Where do the Warriors Rank?

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
1980: The Lakers would have won regardless of which division. Kareem/Magic/Wilkes/Nixon were too dominant.

1981: The Lakers weren't great that season, and lost to Houston anyway. Magic was hurt most of the year, and may not have been fully healthy for the playoffs. Celtics/Sixers were 1-2 that season, and it wasn't particularly close to #3.

1982: I do think the Lakers may have lucked out a bit in that Philly was pretty much battered after their 7-game series with Boston. I think the Celtics or the Sixers may have beaten the Lakers in a Conference matchup. Celtics under achieved a bit against Philly, and then Tiny got hurt.

1983: Philly was winning no matter what. Moses Malone was in his prime and gave Kareem fits.

1984: Finals matchup was perfect. 2 best teams. Had the Lakers been in the East, it's entirely possible the Knicks or Sixers could have given them a scare as well. The Knicks extended the Celtics to 7 games, and the Sixers under achieved in a bizarre matchup against the Nets. This is one season where had the Lakers been in the East, I would bet against them making the Finals.

1985: Celtics were worn down by the playoffs, and the Lakers probably would have beaten any of the other Eastern teams. The Celtics handled Philly pretty easily in the ECF.

1986: Celtics were the most dominant and complete team. Beat the Lakers pretty convincingly twice, once without McHale.

1987: It's probably still the Lakers. Pistons and Bucks gave a broken down Celtics team a lot of trouble, and so could have done the same for the Lakers as well. The Celtics got a bit lucky in that final game against the Pistons. But I don't think the Pistons would have been ready to beat the Lakers, who were at another level that season.

1988: The Lakers did beat the Pistons in 7 in the Finals, so I will assume the same would have happened in the ECF. But it was close; final 2 games were decided by a total of 4 points.

1989: Noone was stopping the Pistons that year. Lakers would not have come out of the East.

1990: The Lakers record was a bit inflated that year, and they lost to the Suns. I doubt they would have gotten past the Pistons. Or the Bulls for that matter, and even Barkley's Sixers could have given them trouble.

1991: The Bulls were not going to lose.

And that completes the Showtime Era, which covered 12 seasons, 9 trips to the Finals, and 5 Trophies. Had they played in the East, I group them as follows:

Would have won anyway: 1980, 1985, 1987
Would definitely not have reached Finals: 1983, 1989, 1991.
Too close to call: 1982, 1988
Would have been difficult: 1984
Would still have not reached the Finals: 1981, 1986, 1990

I feel comfortable in saying there's 3 trips to the Finals that would not have happened had the Lakers been in the East, but none of those shortened playoff trips would have resulted in less titles. If we assume they go 2-1 in the "too close to call" and "difficult" categories, they probably have 1 less title.

So the bottom line is likely 5-6 trips to the Finals and 4 Titles. But it's possible that the Celtics could have had 1 less title in the process.
That's roughly what I think as well. They would have held up very well even in a very difficult eastern conference. The conference power would have sapped the Lakers some. But they'd still have been the team of the 80s by a pretty good margin.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,082
I'd have the Warriors a close 3rd after the 90s Bulls and 60s Celtics. I do have my doubts about the Bulls level of competition. Do the 96 Sonics and 97-98 Jazz make it out of the 2nd round in today's NBA? Are they better than the Doc/CP3/Blake Clippers?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
That's roughly what I think as well. They would have held up very well even in a very difficult eastern conference. The conference power would have sapped the Lakers some. But they'd still have been the team of the 80s by a pretty good margin.
The most impressive part of the Lakers run was that it stretched the entire decade. The Sixers started to fade by 1985. The Celtics dominance, being younger to start the decade, lasted a couple of seasons longer, until the Pistons took the mantle from them. The 1991 Celtics may have been as good as the 1991 Lakers, however. The Celtics had a mini retool and that team featured a prime Reggie Lewis and Brian Shaw, and an emerging talent in Dee Brown, and reasonable bench depth. But by the time of the playoffs, McHale and Parish had worn down, and Bird had broken down, and the Pistons dispatched them in 6.

The Lakers were in a similar boat, as Magic and Worthy were still good but past their prime, Kareem had retired, while Byron Scott was in his prime and Vlade Divac was emerging. To the Lakers credit, they were able to dispatch a powerful Blazers team that featured prime Clyde Drexler. Neither team would have beaten the Bulls that season, however.

