>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.