Add any others! My addition '83 Sixers and '01 Lakers.

Poll question: Which team is the greatest NBA team - EVER?

Poll result (39 votes) 95-96 Bulls (16 votes) Vote 86 Celtics (0 votes) Vote 72 Lakers (1 votes) Vote 80s Showtime Lakers (5 votes) Vote 60s Celtics (3 votes) Vote 2017 Warriors (14 votes) Vote

It seems to me that the answers to "GOAT team/player" questions seem strongly align with the answer to those two questions.

I've had the same barber since I was 9 and his rule was always if you under 25 your opinion doesnt count. You just sit and listen.

Now all the old heads there this weekend said this GSW the coldest shit they've ever seen, and they really haven't even scratched the surface of their greatness.

I saw 95/96 cause WGN showed damn near all the games national, but I was a kid so whatever. MJ was a superhero to me moreso than a bball player.

I will say this team might be colder than Shaq and Kobe which was the best team I've seen since I really started to understand the game.

Anything before that I'm basically just guessing from Rewatching old games. I really wish the NBA was on their shit like NFL films

.

That sounds stupid, but let me explain. In my lifetime, it's either Showtime Lakers or Jordan Bulls. But they seem different, in that those Bulls were one dude who was otherworldly, another guy who was really good, and then a roster of specialists, who did just the one thing and did it extremely well.

Those Lakers, though, seemed like the talent was more evenly distributed. The 86-87 team had six guys averaging double figures. 95-96 Bulls had 3.

So "best collection of players," to me, is Lakers. "GOAT + perfect supporting cast," Bulls.

Lakers had a few more 27+ mpg guys than the bulls did, and the bulls had post-93 rodman scoring 5 ppg in 32 mpg. Plus those Lakers had a distributor that was just a wee bit better than anything the Bulls had.

Seems like a mirage number given the context.

then you mofos would have less cover for this plea party you're attempting to throw for LeBron & the fact that the East has been trash juice..


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<---- 5....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlgiritpmfo

=======================================

EVERYONE seems to have forgotten already; the Spurs were up 20 midway through the 3rd before Kawhi went out and thus destroyed any hope the Spurs had for beating the W's. With a healthy Kawhi the Spurs win game 1 and at the least, one more. But folks around here acting like this is the most unstoppable force of a team ever assembled. Respect to the Ws but the hyperbole is out of control and there most definitely will need to be an asterisk if they try to rep the 16-0 bs.

The Cavs give themselves no chance with their shitty defense. The Spurs are less talented, but I have no doubt they could have beat this current Cavs team.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13160435&mesg_id=13160435&page=#13161007

>EVERYONE seems to have forgotten already; the Spurs were up
>20 midway through the 3rd before Kawhi went out and thus
>destroyed any hope the Spurs had for beating the W's. With a
>healthy Kawhi the Spurs win game 1 and at the least, one more.
>But folks around here acting like this is the most unstoppable
>force of a team ever assembled. Respect to the Ws but the
>hyperbole is out of control and there most definitely will
>need to be an asterisk if they try to rep the 16-0 bs.
>
>The Cavs give themselves no chance with their shitty defense.
>The Spurs are less talented, but I have no doubt they could
>have beat this current Cavs team.

While the spurs are a better team than the Cavs, I'd still put my money on Warriors coming back from 20 in the 3rd, at home, even with a healthy Kawhi.

i am not talking about the whole series, i think dubs in six most likely, but i do think that first game was a lock with a healthy leonard.

2. 86 Celtics >>>>>>>>>

everybody else

greatness includes legacy, and measured over a period of time. this is the warriors first year with durant, so i don't know why they're up there.

this poll is flawed. why have one season teams and teams of an entire decade?

Some of these teams are one season, others span a decade, WTF?

Are we talking quality? Performance? Over time? Over one season? One playoff? Huh?

If we are talking a single season these Dubs and last year's are in the convo. They don't compare to the height of the Celtics dynasty though nor the best of Showtime or the '67 Sixers and you could find some pretty amazing competitors depending on what we are looking at. For a single playoff, not many teams were more dominant than the '01 Lakers. The '83 Sixers are there, too. Over time, hard to argue with the Cs' NINE STRAIGHT TITLES and 11 in 13 years! Having four superstars at that time was the minimum to compete, not an unbeatable advantage. The '70s had some incredible, deep, overlooked teams. The Lakers with Wilt, West and Goodrich? THIRTY THREE straight wins? Plenty of 12-man teams and rosters brimming with stars, but they didn't sustain excellence (there was a lot instability with a competing league, among other things).

I think anyone claiming this team is the best ever is not very up on the history of the game, or they are hiding behind a dumb "today's guys kill your heroes!" argument. By that logic, the best team in each successive year is the best ever because players keep getting bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, etc. If we are talking a legit, all-time argument, then no, you can't go for these guys.