Still shake my head wondering what the Jazz (trading a future 1st rounder to they could sign an old Goodrich) and Cavs (trading a 1st rounder for Dan Ford??) were thinking. Then again, I'm sure non-Boston fans were wondering what the Pistons, Warriors, and Suns were thinking.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The most impressive part of the Lakers run was that it stretched the entire decade. The Sixers started to fade by 1985. The Celtics dominance, being younger to start the decade, lasted a couple of seasons longer, until the Pistons took the mantle from them. The 1991 Celtics may have been as good as the 1991 Lakers, however. The Celtics had a mini retool and that team featured a prime Reggie Lewis and Brian Shaw, and an emerging talent in Dee Brown, and reasonable bench depth. But by the time of the playoffs, McHale and Parish had worn down, and Bird had broken down, and the Pistons dispatched them in 6.

The Lakers were in a similar boat, as Magic and Worthy were still good but past their prime, Kareem had retired, while Byron Scott was in his prime and Vlade Divac was emerging. To the Lakers credit, they were able to dispatch a powerful Blazers team that featured prime Clyde Drexler. Neither team would have beaten the Bulls that season, however.

Still shake my head wondering what the Jazz (trading a future 1st rounder to they could sign an old Goodrich) and Cavs (trading a 1st rounder for Dan Ford??) were thinking. Then again, I'm sure non-Boston fans were wondering what the Pistons, Warriors, and Suns were thinking.
The thing that I find so impressive about the Lakers is that they were great at a time when the NBA was great. Moreover, they had both an uber-elite peak *and* longevity.

Peak: back-to-back titles in 1986-87 and 1987-88.

1986-87: 65-17, went 15-3 in the playoffs, dispatching the defending champion Celtics
1987-88: 62-20, went 15-9 in the playoffs, and repeated by knocking off a soon-to-be juggernaut in the Pistons

Those teams featured Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, AC Green, Cooper, and Mychal Thompson. Even Kareem was still good (still scored 14.6 a game on 53.2% shooting as a 40-year old in 87-88).

By the way, how did Byron Scott never make an all-star team? In 87-88 he averaged 21.7 a game on 52.7% shooting, to go along with 4.1 rebounds and 4.1 assists a game. Plus 1.9 steals a game. Guy was *fantastic*.

So they had elite, hall of fame talent, a phenomenal peak, and they were great for a long period of time.

The one common denominator? Magic Johnson. He was there during that whole run.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
The thing that I find so impressive about the Lakers is that they were great at a time when the NBA was great. Moreover, they had both an uber-elite peak *and* longevity.

Peak: back-to-back titles in 1986-87 and 1987-88.

1986-87: 65-17, went 15-3 in the playoffs, dispatching the defending champion Celtics
1987-88: 62-20, went 15-9 in the playoffs, and repeated by knocking off a soon-to-be juggernaut in the Pistons

Those teams featured Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, AC Green, Cooper, and Mychal Thompson. Even Kareem was still good (still scored 14.6 a game on 53.2% shooting as a 40-year old in 87-88).

By the way, how did Byron Scott never make an all-star team? In 87-88 he averaged 21.7 a game on 52.7% shooting, to go along with 4.1 rebounds and 4.1 assists a game. Plus 1.9 steals a game. Guy was *fantastic*.

So they had elite, hall of fame talent, a phenomenal peak, and they were great for a long period of time.

The one common denominator? Magic Johnson. He was there during that whole run.
The Lakers and Spurs are the two dynasties to really evolve over their time on top. The 60s/80s Celtics and 90s Bulls were basically the same team with a few role players switched around, but the strategy was always the same. The Lakers evolved as their team aged; in the early 80s, they played with two ball-handlers with Nixon and Johnson and pressed a lot. Magic wasn't as refined but he was so agile and long, he was built to press and lead the fast break. Then in the half-court they had the surest two points in basketball history ready to score. As the team got older, the offense completely changed. Nixon was traded and Worthy came in, while Kareem was reduced to more of a supporting role. In the late 80s they played slower, with a less athletic but overall better Magic commanding everything in the half-court, often working out of the high post and backing smaller players down.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
The thing that I find so impressive about the Lakers is that they were great at a time when the NBA was great. Moreover, they had both an uber-elite peak *and* longevity.

Peak: back-to-back titles in 1986-87 and 1987-88.

