Where do the Warriors Rank?

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Looking at the list of NBA champions, year to year, and I am focusing in on the Warriors' 5-year run starting with the 2014-15 season, when they won their first championship. Here's their five-year run...

2014-15: 67-15, won NBA finals
2015-16: 73-9, lost NBA finals
2016-17: 67-15, won NBA finals
2017-18: 58-24, won NBA finals
2018-19: 57-25, lost NBA finals

The 2015-16 NBA finals...that was the year Draymond got ejected and suspended for a game in the finals, and the Cavs came back from 3-1 down in the series to win 4 games to 3. And in 2018-19, everyone on the Warriors got hurt and were playing with a skeleton crew in the finals.

So some highlights on the resumé:

- 5 straight trips to the NBA finals, coming out of a brutal Western conference
- 3 NBA championships
- 322-88 regular season record (.785)
- Broke the all-time single season record in 2015-16 at 73-9
- Features a minimum of three hall-of-fame players (Curry, Durant, Klay), with two others as possibilities (Draymond, Iguodala)

The Warriors weren't the greatest team ever, but they have to be *among* the best teams ever, right? Nobody won more games over a single season than them. Nobody won more games over a three-year period than them. Few teams have won 3 titles in 4 years. Few teams have been to 5 straight NBA finals. Few teams have a lineup featuring quite possibly 5 guys who will be in the HOF someday. Two of the players (Steph, Durant) are quite likely in the top 15 of all time.

That's a very impressive resumé. Where do they stack up with other all-time great teams?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
They are the most dominant team of the decade. Would they beat the other great teams? Probably; the teams of prior decades didn't come close to maximizing their shooting potential the way GS did. If they were transported back to 1986 and limited to only taking 8 threes a game or something, it might be different. Their style of play is era dependent, so it is really hard to compare them to teams of even ten years ago.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
They are the most dominant team of the decade. Would they beat the other great teams? Probably; the teams of prior decades didn't come close to maximizing their shooting potential the way GS did. If they were transported back to 1986 and limited to only taking 8 threes a game or something, it might be different. Their style of play is era dependent, so it is really hard to compare them to teams of even ten years ago.
Yeah, I'm not talking about them playing actual games against other teams from past eras. I'm just looking at the resumé and trying to think about what teams are in the conversation of greatest teams ever.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I'd put the Dubs in the second tier with the Showtime Lakers and the Duncan-Pop Spurs -- ahead of the '80s Celtics, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and the LBJ/Wade Heat, but behind the '50s-'60s Celtics and '90s Bulls.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Yeah, I'm not talking about them playing actual games against other teams from past eras. I'm just looking at the resumé and trying to think about what teams are in the conversation of greatest teams ever.
But even that is era dependent. The Celtics of the 60s clearly have the best resume out of any dynasty, but that was in an era where dynasty's were easier to build, with less player movement and fewer teams. If we are just talking about what teams dominated their peers and had the most success, it isn't much of a conversation.

The Warriors are interesting because once they landed Durant, there was almost a cheapness to their titles. Of course they won the title, they added one of the two best players in the world to an already championship-caliber team. In some ways that makes them a better team; they were so good most people thought it was a foregone conclusion that they would win the title each year. However, there has never been a team so fortunate to benefit from an MVP player electing to join a former champion right when the cap jumped up so they could squeeze him in without cutting any of their core players out of the picture. That didn't happen in any other era; superteams had been formed before, but that was either by trades (Wilt coming to the Lakers comes to mind) or by free agents deciding to start a new chapter somewhere (Not one, not two..). There has never been an MVP player who elected to join an already great team while in the prime of his career, and it didn't happen in any other era.

If I were ranking the teams based purely on dominance, not accounting for any era specific advantages/disadvantages, I would go:

1. Russell-led Celtics
2. 90s Bulls
3. 80s Lakers
4. Duncan Spurs
5. 50s Lakers
6. Shaq/Kobe Lakers
7. 10s Warriors
8. 80s Celtics
9. 50s Hawks
10. Bad Boys
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
I'm happy to discount Durant's career for his decision to join GS, but the Warriors created an environment that made one of the two best players want to come in free agency. It's a credit to their team, not a negative, that this happened. The only way to judge teams is by how they dominated their respective eras, and in that regard I'd have to put the Warriors behind only the Jordan Bulls and Russell Celtics. They kicked their streak off with a title (in which they were clearly the best team in the league), a 7 game finals loss (in which they set the records for regular season wins), then the last three years they were the presumptive favorite to the point where at least once they were favored in the preseason against the field (has that happened before?). Two MVPs in their prime, plus one of the best shooters of all time, plus one of the most versatile defenders in league history, plus a series of solid role players. Additionally, they are the only thing standing between LeBron and his unquestioned GOAT status (I have to imagine he'd have gone better than 1-3 against other WC teams).

The fact that both Durant and Klay were hurt for the finals, so badly that they missed the entire following season, only adds to it. They went out fighting, unlike other teams who fizzled away to free agency, retirement or old age. We'll need some distance to properly judge this team, but I'd put the last 5 years against any team in league history. Only the Russell Celtics compare, and they did it when the league was less than a third as big, decades before free agency. Jordan's 6 titles in 8 years gets credit here too, but that's it for me.
 
