say "the Warriors have only won 1 title, how could they be the best team ever?" because we don't know how many they will eventually win. If they win another 5-6 titles suddenly they are up there for best team ever right? But does that mean how they played this season changed at all? No. Only your perception did.

This Warriors team is on the shortlist of greatest team ever. It's certainly on my very short list of greatest teams I've ever seen.

Lionel20
03-11-2016, 12:12 AM
wheres the 2001 lakers. no one is beating them in a 7 game series.

My OP is currently only comparing teams based on Regular Season performance, 1.) because I have no idea how 2015-16 Warriors will perform in the PS (and ranking them was one of my purposes in this thread) 2.) because the 72 win mark this years Warriors are chasing is a regular season record

With that said, by my estimations, during the three-peat years under Phil Jackson, the 2000-01 was the weakest:

Lakers 1999-00


A.C. Green 4.57
Brian Shaw 2.44
Derek Fisher 3.09
Glen Rice 7.00
Kobe Bryant 9.76
Rick Fox 2.82
Robert Horry 4.79
Ron Harper 4.69
Shaquille O'Neal 18.64
Travis Knight 0.72
Devean George 0.71
John Salley 0.42
John Celestand 0.06
Tyronn Lue 0.26
Sam Jacobson 0.04




Total 60


Lakers 2000-01


Shaquille O'Neal 15.41
Rick Fox 5.56
Robert Horry 3.02
Ron Harper 2.51
Kobe Bryant 10.83
Horace Grant 6.29
Derek Fisher 1.66
Brian Shaw 3.55
Mike Penberthy 1.73
Derek Fisher 1.81
Mark Madsen 1.04
Devean George 0.41
Tyronn Lue 0.61
Greg Foster 0.68
Stanislav Medvedenko 0.09



Total 55


Lakers 2001-02


Robert Horry 6.37
Rick Fox 4.81
Samaki Walker 4.58
Shaquille O'Neal 13.01
Lindsey Hunter 2.79
Kobe Bryant 12.21
Devean George 4.13
Derek Fisher 5.22
Stanislav Medvedenko 1.70
Mitch Richmond 1.13
Mark Madsen 1.40
Brian Shaw 1.40
Jelani McCoy 0.14
Joe Crispin 0.00
Mike Penberthy 0.06



Total 59


Even the 2004 team through an 82 game measure, performed slightly better than the 2001 Lakers. 2004 team value equivalent to 55.6 wins, 2001 team equivalent to 55.2 wins.

2003-04 Lakers


Stanislav Medvedenko 3.13
Shaquille O'Neal 10.69
Kobe Bryant 9.93
Kareem Rush 2.00
Karl Malone* 4.28
Horace Grant 2.21
Gary Payton* 8.78
Devean George 4.17
Derek Fisher 3.56
Bryon Russell 1.92
Rick Fox 1.05
Luke Walton 1.63
Brian Cook 0.97
Jamal Sampson 0.36
Jannero Pargo -0.02
Maurice Carter 0.01
Ime Udoka 0.02

Total 55


With regards to "postseason" performance, and as an objective Laker fan, the 2001 Lakers were likely better than the 2000 Lakers, and certainly the 2002 team. The 2001 Lakers went 15-1 against 4 50 win teams. The main reason was Kobe's improved performance. 2001 Kobe's score in my value system was equivalent to 2.83 wins, 11.45 wins if extrapolated to his regular season MP that year. Kobe performed much better in 2001 than in 2000, 2002. But Shaq was better in 2000, and so were the role players.

But in a fair comparison between teams from different years, you can't base it off of the 20 or so playoff games without considering the regular season. I think the '73 Knicks were a great playoff team. They upset a 68 win Celtics team that year. They wouldn't make my overall list because of their 57 - 25 RS record that year.

Gametime
03-11-2016, 01:37 PM
This Warriors team would struggle against a good post up team.

Lionel20
03-12-2016, 01:50 AM
This Warriors team would struggle against a good post up team.

A while ago Steve Kerr made this quote:


Kerr: My initial thoughts are that it is literally impossible to even compare, because the rules are so different and the eras are so different. We would overload the strong side on [Michael] Jordan, and they would call illegal defense; and they would put their hands all over [Stephen] Curry, and the refs would call a foul. That make sense?