1986-87: 65-17, went 15-3 in the playoffs, dispatching the defending champion Celtics
1987-88: 62-20, went 15-9 in the playoffs, and repeated by knocking off a soon-to-be juggernaut in the Pistons

Those teams featured Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, AC Green, Cooper, and Mychal Thompson. Even Kareem was still good (still scored 14.6 a game on 53.2% shooting as a 40-year old in 87-88).

By the way, how did Byron Scott never make an all-star team? In 87-88 he averaged 21.7 a game on 52.7% shooting, to go along with 4.1 rebounds and 4.1 assists a game. Plus 1.9 steals a game. Guy was *fantastic*.

So they had elite, hall of fame talent, a phenomenal peak, and they were great for a long period of time.

The one common denominator? Magic Johnson. He was there during that whole run.
I think the Celtics may have been able to steal the 1987 title had Kevin McHale not broken his foot and Len Bias not died. The C's had to survive two 7 game series to get to the Finals, which didn't help them at all.

What prevented Scott from going to the All Star Game is that Kareem, Worthy, and Magic made the All Star team just about every year. And Drexler and then Dale Ellis and John Stockton would get voted as starting guards, while the Denver fans stuffed the box for Fat Lever.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
I think the Celtics may have been able to steal the 1987 title had Kevin McHale not broken his foot and Len Bias not died. The C's had to survive two 7 game series to get to the Finals, which didn't help them at all.

What prevented Scott from going to the All Star Game is that Kareem, Worthy, and Magic made the All Star team just about every year. And Drexler and then Dale Ellis and John Stockton would get voted as starting guards, while the Denver fans stuffed the box for Fat Lever.
Maybe they would have. Then again the Lakers choked away the ‘84 title. And Worthy was hurt when they played Philly in 83. And Magic was banged up one year. So who knows. There were a bunch of awesome teams back then and the NBA was fantastic.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Maybe they would have. Then again the Lakers choked away the ‘84 title. And Worthy was hurt when they played Philly in 83. And Magic was banged up one year. So who knows. There were a bunch of awesome teams back then and the NBA was fantastic.
Granted, the Lakers outplayed the Celtics in the first 3 games, and Boston got lucky when Henderson saved Game 2. However, the Celtics were the better team in Games 4 through 7, losing Game 6 on the basis of some unforced errors of their own. I agree that every team has their "if only..." scenarios.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
In '87 McHale had a broken foot, Walton was a cripple, Parrish was playing on a sprained foot and they had just escaped the Pistons in a 7-game war. They shoy their load against the Pistons. That they (basically a 5-man rotation) took the Lakers to 6 games was a testament to that team
 

Tetrimus

New Member
Apr 21, 2020
2
(First post after lurking here for 17 years)

I think it's dependent on defensive rules. Modern rules? I think they lose to the 96-98 Bulls in a 7 game series. Toss up with the 08 Celtics, that team is criminally underrated defensively and have solid 3-and-D guys as well. The Kobe-Gasol-Odom-Bynum Lakers got a solid shot knocking them out as well.

If we're hitting the wayback machine? I don't think they stand up to many title winners in the 80s and 90s. Too soft. They'd get killed on the boards, and Curry and Klay wouldn't be nearly as effective fighting through picks. That team would be dependent on KD iso-ball.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
(First post after lurking here for 17 years)

I think it's dependent on defensive rules. Modern rules? I think they lose to the 96-98 Bulls in a 7 game series. Toss up with the 08 Celtics, that team is criminally underrated defensively and have solid 3-and-D guys as well. The Kobe-Gasol-Odom-Bynum Lakers got a solid shot knocking them out as well.

If we're hitting the wayback machine? I don't think they stand up to many title winners in the 80s and 90s. Too soft. They'd get killed on the boards, and Curry and Klay wouldn't be nearly as effective fighting through picks. That team would be dependent on KD iso-ball.
Well, the 80s and 90s teams never shot more than a few threes a game, and they'd never seen anyone shoot from distance like Curry. They'd have to challenge Curry and Klay and Durant some 25+ feet from the basket, which would open up huge lanes. Moreover, the bigs from the 80s and 90s (Hakeem and Robinson being primary exceptions) would get decimated on the P&R. Imagine Bill Cartwright and Steve Kerr trying to defend Curry and Durant running a P&R. OMG it would be ugly.