Last edited:

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
I'm happy to discount Durant's career for his decision to join GS, but the Warriors created an environment that made one of the two best players want to come in free agency. It's a credit to their team, not a negative, that this happened. The only way to judge teams is by how they dominated their respective eras, and in that regard I'd have to put the Warriors behind only the Jordan Bulls and Russell Celtics. They kicked their streak off with a title (in which they were clearly the best team in the league), a 7 game finals loss (in which they set the records for regular season wins), then the last three years they were the presumptive favorite to the point where at least once they were favored in the preseason against the field (has that happened before?). Two MVPs in their prime, plus one of the best shooters of all time, plus one of the most versatile defenders in league history, plus a series of solid role players. Additionally, they are the only thing standing between LeBron and his unquestioned GOAT status (I have to imagine he'd have gone better than 1-3 against other WC teams).
30011
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
With the caveat comping best ever between eras is about impossible.

I'm a Celtic lifer with service time of over 60 years, but not quite a Green-teamer homer. I use the 80s as my bogey for comps as IMO it was the era where NBA ball was the most entertaining, the most demanding, and generally the highest quality. I'm not a huge fan of perimeter-ball and dish for the corner-3. But it is what it is.

IMO the 80s Celts, given the Eastern conference teams they had to get through (mostly Philly and Detroit-very good and deep championship teams, but also a very good 55-win team in the Bucks) are not given nearly enough love.

And the '80s Lakers were a fucking all-time beast but they mostly showtimed through a pretty empty west. If they played the Celts '80s post-season there is no way they would have won 5 championships.They weren't physical enough for Eastern style ball. But having said that I have a hard time putting the 90's Bulls in the 80s Lakers and or Celtics company. But they were clearly the dominant team once the Pistons and Lakers got old, and kicked the shit out of the Knicks and Pacers.

I think Kilq's ranking with his caveat is pretty good, with the exception of moving the 80s Celts up to #4 behind the 80s Lakers. Then maybe the 3-ball Warriors.

And maybe giving some recognition to the unfortunate 60s Lakers that had to play and lose to Russell's Celts on what seemed like an annual basis.

Never mind, fuck the Lakers.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
With the caveat comping best ever between eras is about impossible.

I'm a Celtic lifer with service time of over 60 years, but not quite a Green-teamer homer. I use the 80s as my bogey for comps as IMO it was the era where NBA ball was the most entertaining, the most demanding, and generally the highest quality. I'm not a huge fan of perimeter-ball and dish for the corner-3. But it is what it is.

IMO the 80s Celts, given the Eastern conference teams they had to get through (mostly Philly and Detroit-very good and deep championship teams, but also a very good 55-win team in the Bucks) are not given nearly enough love.

And the '80s Lakers were a fucking all-time beast but they mostly showtimed through a pretty empty west. If they played the Celts '80s post-season there is no way they would have won 5 championships.They weren't physical enough for Eastern style ball. But having said that I have a hard time putting the 90's Bulls in the 80s Lakers and or Celtics company. But they were clearly the dominant team once the Pistons and Lakers got old, and kicked the shit out of the Knicks and Pacers.

I think Kilq's ranking with his caveat is pretty good, with the exception of moving the 80s Celts up to #4 behind the 80s Lakers. Then maybe the 3-ball Warriors.

And maybe giving some recognition to the unfortunate 60s Lakers that had to play and lose to Russell's Celts on what seemed like an annual basis.

Never mind, fuck the Lakers.
They weren't physical enough for Eastern style ball? They 80s Lakers played the Sixers (3x), Celtics (3x), and Pistons (2x) eight times total from 1980-1989. They went 5-3 against them. I agree it would have been tougher for them to have to go through all the Eastern Conference every year, but there's no reason to think they'd not have been successful. And then we know that once they got through the EC, they'd have beaten the WC champ.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Hey if the Jet had knocked off Lebron on 3 separate occasions I'd be the first to give him credit.
Terry announcing during the Finals that LeBron couldn't guard him, and then suddenly that becoming the actual truth while LeBron played like he had his skills stolen by the Space Jam aliens is one of the strangest occurrences in the history of basketball.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
They weren't physical enough for Eastern style ball? They 80s Lakers played the Sixers (3x), Celtics (3x), and Pistons (2x) eight times total from 1980-1989. They went 5-3 against them. I agree it would have been tougher for them to have to go through all the Eastern Conference every year, but there's no reason to think they'd not have been successful. And then we know that once they got through the EC, they'd have beaten the WC champ.
The 80's Lakers generally had an easy ride in the western conference, while the Eastern teams were beating the shit out of each other. Celts-Philly-Pistons (and Bucks to a lesser extent) destroyed each other in the post-season. It was a war on the court every night. The Lakers simply did not face the same physical competition night after night in 7-gamers.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The 80's Lakers generally had an easy ride in the western conference, while the Eastern teams were beating the shit out of each other. Celts-Philly-Pistons destroyed each other in the post-season. It was a war on the court every night. The Lakers simply did not face the same physical competition night after night in 7-gamers.
I get that. But they fared very well against those great physical teams from the East when they did play them. I don't know why you think they weren't "physical enough". They played up-tempo but they weren't all flash, no substance. They battled plenty hard and stood up just fine.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
They weren't physical enough for Eastern style ball? They 80s Lakers played the Sixers (3x), Celtics (3x), and Pistons (2x) eight times total from 1980-1989. They went 5-3 against them. I agree it would have been tougher for them to have to go through all the Eastern Conference every year, but there's no reason to think they'd not have been successful. And then we know that once they got through the EC, they'd have beaten the WC champ.
I don’t think anybody is arguing they wouldn’t have been successful. It’s just there’s a huge difference between facing the 82 Celtics or the 87 Pistons in a seven game ECF instead of sleepwalking through a sweep of the 82 Spurs or 87 Sonics and then waiting for a week while your eventual opponent hangs on.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
I don’t think anybody is arguing they wouldn’t have been successful. It’s just there’s a huge difference between facing the 82 Celtics or the 87 Pistons in a seven game ECF instead of sweepwalking through a sweep of the 82 Spurs or 87 Sonics and then waiting for a week while your eventual opponent hangs on.
Well... think of it this way. Conference finals and then NBA finals. The 1986-87 Lakers get:

CF: vs. Seattle
NBAF: vs. Boston

So let's say it's reversed, and they get the Celtics in the conference finals, and if they win, Seattle in the finals. What's the difference? They beat them both. What would likely have happened is that they would have not gotten to as many finals (8) in the 80s, but virtually every time they got there, they'd have won the NBA title. So they probably win 5 of 6 as opposed to 5 of 8. Still...5 championships. I see no reason to think otherwise.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
I get that. But they fared very well against those great physical teams from the East when they did play them. I don't know why you think they weren't "physical enough". They played up-tempo but they weren't all flash, no substance. They battled plenty hard and stood up just fine.
Dude the difference between 80s East and West style play was night and day. IMO there is little chance that the 80's Lakers could have gotten through consecutive series Philly/Celts/or Pistons as those had to, and then play a Lakers quality team in the Finals. The '80s Lakers were an alltime great team, but they generally played in a much easier bracket and then faced a team that had generally just escaped a couple of 7-game wars.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Well... think of it this way. Conference finals and then NBA finals. The 1986-87 Lakers get:

CF: vs. Seattle
NBAF: vs. Boston

So let's say it's reversed, and they get the Celtics in the conference finals, and if they win, Seattle in the finals. What's the difference? They beat them both. What would likely have happened is that they would have not gotten to as many finals (8) in the 80s, but virtually every time they got there, they'd have won the NBA title. So they probably win 5 of 6 as opposed to 5 of 8. Still...5 championships. I see no reason to think otherwise.
The whole point is you can’t presume that the Lakers would have beaten Detroit if they had had had to face them in the conference finals and if they had advanced, you can’t presume that the Celtics would have been the same tired and beaten down squad that we saw in those finals after coasting through the Sonics. You are making presumptions that seem way out of line

Ed: I am not sure the Sonics would have made the playoffs in the East. Putting them in the finals is hilarious
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Well... think of it this way. Conference finals and then NBA finals. The 1986-87 Lakers get:

CF: vs. Seattle
NBAF: vs. Boston

So let's say it's reversed, and they get the Celtics in the conference finals, and if they win, Seattle in the finals. What's the difference? They beat them both. What would likely have happened is that they would have not gotten to as many finals (8) in the 80s, but virtually every time they got there, they'd have won the NBA title. So they probably win 5 of 6 as opposed to 5 of 8. Still...5 championships. I see no reason to think otherwise.
Not sure I follow this logic. If Lakers won 62% of their finals appearances with an easier road, why are you assuming their finals winning % would increase to 83% after a much tougher road?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
The 80s Lakers really lucked out when the Rockets collapsed after the 1986 season. The Lakers didn't have answer for Hakeem/Sampson inside and they bullied the Lakers right out of the playoffs. By next season, Sampson had gotten injured and would never be the same again and John Lucas was out of the league due to a drug problem, and the Rockets were never the same.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
1986-87
Boston: 59-23
Detroit: 52-30
Atlanta: 57-25
Philly: 45-37

Here's how the Lakers did against those four teams that season:
vs. Bos: 2-0 (avg. margin +5.0)
vs. Det: 1-1 (avg. margin +6.0)
vs. Atl: 1-1 (avg. margin -1.5)
vs. Phi: 2-0 (avg. margin +14.0)

So they went 6-2 against those teams with an average margin of +5.9. Then they went 4-2 against the Celtics in the NBA finals.

I'm not saying that they'd have gotten to the NBA finals as often; in fact, I just said they wouldn't have. But if they got there, they'd almost certainly have won the NBA title, facing off against a non-LA opponent.