>
>If we are talking a single season these Dubs and last year's
>are in the convo.
>
>
>I think anyone claiming this team is the best ever is not very
>up on the history of the game
>

essentially: they can be on the shortlist, but just not at the top, you ignorant prisoner-of-the-moment n00b!!!

i don't understand that.

to me, if you're "in the convo", it means there's a credible argument to be made that you're #1. there can be a credible argument for multiple teams, but only those teams are in the discussion.

if the dubs take it tonight, there's certainly a credible GOAT argument.

most wins in a single regular season and in a consecutive 3 year stretch, top 1 or 2 on both ends of the floor, 2 of 3 titles, and 16-0.

that's as good a 3 year run as anyone's put together.

they're obviously not going to win 8 straight or 11 of 13, no one ever will again, fagency and salary structure basically prevent teams from keeping a core together that long. but it's 3 years you can put up against anyone ever.

i also don't think we've ever seen 4 all league guys in their prime (27-28 y.o.) on the same roster. certainly not in a league this size. maybe in the 60's. but it's usually the case that either one of the guys is a little past his peak, or the 4th guy just isn't quite that good. but 4 top 25 guys? nah.

>essentially: they can be on the shortlist, but just not at the
>top, you ignorant prisoner-of-the-moment n00b!!!
>
>i don't understand that.
>
>to me, if you're "in the convo", it means there's a credible
>argument to be made that you're #1. there can be a credible
>argument for multiple teams, but only those teams are in the
>discussion.
>
>if the dubs take it tonight, there's certainly a credible GOAT
>argument.
>
>most wins in a single regular season and in a consecutive 3
>year stretch, top 1 or 2 on both ends of the floor, 2 of 3
>titles, and 16-0.
>
>that's as good a 3 year run as anyone's put together.


Being in the convo and being number one are two different things, and to be in the convo we have to make qualifiers left and right. So not really contradictory, more trying to give them credit while still saying firmly they are not the best. Is this a better three-year run than the Bulls had from 96-98? Hard to make that argument since Chicago won three straight, set the wins record (with only one less win), etc. Those were probably their most talented opponents, too. Then you have eight straight for Boston and a repeat that was spectacular and able to add new dimensions to their legacy (on the heels of being beaten by a team that may have been the single best in history itself, certainly it set the wins record).

They didn't close it out in fact they had one of the worst defensive performances in Finals history. Even if they had swept, I still think it would be very much a prisoner-of-the-moment thing to call them the best ever. They have four stars? Whoopty-damnn-doo (c) DC. That's what makes them the beat team of their era, not all-time, because historically that isn't the highest bar.

>they're obviously not going to win 8 straight or 11 of 13, no
>one ever will again, fagency and salary structure basically
>prevent teams from keeping a core together that long. but it's
>3 years you can put up against anyone ever.

You can put it against, but does it win? We both know it doesn't.

>i also don't think we've ever seen 4 all league guys in their
>prime (27-28 y.o.) on the same roster. certainly not in a
>league this size. maybe in the 60's. but it's usually the case
>that either one of the guys is a little past his peak, or the
>4th guy just isn't quite that good. but 4 top 25 guys? nah.

The Celtics were pretty close, the Chief was older but since he played until he was 70 his 30s were more like his 20s anyway. Their ages were a little more staggered but not much between Bird, McHale, DJ and also Ainge.

There weren't necessarily four HOF'ers but there were two and a lot of good players, all the same age in Portland. Sort of similar to their current approach, they had one big ass star and a bunch of guys roughly the same age on their title team. Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bob Dandridge and Phil Chenier played their primes together for the Bullets (they faced a very close-in-age trio of Sonics in two Finals also, along with Lonnie Shelton). So I don't see this as anything unprecedented. It's unusual for the era, I guess, but the Spurs have had some impressive collections of players and the Heat had four HOF'ers on their title teams, only one that was old (and he still chipped in big time).

I am impressed with Golden State, obviously, but to throw around this lofty stuff like best-ever and unprecedented seems a bit much.

i honestly can't see how a team that holds the best single season winning percentage, in both regular and post, doesn't have a credible argument for the #1 spot.

that logic escapes me.

mind you, i'm not calling them THE definitive best. that's not really something that i believe in, a singular GOAT. i believe in a pantheon, a selection of viable contenders, and this team is absolutely in that group.

three-year run they are one of the best not the best. full run TBD. one season? sorta hurts that their best season and best playoffs were not in the same year. they were like that pats who went 18-0 before losing the super bowl last year. this year they coasted a little more during the year. i think next year they have a chance to put it all together. we'll see. for now i still look at teams who won more and in some cases in more competitive eras as being better.

http://deadspin.com/steve-kerr-lays-on-the-sarcasm-toward-former-nbaers-who-1795966954

The Golden State Warriors are the best NBA team of all time. So naturally, ex-NBA guys are popping up everywhere to claim that they — unlike the Cavaliers, featuring three superstars including one of the two greatest NBA players ever — could have beaten the Warriors.

Magic Johnson says the Showtime Lakers totally would have swept Golden State. Rasheed Wallace and Rip Hamilton agree: The 2004 Pistons would have won. Julius Erving says the ‘83 Sixers would’ve beaten the Warriors. If you hear former champs tell it, these Warriors will apparently be the worst title team of all time.