^
I always thought this was a false equivalence argument. The intent of the illegal defense ban in 2001-02 was to increase pace and ball movement, discourage iso. It was supposed to be kryptonite to the Superstar scorers. But Iverson was still Iverson, McGrady was still McGrady, Kobe was still Kobe. I think Jordan, Vince and others originally thought that banning illegal defense would make the pro game resemble the college game. Where's the evidence that it limited the Superstars?

But the NBA, in 2004-05 did institute stricter enforcement of it's no hand-checking rules. It already banned the use of the forearm by defenders against perimeter players, and limited the players' ability to defend players through screens in the 1999-00 season. These rules have clear and measurable effects. In short, these rules elevated perimeter players to historic levels, while true low post big men are virtually extinct. I think Kobe scored 81, and finished w almost 36 per game the year following the 2004-05 hand-checking ban.

Jordan was the NBA's top scorer by far in the 90s under rules that were much less favorable to perimeter players.

Lionel20
03-12-2016, 12:44 PM
Here's how my numbers project Curry's performance in the 90s:

PPG = 23.8
3P = 239
3P% = 44%
FG% = .520
APG = 6.4
SPG = 1.9
Wins Contribution = Around 14 or 15

Here's how (1989 - 1998) Michael Jordan projects in 2015-16:

PPG = 29.9
FG% = .490
RPG = 6.3
APG = 4.6
SPG = 2.05
Win Contribution = 21 to 22

valade16
03-12-2016, 01:48 PM
^ How do you get those projections?

Lionel20
03-12-2016, 07:38 PM
^ How do you get those projections?

I individually adjusted Curry's 2015-16 projected box stats by a factor determined by 2014-15 and 1990s league levels. The I applied the league quality factors. The opposite for Jordan. Built in to my calculations are the effects of the rule changes and pace adjustments.

I think the effects of the illegal defense ban are immaterial, and offset by free flowing perimeter play. Jordan's PPG 29.9 (Actual 30.8), for instance. But it's important to note that my breakdowns are by decade, and since I this decade isn't finished Jordan's stats are placed in 2000 - 2010 index.

But if, as I probably should, I show Jordan adjusted line through 2010 - 2016 levels. Top players are playing less minutes than in 2000 - 2010, going to the line much less, and shooting more 3's.

Jordan (1989 - 1998) adjusted to 2010 - 2016

PPG = 29.5
eFG% = .522
RPG = 6.3
APG = 4.5
SPG = 2.07
Est. Win Contribution = 19.26


Here, are Jordan's combined averages from the 87 & 88 Regular Seasons in today's levels.

PPG = 33.1
eFG% = .548
RPG = 5.1
APG = 4.3
SPG = 2.6
BPG = 1.3
Avg. Win Contribution = 20.18

Gander13SM
03-12-2016, 08:14 PM
I individually adjusted Curry's 2015-16 projected box stats by a factor determined by 2014-15 and 1990s league levels

Elaborate. You haven't really explained anything.

Here's my prediction of Jordans stats in the 70s based on a factor determined by 1975 league levels.

PPG - 5
APG - 0
SPG - 2
RPG - 1
BPG - 0.004539
eFG% - 110%


see... just type any nonsense you want.

Scoots
03-12-2016, 08:25 PM
Elaborate. You haven't really explained anything.

Here's my prediction of Jordans stats in the 70s based on a factor determined by 1975 league levels.

PPG - 5
APG - 0
SPG - 2
RPG - 1
BPG - 0.004539
eFG% - 110%


see... just type any nonsense you want.

I'm interested to hear what his method was, but you can ask for an explanation without being belittling. I think he's earned a little respect at least.

Monta is beast
03-12-2016, 08:32 PM
To me if they win it all they have to be considered the best of all time. Comming of 67 wins and a championship is already one of the best seasons of all time. There gonna break tje wins record this year, so if they win another title i dont see how you can argue it really. Just gotta wait and see how it plays out

ewing
03-12-2016, 08:32 PM
It's important to remember that if you had said the MJ/Pippen Bulls were the best team ever in 1992 you would have been ridiculed. But they went on to win 5 more Championships from that initial one and then people started to change their minds.