The point is...they fared very well against the best the Eastern Conference had to offer, year in and year out. They were great. Ridiculously great.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Not sure I follow this logic. If Lakers won 62% of their finals appearances with an easier road, why are you assuming their finals winning % would increase to 83% after a much tougher road?
They'd have gotten to fewer finals, because the Eastern Conference was tougher than the Western Conference. But once they got to the finals, they'd have had a MUCH easier time of it playing a non-LA opponent, than they had facing the Sixers/Celtics/Pistons, who were much tougher than anyone the Lakers had to face in the WC.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
The resume looks a lot better if they hadn't lost the 73-win team to LeBron via the Dray Ball Stepper.
The ding for me is they never beat another truly elite team but then again you can say that about the Bulls run.
You have to give them credit for changing the game with the 3 and keeping Klay to maximize that rather than selling him off for a big as many wanted them to do. They were ahead of the course of the league which is their legacy to me.
For a lot of NBA fans, they've fallen into the KD Team Stacker ghetto and might stay there a while. I think that's unfair but this is a run that gets a big asterisk for a lot of folks. I put the Spurs run ahead of the Dubs but I have a lot of respect for what they accomplished.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
For me, the Jordan-era Bulls stand alone. They were an EC contender for three years before their first final run, and even during the Jordan hiatus they were a good playoff team.

I think ranking the Warriors with the Showtime Lakers sounds about right. That could be 2-3 or 3-4 depending on how you feel about the 60s Celtics.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
They are right up there with the best. I always believed OKC should have never broken those big 3 up. Try to Keep Harden at end of 2012. And keep Durant and Westbrook. Would they have won a title? Not positive but look how close they came to beating the 73 win Warriors of 2016. I think they could have beaten Cavs. Just saying what if??Letting Durant go was bad, just to let him go to a 73 win team. Now if he had come to the Celts?,lol. Different story.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
For me, the Jordan-era Bulls stand alone. They were an EC contender for three years before their first final run, and even during the Jordan hiatus they were a good playoff team.

I think ranking the Warriors with the Showtime Lakers sounds about right. That could be 2-3 or 3-4 depending on how you feel about the 60s Celtics.
I think this is right. I put the 60's Celtics as #2, because there was no better collection of NBA talent in one team during the first half of that decade. They're #2 because it was a much smaller league, but they still beat Baylor, West, and Wilt-led teams consistently. I'll put the Warriors as #3, and Lakers as #4, just because I think the 85-86 Celtics would have trounced the Showtime Lakers in the Finals that season. The Spurs dynasty is #5.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Jordan-era Bulls were great. Arguments against include the weakness of the NBA at the time. But they had the GOAT, another top-50 player ever (Pippen), and another HOFer (Rodman) during their last three title runs. And they DOMINATED. Not just won titles. Dominated. Six titles in eight years, and if Jordan stayed they likely win 8 in a row. Though I'd have loved to have seen them play Olajuwan's Rockets.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
The resume looks a lot better if they hadn't lost the 73-win team to LeBron via the Dray Ball Stepper.
The ding for me is they never beat another truly elite team but then again you can say that about the Bulls run.
You have to give them credit for changing the game with the 3 and keeping Klay to maximize that rather than selling him off for a big as many wanted them to do. They were ahead of the course of the league which is their legacy to me.
For a lot of NBA fans, they've fallen into the KD Team Stacker ghetto and might stay there a while. I think that's unfair but this is a run that gets a big asterisk for a lot of folks. I put the Spurs run ahead of the Dubs but I have a lot of respect for what they accomplished.
The Spurs are impressive because they lasted so long, but the fact that they never came close to defending their title really has to hurt them. Here's what they did after their titles:

2000: First round exit (3-1)
2004: Second round exit (4-2)
2006: Second round exit (4-3)
2008: Conference finals (4-1)
2015: First round exit (4-3)

That is some weak sauce. The Warriors came infinitely closer to winning 5 straight (!) than the Spurs came to even winning back to back.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The Spurs are impressive because they lasted so long, but the fact that they never came close to defending their title really has to hurt them. Here's what they did after their titles:

2000: First round exit (3-1)
2004: Second round exit (4-2)
2006: Second round exit (4-3)
2008: Conference finals (4-1)
2015: First round exit (4-3)

That is some weak sauce. The Warriors came infinitely closer to winning 5 straight (!) than the Spurs came to even winning back to back.
By the way, this makes what the Pats have done even more impressive. 19 years of dominance, 6 titles, including a back-to-back, a three-out-of-four, and a three-out-of-five. Just unreal.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
The Spurs are impressive because they lasted so long, but the fact that they never came close to defending their title really has to hurt them. Here's what they did after their titles:

2000: First round exit (3-1)
2004: Second round exit (4-2)
2006: Second round exit (4-3)
2008: Conference finals (4-1)
2015: First round exit (4-3)

