2017 AG Greatest NBA Teams of All-Time #2

[PhutureDynasty]

Abe is frothing at the mouth because his beloved 87 Lakers team is not on this list.

[gaskill15]

Some people take this poll VERY seriously.

[Odogg]

87 Lakers off the top of my head since I'm busy at work:

65-17
15-3 - beating a great Celtics team in the finals.
2 of the top 5 players of all time. Magic (who won both MVP awards that year) was at his peak, Kareem was 1-2 years past his prime but still averaging close to 20.
Other than Kareem, the rest of the rotation players were at their peak.
Worthy assumed a lead scoring role in the playoffs.
Michael Cooper had his best season, winning DPOY that year, should have won 6th man probably. Cooper was the first great 3 and D guy the league has seen, although the 3 was still not that common yet.
With the development of Byron Scott, inclusion of 2nd year man AC Green and Mychal Thompson picked up in a midseason trade, this team had a stronger defensive presence than previous Laker teams, esp in the playoffs. While able to outscore teams, they could always get stops when they needed to. They led one game 40-4 after the first quarter.
One of the greatest offensive teams of all time, not only on the fast break but in the half court.
The team had 4 players who were the top pick in their respective drafts. I would argue the best 7 man rotation ever.

[Odogg]

Some people take this poll VERY seriously.

If the Warriors hadn't ended the discussion this season, I'd really be pissed. lol

[AbeVigodaLive]

Some people take this poll VERY seriously.

Meh. If we're gonna sticky this thread and put it up on the front of the site day after day... week after week... inherently, we're supposed to believe it's to be taken seriously. Relatively speaking... right?

Again, back to my Magic statement. Trying to be an intellectual discussion with such an ignorant/contrarian/accidental omission makes the entire premise flawed. Or at the least... ironic.

A popular opinion poll shaped entirely by the OP.

[Havlicekstealsit]

The team had 4 players who were the top pick in their respective drafts. I would argue the best 7 man rotation ever.

Forgot Mychal Thompson went #1 overall. One of the GOAT Gophers. Him & Kevin McHale were there a couple seasons together.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The team had 4 players who were the top pick in their respective drafts. I would argue the best 7 man rotation ever.

Forgot Mychal Thompson went #1 overall. One of the GOAT Gophers. Him & Kevin McHale were there a couple seasons.

With Flip...

[Odogg]

OP can mitigate by including 87 Lakers and 83 Sixers next round.

[Y2K]

No.

It's fine to question whether they're inferior to the '86 Celtics. After all, I chose the '86 Celtics earlier in this thread for specific reasons.

It's inexcusable to not have the '87 Lakers as an option for one of the top 9 teams in NBA history.

Abe, there are so many great teams that someone was going to be left out of the initial first two rounds. The teams that were left out were not going to take the first two slots anyways so let's not treat this as a travesty.

Btw, I'm not dismissing anyone opinions at all because it's great to hear the differing views on the subject. If anyone feels that's the case, it's not.

Not really certain why you're trying to fight this.

You're on your own island on this one... I haven't seen anybody else being even slightly intellectually honest about the NINE greatest NBA teams leaving off the '87 Lakers. But if you simply can't admit your omission, or error, or intent on a contrarian take... meh.

Run with that, I guess. But to chalk it up to a valid difference of opinion is foolhardy.

It's like running a poll about the 10 greatest NBA players of all time and leaving off Magic Johnson and claiming that we should still take the poll seriously.

What about the 1992 Chicago Bulls?

[Odogg]

92 Bulls had 7 playoff losses, so that's not top tier imo (same issue we have with the 2000 Lakers).

[Y2K]

92 Bulls had 7 playoff losses, so that's not top tier imo (same issue we have with the 2000 Lakers).

You get no argument out of me on this one. Those 92 Bulls did play and defeat a 51 win team and two 57 win teams in the playoffs despite the fact that they lost those seven games.

Now compare that to the 1987 Lakers playoff run. They played the equivalent of 3 #8 seeds (37, 42, 39 wins) before beating Boston in the championship. That's easily the least impressive road to the NBA finals for a championship team in most of our lifetime.

[Master Spade]

96' Chicago Bulls

[Shill Jackson]

@Havlicekstealsit, what's your case with choosing the Celtics over the Bulls?

Not including the playoffs:
Finished first or second in 13 offensive/defensive categories.
Balanced scoring - 5 guys in double figures.
Five win streaks of 8 games or more.
40-1 at home.
31 straight home Ws
Teams in the 80s played a lot of back to backs.

With all due respect to the 86 Celtics

96 Bulls - 72 wins, 12 ppg differential, Better Defensive team, More athletic with the GOAT player and closer.

You forgot 'weak ass league thinned out by expansion'

[Y2K]

Warriors will get slept on because of the team they have now.

I didn't want to say it but I was definitely thinking it.

[Y2K]

Just checked the '96 Bulls.

27 back to back games for the 86 Celtics, 23 for the Bulls. Not a big difference but still worth noting. Nowadays we've got fans complaining if their team has ten B2Bs - this years Cavs had 18.

Man I remember back when teams in the playoffs played back-to-back games. Can you imagine the outrage of that happening now?

[elmouse03]

Just checked the '96 Bulls.

27 back to back games for the 86 Celtics, 23 for the Bulls. Not a big difference but still worth noting. Nowadays we've got fans complaining if their team has ten B2Bs - this years Cavs had 18.

Man I remember back when teams in the playoffs played back-to-back games. Can you imagine the outrage of that happening now?

Remember those triple headers on nbc during the playoffs?

[Odogg]

92 Bulls had 7 playoff losses, so that's not top tier imo (same issue we have with the 2000 Lakers).

You get no argument out of me on this one. Those 92 Bulls did play and defeat a 51 win team and two 57 win teams in the playoffs despite the fact that they lost those seven games.

Now compare that to the 1987 Lakers playoff run. They played the equivalent of 3 #8 seeds (37, 42, 39 wins) before beating Boston in the championship. That's easily the least impressive road to the NBA finals for a championship team in most of our lifetime.

I would actually go 91 Bulls over 92 Bulls. Give me a 15-2 playoff record with a 60 win team over a 15-7 playoff record any day. Also beating Pisons and Lakers. Also 15-7 in the playoffs based on winning percentage is comparable to only around 55-27 in the reg season.

I just look first at playoff dominance when looking at best teams ever. How a team performs when it matters most, against the best competition, to me is the best indicator. And the NBA playoffs are long enough to give a large enough sample size.

I agree the 87 Lakers faced a weak conference playoff schedule that year, but hey they beat who was put in front of them. It took a 29 point 4th quarter from Sleepy Floyd to beat them just once in the Conference. And the Celtics in the finals was still tougher than any playoff opponent the 92 Bulls had to beat.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The playoffs are all about matchups... and smaller sample size... so it can get dicey putting too much stock in them Above all else

[Y2K]

The playoffs are all about matchups... and smaller sample size... so it can get dicey putting too much stock in them Above all else

2007 Warriors/Mavericks.

[Odogg]

Sure, but for a championship team you have a sample of 4 separate series and 18-25 games to go with.