It's easy to sit here and say "the Warriors have only won 1 title, how could they be the best team ever?" because we don't know how many they will eventually win. If they win another 5-6 titles suddenly they are up there for best team ever right? But does that mean how they played this season changed at all? No. Only your perception did.

This Warriors team is on the shortlist of greatest team ever. It's certainly on my very short list of greatest teams I've ever seen.


i still think the 80s Lakers and Celts might be better then both. the warriors certainly are a great team right now.

ewing
03-12-2016, 08:34 PM
To me if they win it all they have to be considered the best of all time. Comming of 67 wins and a championship is already one of the best seasons of all time. There gonna break tje wins record this year, so if they win another title i dont see how you can argue it really. Just gotta wait and see how it plays out

cause winning 72 doesn't necessarily make you better then a team that won 65 under different circumstances. Even if circumstances were the same it doesn't mean you are more unbeatable in a 7 game series which is what it is all about

Gander13SM
03-12-2016, 08:35 PM
I'm interested to hear what his method was, but you can ask for an explanation without being belittling. I think he's earned a little respect at least.

Perhaps. But he was ready asked to explain and instead just waffled and tried to sound smart without offering an actual explanation. As if attempting to bamboozle the guy who asked the question to avoid actually answering it. Or not giving us a full explanation because he doesn't think we would be able to understand it.

Either way I found the way he "answered" the question without actually answering it to be both belittling and a little shady.

I am intrigued and if he had answered the question properly that would be it. Instead he gave a response which merited by dick head reply imo.

Like it or lump it.

Monta is beast
03-12-2016, 08:39 PM
Well I think the 96 Bulls beat the warriors in the 90s or today. The reason why is that bulls team was so dominating defensively, on the boards, and at creating turnovers they took teams out of their rhythm.

That's the one thing I'm still waiting to see with golden state. They are a great team when they run up and down the floor, playing their game in their comfort zone and scoring at will. But how will they react when a team takes them out of that game, forces them to play a defefensive half court game, where virtually no passing lanes exist (without high risk of turning it over). How will they react mentally when what has worked so easily for them all the sudden stops working and they have to gut it out and win defensive battles?

Against the 90s Bulls it wouldn't have been a high scoring series, most games would end in the 91-95 pt range. I think the Warriors deserve credit for being a great team, one of the all time greats. But I don't see them beating the 90s Bulls and I'm hoping to see them challenged by someone in the postseason who can take them out of their rythum and comfort zone, see how well they do. Seems unlikely, but I want to see them challenged in that way.

I mean thats all teams did in the postseason last year. Memphis and Cleveland slowed the game down as much as possible. Thats not the ideal way the warriors like to play but they can do it. the warriors defense is underrated. They get bored at times so the attention to detail isnt what it was last year, but when there locked in there a great defensive team. I would like to know how jordan would feel chasing whoever hes guarding all over the court fighting through screens etc. At this point i dont think its a question curry is a better offensive player than jordan, i think it would come down to klay vs pippen, thats where the edge goes to chi imo

Monta is beast
03-12-2016, 08:41 PM
cause winning 72 doesn't necessarily make you better then a team that won 65 under different circumstances. Even if circumstances were the same it doesn't mean you are more unbeatable in a 7 game series which is what it is all about

It kinda does matter. That bulls team set the regular season wins mark and won the chanpionship, but some of those celtics teams could have beat them in a 7 game series. But that bulls team is considered the best of all time. Numbers dont lie, everything else is based of oppinion

Monta is beast
03-12-2016, 08:42 PM
And curry would killed ppl in tje 90s just like je does know. You cant stop his shooting because n of his dribble and range. Its the perfect mix

Scoots
03-12-2016, 09:04 PM
Perhaps. But he was ready asked to explain and instead just waffled and tried to sound smart without offering an actual explanation. As if attempting to bamboozle the guy who asked the question to avoid actually answering it. Or not giving us a full explanation because he doesn't think we would be able to understand it.

Either way I found the way he "answered" the question without actually answering it to be both belittling and a little shady.