That is some weak sauce. The Warriors came infinitely closer to winning 5 straight (!) than the Spurs came to even winning back to back.
Very good counter. The counter to that is the Dubs team stacked while the Spurs built from within and played at a higher level for longer. True they have two franchise lottery picks to work with but they developed long term HOF talent with low first and second round picks for years the way the Pats were able to maintain without high draft picks (and very few big ticket free agent signings).
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Also, with the exception of the 2000 loss to the Suns, the Spurs were knocked out by very memorable teams, including the Lakers twice, Dallas and the Lob City Clippers.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
Also, with the exception of the 2000 loss to the Suns, the Spurs were knocked out by very memorable teams, including the Lakers twice, Dallas and the Lob City Clippers.
Agreed. I do think the level of competition/difficulty was higher for the Spurs but that is debatable.
I don't hold it against the Dubs that they plugged in KD and reaped the rewards. They built a style and level of play themselves and were one step ahead of the rest of the league. KD saw that and wanted to join. However, many NBA fans do not feel that way and also feel the Dubs ruined the league for years with that addition. If the Warriors had those results without adding KD than this is a very different conversation. You can't have this debate without the stacking factor and it will always be that way going forward.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,021
Imaginationland
Very good counter. The counter to that is the Dubs team stacked while the Spurs built from within and played at a higher level for longer. True they have two franchise lottery picks to work with but they developed long term HOF talent with low first and second round picks for years the way the Pats were able to maintain without high draft picks (and very few big ticket free agent signings).
On a macro level I don't think it really matters how the teams were built for this discussion, especially considering they played in nearly the same era (at least part of it anyway). However as you note, the Spurs built their foundation the easiest way possible, by drafting two HOFers with two #1 picks. The Warriors got their core through free agency (Durant), trade (Iguodala) mid/late lottery picks (Curry was 7th, Thompson was 11th) and in the 2nd round (Green was the 35th pick). The Spurs were far luckier to get Duncan than the Warriors were to get Durant, and I'd argue the Curry/Thompson/Green draft picks were cumulatively better moves than Parker/Manu.

Another point for the Spurs would be that while they generally did a pitiful job of defending their titles, they did ultimately match the Warriors with 3 titles in 5 years. Their longevity really is unbelievable, although the book is not yet fully written on the Warriors run, even if their period of complete dominance is finished.

Agreed. I do think the level of competition/difficulty was higher for the Spurs but that is debatable.
I don't hold it against the Dubs that they plugged in KD and reaped the rewards. They built a style and level of play themselves and were one step ahead of the rest of the league. KD saw that and wanted to join. However, many NBA fans do not feel that way and also feel the Dubs ruined the league for years with that addition. If the Warriors had those results without adding KD than this is a very different conversation. You can't have this debate without the stacking factor and it will always be that way going forward.
I don't disagree with this, but I think it's a feeling that will soften over the years. In 20-30 years people will see this Warriors team that had a 5 year run unlike any since Russell, with a lineup that included two MVPs and 2-3 other potential HOFers, and they'll include this bunch among the top 2-3 teams ever.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
Entering this century it was easy. There were 3 great teams and dynasties or semi-dynasties. The Celtics of the 60's, the Lakers of the 80's, and the Bulls of the 90's. (96 Bulls I would vote for best team in my lifetime that I've seen, then 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers up to the beginning of this decade) The 72 Lakers you had to give consideration to for their 69 wins in one year and the 67 Sixers for one year. Russell said that was a great team that doesn't get a lot of consideration and probably should have repeated if Cunningham didn't get hurt and Wilt took more then the 2 shots??? in the 2nd half against Celts in game 7 68 ECF. But when this century began it became harder. The Kobe Shaq Lakers won 3 in a row then 2 more in a row without Shaq. The Spurs have been the most consistent team mainly because of one superstar and coach. And then of course the Warriors. After Spurs won in 2014 I said they were the best this century like the Pats. Consistent, the one thing missing is they never repeated. Pops said the 04 team may have been the best. And they had the best big 3. I would take Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. The Warriors were so dominant and a had a superstar player with others. I would have to put them as the best this century even though the Spurs and Lakers have equal titles. 99 and 2000 were still in the 20th century to be technical so add one more for Spurs in 99 and one for the Lakers in 2000 since it's close. Where do the Warriors rank?. You have to put them right up there or right behind Celts of 60's and Bulls of 90's and Lakers of 80's.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Agreed. I do think the level of competition/difficulty was higher for the Spurs but that is debatable.
I don't hold it against the Dubs that they plugged in KD and reaped the rewards. They built a style and level of play themselves and were one step ahead of the rest of the league. KD saw that and wanted to join. However, many NBA fans do not feel that way and also feel the Dubs ruined the league for years with that addition. If the Warriors had those results without adding KD than this is a very different conversation. You can't have this debate without the stacking factor and it will always be that way going forward.
To me, if we are just going by pure dominance, the fact that Durant maybe picked the easy way by jumping to Golden State doesn't matter. The team didn't do anything illegal in getting him, so you can't discount their dominance just because they are such an atypical superteam.

