2017 AG Greatest NBA Teams of All-Time #9

[Odogg]

so the 2001 lakers that went 15-1 with prime shaq and prime kobe both averaging 30 a game isn't even listed in the plausible teams to vote for. nor did it make the top 5


ok

Yeah only 2000 Lakers is on the list right now.

[Y2K]

So this round I decided to go with 1997 Bulls. I was leaning towards the 1965 Celtics but in the end, the playoff success that the Bulls had against their competition is why I chose them after all.

First round: the Bullets had a 44 - 38 record BUT play 63% winning basketball over their last 35 games, when Bernie Bickerstaff took over as head coach. The Bulls swept the series 3-0.

Second round: the Hawks won 56 games and featured a top 10 offense and defense. The Bulls won this series 4-1.

Eastern Conference Finals: the Heat won 61 games. They had the #1 defense in the league. The Bulls won this series 4-1.

Finals: the Jazz won 64 games and had the League's MVP in Karl Malone. They also had a top 10 offense and defense. The Bulls won this series 4-2.

[LNS]

so the 2001 lakers that went 15-1 with prime shaq and prime kobe both averaging 30 a game isn't even listed in the plausible teams to vote for. nor did it make the top 5


ok

I've argued with y2k about this for many threads now. Refuses to give in for some weird reason.

[Lonzo_Ball]

so the 2001 lakers that went 15-1 with prime shaq and prime kobe both averaging 30 a game isn't even listed in the plausible teams to vote for. nor did it make the top 5


ok

Yeah only 2000 Lakers is on the list right now.

the 2000 lakers nearly got beat by the kings in round 1 and the blazers in round 3

the pacers gave them trouble in the finals

kobe was injured at the start of the year and during the finals plus he was still just a 21-23ppg raw player without allot of range. he didn't break out till 2001

lakers didn't roll through teams till 2001 when kobe and shaq became an all time prime duo



theres no way in hell the 2000 lakers touch the 2001 lakers. not even remotely close. and they challenge the 96 bulls IMO

lakers adding horace grant was huge too. big defensive upgrade

[Titan18]

97 Bulls

[vcsgrizzfan]

Max has a good point though, if you clearly think one team could beat the other then that factors in.

If it were two teams from the same era, then it would definitely be reasonable. Comparing teams that are some 40 years apart on that basis it's going to yield very inaccurate results because the game is so different now.

This should be extremely obvious. Christ, if you don't make that type of mental adjustment, the 80s Lakers get curb stomped by today's Grizz.

The game always progresses. But guys from the 60s born 50 years later would still be great, but their games would be far more evolved than what they showed then.

[Odogg]

Max has a good point though, if you clearly think one team could beat the other then that factors in.

If it were two teams from the same era, then it would definitely be reasonable. Comparing teams that are some 40 years apart on that basis it's going to yield very inaccurate results because the game is so different now.

This should be extremely obvious. Christ, if you don't make that type of mental adjustment, the 80s Lakers get curb stomped by today's Grizz.

The game always progresses. But guys from the 60s born 50 years later would still be great, but their games would be far more evolved than what they showed then.

2nd sentence of your post is absurd.

[vcsgrizzfan]

If it were two teams from the same era, then it would definitely be reasonable. Comparing teams that are some 40 years apart on that basis it's going to yield very inaccurate results because the game is so different now.

This should be extremely obvious. Christ, if you don't make that type of mental adjustment, the 80s Lakers get curb stomped by today's Grizz.

The game always progresses. But guys from the 60s born 50 years later would still be great, but their games would be far more evolved than what they showed then.

2nd sentence of your post is absurd.

No it isn't. It's fact. Its not taking anything away from the 80s Lakers, Celtics, Sixers etc.. but if you don't adjust for era, skill development, training etc, comparisons are foolish. Magic Johnson was incredible for his era. Without adjusting for the 30 plus years since he played, he's meh now. Having said that, if you do adjust, then he's still the best PG in the league. It's just context.

