1. 1986 Boston Celtics 2. 1972 Los Angeles Lakers 3. 1992 Chicago Bulls 4. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers 5. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers 6. 1971 Milwaukee Bucks 7. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers 8. 1996 Chicago Bulls 9. 1989 Detroit Pistons 10. 1965 Boston Celtics What do you guys think? What are your top 10?
I don't know what my top 10 would be, but you only have the '96 Bulls as 8th best? They thoroughly dominated the league. For what it's worth, here are the top 10 teams since 1947 in terms of regular season winning%: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/> TeamYearWLWPct<br/>1Chicago Bulls 199672100.878<br/>2Chicago Bulls 199769130.841<br/>3LA Lakers 197269130.841<br/>4Phil76ers 196768130.84<br/>5Boston Celtics 197368140.829<br/>6Chicago Bulls 199267150.817<br/>7Wash Capitols 194749110.817<br/>8LA Lakers 200067150.817<br/>9Boston Celtics 198667150.817<br/>10Milwaukee Bucks 197166160.805<br/></div> Kind of hard not to give some credit to the Celtics of the 60s, given all the championships.
In regards to the 60s Celtics, isn't that similar to a debate over one great player with long-term longevity as opposed to another with an incredibly high but short peak? Granted, there are other dynasties on this list, obviously, so that rather disconnects the latter half of the analogy, but at the same time it's hard to say that I'd take any of those Celtics teams from a given year over one of those listed in the top ten. Their place, IMO, is based in the issue of long-term dominance rather than what would be called a year for the ages -- and the former is very arguably more relevant. Sustaining or sustained greatness, to me, is probably the top signifier of and criterion for such an effusive description's genesis and reason. The most intriguing would-be matchup of the last twenty years is, for my money, the 96 Bulls against the 87 Lakers. Jordan's dominance versus LA's massive depth.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting pumpfake:</div><div class="quote_post">In regards to the 60s Celtics, isn't that similar to a debate over one great player with long-term longevity as opposed to another with an incredibly high but short peak? Granted, there are other dynasties on this list, obviously, so that rather disconnects the latter half of the analogy, but at the same time it's hard to say that I'd take any of those Celtics teams from a given year over one of those listed in the top ten. Their place, IMO, is based in the issue of long-term dominance rather than what would be called a year for the ages -- and the former is very arguably more relevant. Sustaining or sustained greatness, to me, is probably the top signifier of and criterion for such an effusive description's genesis and reason. The most intriguing would-be matchup of the last twenty years is, for my money, the 96 Bulls against the 87 Lakers. Jordan's dominance versus LA's massive depth.</div> Yeah, you'll see that I edited the post because something told me that I just HAD to add a Bill Russell Celtics team, and the 1965 seemed to be the best one (best record I believe they had). What would a top 10 list be without the greatest dynasty? And here is my theory if the 1987 Lakers went against the 1996 Bulls: If the Bulls "Big 4" would shut down Magic, Byron, James and AC Green from the Lakers they can still go inside and get production from that one dude (Kareem lol). The same cannot be said for the Bulls if the Lakers' quartet hold their own against the Bulls "Big 4". Mychal Thompson would be the final piece to the Lakers' puzle as he brought intensity of the bench. Toni Kukoc provides an extra offensive punch which the Bulls are going to need off their bench, but Steve Kerr's effectiveness will be limited when he has Cooper in his face. If Byron Scott feasts off the open 3 pointers he gets when the Bulls double team the low post then the Lakers could turn this into a blowout. The Bulls would get lucky to go to 6 games.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know what my top 10 would be, but you only have the '96 Bulls as 8th best? They thoroughly dominated the league.</div> There are many reasons why I put the Bulls at number 8: - There was a shortened 3-point line. This helped the Bulls to about 5-6 more wins. As evidenced by when the 3-point line was put back, the Bulls went 62-20 (down 7). - The 1996 Eastern Conference was so weak Cleveland Cavaliers won 47 games with Terell Brandon, Dan Majerle, Tyrone Hill & Danny Ferry in their starting line up! - They weren't to resilent. They lost back-to-back playoff games to Seattle (who could've beat them if they had a decent Center). - There are many reasons to believe teams such as the 67 and 83 76ers, 86 Celtics, 72 and 87 Lakers, 71 Bucks could wipe the floor with the Bulls. - The league was weaker in the 1990's than the 1980's. Even Rodman admitted the Bulls couldn't hit 70+ in the 1980's. Take the Jazz for example. Stockton and Malone in the 80's and early 90's (when the league was stronger - this another reason why I put the 1992 Bulls ahead of the 1996 Bulls) had their best stats in their careers, yet were annihilated in the playoffs. Then all the sudden, as they are aging, they easily make it to the Finals TWICE (their second finals they were cheated on IMO). - If there was a Bulls team to be put in the top 5, it was the 1992 Bulls. They played with more heart, the players were in their prime (they averaged better stats), Grant and Cartwright were better than Longley/Rodman, the league was tougher, they had the burden of already being champions, they didn't have a shortened 3-point line, etc. etc.
It's hard to compare teams from different eras. Personally, for such comparison (and this could be applied for players as well), I think it's best to compare the extent to which they dominated their competition. As for comparing stats of players from the 80s to that of the 90s, that can also be misleading. Much higher paced game back then, and more emphasis on offense than defense as well.