The Warriors do deserve credit for having a culture that attracted Durant, but lets be honest, plenty of other great teams had cultures that would have been attractive to other MVP-level players. The difference is that the Warriors existed in an era where stars jumped from team to team more frequently, and Durant was hitting FA at the optimal time when the cap was going to jump so he could join an already elite squad. To me, if we are comparing the Warriors to other legendary teams, all of whom and cultures that would have been attractive to other star players, I don't see that as a strong point in the Warriors favor as much as it is a coincidence that they were so good during an era like that.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
To me, if we are just going by pure dominance, the fact that Durant maybe picked the easy way by jumping to Golden State doesn't matter. The team didn't do anything illegal in getting him, so you can't discount their dominance just because they are such an atypical superteam.

The Warriors do deserve credit for having a culture that attracted Durant, but lets be honest, plenty of other great teams had cultures that would have been attractive to other MVP-level players. The difference is that the Warriors existed in an era where stars jumped from team to team more frequently, and Durant was hitting FA at the optimal time when the cap was going to jump so he could join an already elite squad. To me, if we are comparing the Warriors to other legendary teams, all of whom and cultures that would have been attractive to other star players, I don't see that as a strong point in the Warriors favor as much as it is a coincidence that they were so good during an era like that.
Totally agreed. And it's also true that this becomes a model of sorts and with the AAU-ification of the league it becomes more accepted.
But just talk to a general sports fan or check the comments on the web, the common take is that the Dubs and KD conspired and did things the easy way. They get less credit as a Dynasty with a capital D. Some of this feeling is jealousy as well; Knicks fans would love to team stack! So would most fanbases, they just aren't in the position to do that and/or have failed at it.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I'm not saying that they'd have gotten to the NBA finals as often; in fact, I just said they wouldn't have. But if they got there, they'd almost certainly have won the NBA title, facing off against a non-LA opponent.

The point is...they fared very well against the best the Eastern Conference had to offer, year in and year out. They were great. Ridiculously great.
Magic Johnson was 5-4 in the finals, but sure, they “almost certainly” would have won every time against a more rested opponent.
We just see it all a bit differently. And I am not trying to diminish their greatness, I just think those LA-BOS-PHI-DET-CHI-MIL title numbers (5-3-1-2-1-0) from 1980-1991 undersell certain teams. And before you say it, LA may have left one title on the table (84) but they were undeniably gifted another (88).
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Totally agreed. And it's also true that this becomes a model of sorts and with the AAU-ification of the league it becomes more accepted.
But just talk to a general sports fan or check the comments on the web, the common take is that the Dubs and KD conspired and did things the easy way. They get less credit as a Dynasty with a capital D. Some of this feeling is jealousy as well; Knicks fans would love to team stack! So would most fanbases, they just aren't in the position to do that and/or have failed at it.
I agree with you on that. To me, the average sports fan doesn't matter that much, the average sports fan thinks the Patriots cheated their way to six titles. I wouldn't discredit their dynasty quite for that, but I think it does give Durant a bit of an asterisk if we are comparing him to other all-time great players. His two rings are not necessarily the equivalent of Hakeem's two rings.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Entering this century it was easy. There were 3 great teams and dynasties or semi-dynasties. The Celtics of the 60's, the Lakers of the 80's, and the Bulls of the 90's. (96 Bulls I would vote for best team in my lifetime that I've seen, then 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers up to the beginning of this decade) The 72 Lakers you had to give consideration to for their 69 wins in one year and the 67 Sixers for one year. Russell said that was a great team that doesn't get a lot of consideration and probably should have repeated if Cunningham didn't get hurt and Wilt took more then the 2 shots??? in the 2nd half against Celts in game 7 68 ECF. But when this century began it became harder. The Kobe Shaq Lakers won 3 in a row then 2 more in a row without Shaq. The Spurs have been the most consistent team mainly because of one superstar and coach. And then of course the Warriors. After Spurs won in 2014 I said they were the best this century like the Pats. Consistent, the one thing missing is they never repeated. Pops said the 04 team may have been the best. And they had the best big 3. I would take Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. The Warriors were so dominant and a had a superstar player with others. I would have to put them as the best this century even though the Spurs and Lakers have equal titles. 99 and 2000 were still in the 20th century to be technical so add one more for Spurs in 99 and one for the Lakers in 2000 since it's close. Where do the Warriors rank?. You have to put them right up there or right behind Celts of 60's and Bulls of 90's and Lakers of 80's.
The Spurs had some real close calls too. Fisher 0.4 shot in 2004, Manu fouling dirk in 2006, Traitor Ray’s shot in 2013. The Patriots similarities are so real.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Magic Johnson was 5-4 in the finals, but sure, they “almost certainly” would have won every time against a more rested opponent.
The argument being presented to me is that LA came out of an easy Western Conference. In 10 years, they won the conference 8 times. Since they pummeled their conference opponents in the conference finals, then yes it stands to reason that they'd most likely have beaten them if they faced them in the finals.