[Y2K]

so the 2001 lakers that went 15-1 with prime shaq and prime kobe both averaging 30 a game isn't even listed in the plausible teams to vote for. nor did it make the top 5


ok

Yeah only 2000 Lakers is on the list right now.

the 2000 lakers nearly got beat by the kings in round 1 and the blazers in round 3

the pacers gave them trouble in the finals

kobe was injured at the start of the year and during the finals plus he was still just a 21-23ppg raw player without allot of range. he didn't break out till 2001

lakers didn't roll through teams till 2001 when kobe and shaq became an all time prime duo



theres no way in hell the 2000 lakers touch the 2001 lakers. not even remotely close. and they challenge the 96 bulls IMO

lakers adding horace grant was huge too. big defensive upgrade

That 2000 team also had the top ranked defense, won 67 regular season games and featured the league's MVP.

[Y2K]

This should be extremely obvious. Christ, if you don't make that type of mental adjustment, the 80s Lakers get curb stomped by today's Grizz.

The game always progresses. But guys from the 60s born 50 years later would still be great, but their games would be far more evolved than what they showed then.

2nd sentence of your post is absurd.

No it isn't. It's fact. Its not taking anything away from the 80s Lakers, Celtics, Sixers etc.. but if you don't adjust for era, skill development, training etc, comparisons are foolish. Magic Johnson was incredible for his era. Without adjusting for the 30 plus years since he played, he's meh now. Having said that, if you do adjust, then he's still the best PG in the league. It's just context.

[Lonzo_Ball]

Yeah only 2000 Lakers is on the list right now.

the 2000 lakers nearly got beat by the kings in round 1 and the blazers in round 3

the pacers gave them trouble in the finals

kobe was injured at the start of the year and during the finals plus he was still just a 21-23ppg raw player without allot of range. he didn't break out till 2001

lakers didn't roll through teams till 2001 when kobe and shaq became an all time prime duo



theres no way in hell the 2000 lakers touch the 2001 lakers. not even remotely close. and they challenge the 96 bulls IMO

lakers adding horace grant was huge too. big defensive upgrade

That 2000 team also had the top ranked defense, won 67 regular season games and featured the league's MVP.

playoff dominance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>regular season dominance

and shaq was still arguably the league mvp and would have won again if not for having another league mvp candidate on his team while iverson had none

2000 shaq - 30/13/4 on 57%
2000 kobe - 22/6/5 on 46%
playoff record: 15-7

2001 shaq - 29/13/4 on 57%
2001 kobe - 29/6/5 on 46%
playoff record: 15-1


theres no way you take the 2000 combo over 2001 just because shaq was in his mvp season

[Odogg]

2nd sentence of your post is absurd.

No it isn't. It's fact. Its not taking anything away from the 80s Lakers, Celtics, Sixers etc.. but if you don't adjust for era, skill development, training etc, comparisons are foolish. Magic Johnson was incredible for his era. Without adjusting for the 30 plus years since he played, he's meh now. Having said that, if you do adjust, then he's still the best PG in the league. It's just context.

Of course some adjustments are needed when comparing teams from different eras, I never said otherwise.

But you still have to factor in how you think teams would do against each other, after making those adjustments.

[Odogg]

It is just one factor but you can't just ignore it outright.

[Y2K]

No it isn't. It's fact. Its not taking anything away from the 80s Lakers, Celtics, Sixers etc.. but if you don't adjust for era, skill development, training etc, comparisons are foolish. Magic Johnson was incredible for his era. Without adjusting for the 30 plus years since he played, he's meh now. Having said that, if you do adjust, then he's still the best PG in the league. It's just context.

Of course some adjustments are needed when comparing teams from different eras, I never said otherwise.

But you still have to factor in how you think teams would do against each other, after making those adjustments.

It's not that you don't factor that part in but rather there so many question marks and uncertainties to be able to formally a solid presumption. Sure, the 87 Lakers would definitely have better access at training and nutrition 30 years later. The question is, how would that style of play translate into today's game when the majority of the league can get out and run just as effectively as the Lakers themselves did back during the Showtime Era. They would be a team that would probably focus on shooting more long-range shots if they played in this era but we don't know how effective, overall, they would be while factoring in that part of the game. It's a huge uncertainty because the data is not there. In simplest terms, it's a case of too many moving parts.

[Odogg]

87 Lakers averaged 117.8 points per game, 2 more than this year's GOAT Warriors team. They would have been just fine.