I am intrigued and if he had answered the question properly that would be it. Instead he gave a response which merited by dick head reply imo.

Like it or lump it.

Fair enough :)

His answer wasn't really an answer, was hoping for more myself.

europagnpilgrim
03-12-2016, 09:05 PM
Warriors are the best nba team since last season, nice two year run so far

those other teams or mostly the best all time teams are usually a decade strong, Bad Boy Pistons could have won 4 in a row if not for that Bird steal and phantom call Kareem got, and Magic Lakers went to 9 finals in 12 seasons, Jordan won 6 out of 8 and Wilt and Russell/Bird teams were dynasties for most if not entire time they played, those are the best teams, even later Pistons had a strong run similar to this as a team, not offensively but defensively they were better than Warriors

for this last half era and carry over to the 2020's the Warriors could match those teams but only time will tell

from nba standards they are on pace to have the best single season in history and from most honest former and current players defense is not what it once was as far as high level of it, the ancient based spurs are the second best team in entire league says a lot

those numbers you posted are cute but on a eye level test its different view, film don't lie, never has

Lionel20
03-12-2016, 10:33 PM
Elaborate. You haven't really explained anything.

Here's my prediction of Jordans stats in the 70s based on a factor determined by 1975 league levels.

PPG - 5
APG - 0
SPG - 2
RPG - 1
BPG - 0.004539
eFG% - 110%


see... just type any nonsense you want.

It is an answer, but I'm assuming either that your basketball/statistical comprehension is low or that your being too lazy to do the work for yourself.

Jordan hit 497 3 pointers from 1990 - 98,

In the 90s, NBA teams averaged 4.49 3PM per game. In the 2010s teams average 7.2 per game. If I'm converting Jordan's 497 3 pointers into the 2010s this produces a factor of .62

497 (Actual)/.62 (Adjustment Factor) = 801 3PM

This 801 is multiplied by the Position-relative LQ (I've provided the websites for Arturo's work on the subject). Between 1990 - 1998, Jordan finishes with 817 3PM, about 1.4 per game over that period.

Think of it as using a inflation adjustment on the value of money. $100 in 2015 would cost $55 in 1990. $100 in 1990 would cost $188 today. In a comparison with Curry, LeBron, Carmelo, Durant, etc., Jordan's actual numbers need to be measured to express it's true value.

Once all the stats are properly adjusted to a reasonable estimate, from Offensive Rebounds to Personal Fouls, my Value metrics are applied.

Lionel20
03-12-2016, 10:41 PM
Warriors are the best nba team since last season, nice two year run so far

those other teams or mostly the best all time teams are usually a decade strong, Bad Boy Pistons could have won 4 in a row if not for that Bird steal and phantom call Kareem got, and Magic Lakers went to 9 finals in 12 seasons, Jordan won 6 out of 8 and Wilt and Russell/Bird teams were dynasties for most if not entire time they played, those are the best teams, even later Pistons had a strong run similar to this as a team, not offensively but defensively they were better than Warriors

for this last half era and carry over to the 2020's the Warriors could match those teams but only time will tell

from nba standards they are on pace to have the best single season in history and from most honest former and current players defense is not what it once was as far as high level of it, the ancient based spurs are the second best team in entire league says a lot

those numbers you posted are cute but on a eye level test its different view, film don't lie, never has

But those Lakers teams Magic played on look entirely different from the 1980 Finals, and the 1991 Finals. In fact the only player that played on both those teams is Magic. I tend to evaluate teams by a single season.

tredigs
03-13-2016, 12:22 AM
I love sports-betting, because none of the noise that some of you idiots make mean a damn thing. Some statistics are of paramount value, others are not.

Lionel, I would LOVE for you to attempt sports-betting and gauge your picks. Could be fun. We could create a contest, if you'd like.

Lionel20
03-13-2016, 09:14 AM
I love sports-betting, because none of the noise that some of you idiots make mean a damn thing. Some statistics are of paramount value, others are not.

Lionel, I would LOVE for you to attempt sports-betting and gauge your picks. Could be fun. We could create a contest, if you'd like.


No doubt,

Feel free to inbox the details of what you have in mind. Unfortunately, I live in Louisisana. This State has some of the strictest laws against sports betting.