We just see it all a bit differently. And I am not trying to diminish their greatness, I just think those LA-BOS-PHI-DET-CHI-MIL title numbers (5-3-1-2-1-0) from 1980-1991 undersell certain teams. And before you say it, LA may have left one title on the table (84) but they were undeniably gifted another (88).
No argument there.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
The Spurs had some real close calls too. Fisher 0.4 shot in 2004, Manu fouling dirk in 2006, Traitor Ray’s shot in 2013. The Patriots similarities are so real.
I screamed NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! When I saw the ball go to Allen. You're leaving the best or one of the best 3 point shooters in history open. I think my neighbors may have heard me.Yes I wanted the Spurs but not because I was mad at Ray I was just sick of LeBron and the Heat. And I always liked Duncan and the Spurs. Screamed louder then a week earlier when The Black Hawks scored those 2 quick goals on the B's in the 6th game of finals. Still the strangest or most bizarre ending to a NHL playoff game I've ever seen. OKC always had some good teams then and had better records then the Spurs a few times but always found a way to fold in playoffs. I was at an after work party when Fisher hit that shot. When Duncan hit his shot I yelled Yes!!!!!!! And Jumped high game over. Then when Fisher hit that shot I just yelled shit!!!!! Not as loud as the Yes!!! But stunned and very pissed off. Pops said that might have been his best team. But that bar had a good memory in October. I was there when Papi hit the series winning HR off Jared Washburn of the Angels to send them to ALCS.
 
Last edited:

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
The Spurs had some real close calls too. Fisher 0.4 shot in 2004, Manu fouling dirk in 2006, Traitor Ray’s shot in 2013. The Patriots similarities are so real.
You are right, a few things here or there and they might have 2 more titles. Like The Pats. Make that 3 I forgot leaving Ray Allen open.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
1986-87
Boston: 59-23
Detroit: 52-30
Atlanta: 57-25
Philly: 45-37

Here's how the Lakers did against those four teams that season:
vs. Bos: 2-0 (avg. margin +5.0)
vs. Det: 1-1 (avg. margin +6.0)
vs. Atl: 1-1 (avg. margin -1.5)
vs. Phi: 2-0 (avg. margin +14.0)

So they went 6-2 against those teams with an average margin of +5.9. Then they went 4-2 against the Celtics in the NBA finals.

I'm not saying that they'd have gotten to the NBA finals as often; in fact, I just said they wouldn't have. But if they got there, they'd almost certainly have won the NBA title, facing off against a non-LA opponent.

The point is...they fared very well against the best the Eastern Conference had to offer, year in and year out. They were great. Ridiculously great.
The 87 Celtics were banged up and on fumes. The Sixers were done by that point. I think his point was more about the 81-86 era.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,849
NYC
Nobody won more games over a single season than them. Nobody won more games over a three-year period than them.
Pretty sure the Warriors also own the best record ever over a four, five, and six year period.

1-season: Warriors 2015-16
2-season: Bulls 1995-97 (an insane 141-23, a game better than the 140-24 Warriors)
3-season: Warriors 2014-17
4-season: Warriors 2014-18
5-season: Warriors 2014-19
6-season: Warriors 2013-19

I think they may also have the best 7-season run if you stretch to 2012-19, but I’m less sure about that one.

By BB-ref’s SRS, the run features three of the top eleven NBA teams of all time (#4, #8 and #11). https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=V4hH2

Then there’s the playoffs, where they won 16, 15, 16, 16 and 14 games in consecutive seasons (18 out of 20 series), including 16-1 with a +11.4 net rating in 2017, likely the most dominant playoff run ever.

And: they did it during the peak seasons of arguably the greatest player of all time.

If we’re giving them demerits for KD, I think they deserve a few bonus points for playing in an area that before their run had been considered an NBA wasteland; and for coming almost completely out of left field. If you had told us in summer of 2014 that one team in the NBA was about to go on the best five-year run in NBA history, I’m not sure any of us would have put the Warriors among our five most likely candidates. (I might have, but barely ... and I’m Sam Ray Not.)

TLDR: I think it’s pretty easy to make a case that they had the best five-year run in NBA history. Beyond that it gets tricky, since you’re measuring peak v. longevity. The Spurs making the playoffs the last 22 straight seasons (and 29 of 30!) may be more impressive in its way, but apples and oranges.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The 87 Celtics were banged up and on fumes. The Sixers were done by that point. I think his point was more about the 81-86 era.
Ok let's look at 1984-85 then.

Best teams in the East:
Bos 63-19
Mil 59-23
Phi 58-24
Det 46-36

Here's how LA fared against them:
vs Bos: 1-1
vs Det: 1-1
vs Mil: 1-1
vs Phi: 1-1

So 4-4, scoring just one fewer point than their four opponents in those 8 games. And then they beat Boston in the NBA finals 4 games to 2. So overall, they went 8-6 (.571) against those four teams.

How about 83-84, vs. top 4 teams in the East?
vs Bos (62-20): 2-0
vs Phi (52-30): 1-1
vs Mil (50-32): 2-0
vs Det (49-33): 1-1

So that's 6-2, then losing to Boston in 7 games (so, 3-4) in the finals. Overall: 9-6 (.600).

How about 82-83, vs. top 4 teams in the East? (tough one because Philly was an all-time great team that year)
vs Phi (65-17): 0-2
vs Bos (56-26): 0-2
vs Mil (51-31): 2-0
vs NJ (49-33): 1-1

Plus getting swept by Philly. Nobody was beating that Philly team anyway, whether in the East or in the NBA finals, but still...LA went just 3-9 against those opponents that year.