Steve Kerr has heard it, and he totally agrees.

https://twitter.com/SNFaizalKhamisa/status/873247964172603393

“They’re all right, they would kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the ‘50s would’ve destroyed everybody. It’s weird how human evolution...goes in reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I can’t explain it.”

Fuck ‘em up, Steve.

Word to Rick Barry and Jamaal Wilkes. lulz!

They might have a slim chance against the We Believe squad of 2007, though. But only if Mikael Pietrus and Dejuan Wagner couldn't play.

I can't tell when niggas is being serious on here anymore bc of agendas but I'm having a hard time picturing the Warriors beating any team that lost to the Bulls in the finals.

>I can't tell when niggas is being serious on here anymore bc
>of agendas but I'm having a hard time picturing the Warriors
>beating any team that lost to the Bulls in the finals.

i think there's just as much bias in favor of old basketball teams as there is for recent teams. they would mop the floor with the bulls' opponents.

The Warriors would dismantle and demoralize every single one of those squads. Like, over a course of a series they would beat those teams by an average of 30 points. Wait, maybe I'm being unfair. The Sonics and the Jazz could probably keep it around 20.

Those teams had 3 AS in their primes, the Suns with 2 in the backcourt. KJ and Thunder Dan vs Steph and Klay would have been fun imo.

The Jazz get destroyed. They were a transition finalist between the Drexler/Dream years and had their 3 beat players in their mid 30s. Steps and Klay FEAST.

The Lakers and Blazers...idk. Those were lean years in the West.

If you switched the two coaches it would have been a seven-game series.

The Suns I do think would have gotten beaten pretty handily by the Dubs. Barkley was playing his ass off to keep them afloat but it was kind of like LeBron in the first Dubs series. He did all he could and it wasn't enough. Not enough horses there.

>I can't tell when niggas is being serious on here anymore bc
>of agendas but I'm having a hard time picturing the Warriors
>beating any team that lost to the Bulls in the finals.

They've got two MVP's and two other all stars as well as some good role players - one of whom used to be an all star. They can't beat any 90's finalist? Cmon.

I voted for the showtime Lakers. But these Warriors are certainly a great team.

the bulls pretty some fairly suspect finalists and so did the threepeat lakers. i don't think that takes away too much from either but to say these other teams would have competed with the warriors or beaten them easily? hell nah. barkley was playing out of his mind but that suns team was otherwise a weird mix of past its prime and inexperienced, except dan majerle i guess. the blazers were always the bridesmaid, you think they would have gotten over the hump where they couldn't against the lakers with some semblance of a real kareem, the pistons and the bulls? i doubt it. the lakers were kind of shabby, honestly i have a hard time figuring out how they made that finals with some of the quality teams in the west that season. the sonics had a lot of talent but not a lot of brains, it would be a fun matchup but the dubs would win on coaching alone, plus they are a better team. the jazz were formidable but could they run with golden state? not a chance. too much tempo.

-->

shaq was just on another level and kobe was slamming doors when he had the opportunities. the way they rolled through san antonio was really impressive.

the '83 sixers are right there, but they did get kind of lucky to face a banged-up lakers in the finals. i think they would have won the series anyway (kareem agrees) but it would not have been a sweep, no way.

Guess not.

-->

not all the super teams are on that list

Warriors are a great team no doubt but i have a hard time seeing them beating the 88-89 Pistons. There is no way KD would have had the open lane layups he had in this series with Mahorn, Rodman, Laimbeer, and Salley patrolling the middle. By the 3rd time they put him on his ass, he'd stay out of there. Draymond would be pushed out to the perimeter too. And Id like to see Dumars on Clay and Stephon for a whole game. Warriors would probably have the edge in the transition game but Id think those Pistons would have worn down these Warriors over a 7 game series the way they did those early Bulls teams.

this is bad.

lakers would murk GS. period.

They have 4 legit 'triple threat' guys in Curry-KD-Klay-Green, which is unheard of. It means that:
(a) they can and will exploit every possible mismatch they can find, using their passing, driving and screening, not to mention elite shooting
(b) they can mix and match however they please and they will be equally effective playing big, small and everything in between

(a) means that you can't really play straight up basketball with them, they will kill you sooner or later.
(b) means that they don't really have a weak spot and will match up with anything you'll throw at them.

Most of the time they don't need schemes, they play read and react bball, so you'll need to have high defensive IQ players on your roster *top to bottom* to compete. If you have even one guy who's a defensive liability in your regular rotation, who you can't bench - you're done. If he's a bigman? You're getting steamrolled. Sorry '86 Celtics and '87-88 Lakers.

The only way to beat them is trying to disrupt the rhythm of the game as much as possible, fouling, delaying, beating them up and playing mind games. But event then, chances are slim, cause even though Curry can be bothered by physicality (as we've seen last year), when Klay is hot, he can't be touched. He is a weakest ballhandler of the bunch, but when he's on, he doesn't need to dribble, he will just rise up.

That's not even mentioning that Draymond always comes to play and KD is a killer and a physical freak, who can not be guarded one on one. Jorn's Bulls and Isiah's Pistons might make it a series, but other than that? Nah