How about 81-82?
vs Bos (63-19): 1-1
vs Phi (58-24): 1-1
vs Mil (55-27): 0-2
vs NJ (44-38): 1-1

So 3-5 but they beat Philly in the finals, 4 games to 2. So 7-7 overall.

How about 80-81?
vs Bos (62-20): 0-2
vs Phi (62-20): 1-1
vs Mil (60-22): 0-2
vs NY (50-32): 2-0

Again, 3-5, and were shocked by Houston in the Western finals that year.

How about 79-80?
vs Bos (61-21): 2-0
vs Phi (59-23): 1-1
vs Atl (50-32): 2-0
vs Hou (41-41): 2-0

So they rolled 7-1 and then dispatched the Sixers 4 games to 2, bringing their overall record to 11-3 against them that year.

So in those six seasons, overall against the top four teams in the East, regular season plus playoffs, the Lakers went 41-36 (.532), which if played out over a full 82-game schedule, would give them an overall record of 44-38. Which isn't in any way dominating, but which is pretty damned good.


So I'm just trying to say that the Lakers would have been just fine in the East. They'd likely have not made the NBA finals in some of those years because the better competition in the East would have meant them getting knocked off sooner. But if they managed to get out of the East (which they would have done on numerous occasions), they'd almost certainly have beaten the opponent from the West. So I figure fewer trips to the finals during the 80s, but probably about the same number of NBA titles for the Lakers.

They were great. Absolutely great. And they'd have been a very very very tough team even in the East.
 

the Trotman cometh

New Member
Jul 18, 2019
12
The Russell led Celtics and Jordan’s Bulls are ahead of them imo, but I really think the ‘17 Warriors have a legitimate claim to being the best team ever. 16-1 including 15 consecutive wins with multiple HOF players in their prime while beating a Cleveland team that was as good or better than the team they lost to the year before puts them up there.
 

FanRoy

New Member
Aug 14, 2008
48
Orlando, FL
So I'm just trying to say that the Lakers would have been just fine in the East. They'd likely have not made the NBA finals in some of those years because the better competition in the East would have meant them getting knocked off sooner. But if they managed to get out of the East (which they would have done on numerous occasions), they'd almost certainly have beaten the opponent from the West. So I figure fewer trips to the finals during the 80s, but probably about the same number of NBA titles for the Lakers.

They were great. Absolutely great. And they'd have been a very very very tough team even in the East.
But aren't you discounting the fact that they would NOT have been facing a cupcake from the Western Conference in the Finals year after year? They would have played something like 16 to 20 incredibly physical and tiring games..... only to then face a well rested Sixers or Celtics or Pistons team who had a week to rest and prepare for them. I think the argument for most people here is that if you simply switched places with the Celtics and Lakers - you'd probably get about the same results. Celtics reach the finals something like 6-8 times throughout the 80's and then win 5 titles over whichever team dragged itself through the EC.

You keep assuming that whenever the Lakers make it out of the East, there's nobody decent left to play so it's essentially an automatic championship for them. You drop them into a conference full of the Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, AND Pistons year after year, and I think it would be fairly surprising for them to come out with 5 wins in 10 years in that decade. And if you were instead to switch places with one of those teams (the Celtics were the longest lasting team in the EC in the 80s, so it fits better for this argument to switch them), obviously that changes the percentages once they do reach the NBA Finals.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
But aren't you discounting the fact that they would NOT have been facing a cupcake from the Western Conference in the Finals year after year?
No. The idea isn't that the Lakers and Celtics switch places. It's just a question of how would the Lakers have done if they, too, were playing in the Eastern Conference. People are saying they wouldn't have been physical enough to achieve the same level of success. My point being that of course if they were in the east, they'd not have gotten to the finals as much, obviously. But without them (or Detroit or Boston or Philly) in the west, whomever the Lakers DID face in the NBA finals would have been a relative cupcake yes.

And if the Lakers WERE in the east with the Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons, those teams almost assuredly would have seen a drop in *their* titles. So comparatively, the Lakers probably still come out ahead.

They were, over the course of the 80s, simply better than these other franchises. Not by a lot compared to the Celtics, but still....better.

They would have played something like 16 to 20 incredibly physical and tiring games..... only to then face a well rested Sixers or Celtics or Pistons team who had a week to rest and prepare for them. I think the argument for most people here is that if you simply switched places with the Celtics and Lakers - you'd probably get about the same results. Celtics reach the finals something like 6-8 times throughout the 80's and then win 5 titles over whichever team dragged itself through the EC.

You keep assuming that whenever the Lakers make it out of the East, there's nobody decent left to play so it's essentially an automatic championship for them. You drop them into a conference full of the Sixers, Celtics, Bucks, AND Pistons year after year, and I think it would be fairly surprising for them to come out with 5 wins in 10 years in that decade. And if you were instead to switch places with one of those teams (the Celtics were the longest lasting team in the EC in the 80s, so it fits better for this argument to switch them), obviously that changes the percentages once they do reach the NBA Finals.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
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.
 
Last edited: