# Were the 1971 Bucks the best team ever?



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

I have come to the conclusion that the 1971 Milwaukee Bucks were the best team in the history of the NBA. Let me explain. There are a few things that I think are good indicators of how good an NBA team was. Let me go through a couple of these and show why the Bucks were the best or one of the best ever at them.

1. *Regular Season* 
The Bucks won 66 games in that 1971 season. There are a handful of great teams that have won even more than that (and had the Bucks not lost 5 of their last 6 when they were probably resting their starters for the most part they'd probably have passed a lot of those). So while 66 wins is impressive its not conclusive evidence to say anything except that they were an amazing team. What does give conclusive evidence that they are one of the very very best teams ever though is their point differential for the year. Let me list some of the greatest regular season teams ever and their point differentials.

1967 76ers: 9.6ppg
*1971 Bucks: 12.2ppg*
1972 Lakers: 12.3ppg
1983 76ers: 7.7ppg
1986 Celtics: 9.4ppg
1987 Lakers: 9.3ppg
1992 Bulls: 10.4ppg
1996 Bulls: 12.3ppg
1997 Bulls: 10.8ppg
2000 Lakers: 8.5ppg

Point differential leaves 3 distinctly elite teams in the history of the NBA, the 1971 Bucks, the 1972 Lakers, and the 1996 Bulls. All the other teams were great but their records were better than their point differentials.

So simply put, the 1971 Bucks dominated the regular season as well as any team ever.

2. *Playoffs* 
Playoff dominance is also in my opinion a HUGE part of determining the greatest team ever. The Bucks went 12-2 in the playoffs. That puts them better than all but the 2001 Lakers and the 1983 76ers. But once again with the Bucks their point differential numbers are incredibly good. I will show the point differential in the playoffs of the most dominating playoff teams ever along with their playoff records

*1971 Bucks (12-2): 14.5ppg*
1972 Lakers (12-3): 2.5ppg
1983 76ers (12-1): 6.5ppg
1986 Celtics (15-3): 10.3ppg
1987 Lakers (15-3): 11.4ppg
1991 Bulls (15-2): 11.6ppg
1996 Bulls (15-3): 10.6ppg
1999 Spurs (15-2): 7.2ppg
2001 Lakers (15-1): 12.8ppg

Yes, the Bucks have the BEST point differential in the history of the NBA playoffs, and they did it in an era without the first round that boosted the point differential. Notice that the teams started getting in the double digits when the best of 5 first round was added. These really great teams usually just crushed the first team they faced. For example the 1996 Bulls won their first round by 23ppg, the 1987 Lakers by 27.3ppg. Yet, even with that advantage, none of these teams could get all that close to the 1971 Bucks' 14.5ppg differential in the playoffs. 

Simply put, they dominated the playoffs as well as any team in history.
____________________________________________________________________

So it seems as if there is no real team that comes close to the Bucks' dominance of both the regular season and the playoffs. Adding together regular season and playoffs, their point differential is the highest of all time. The only one that is close I guess would be that 1996 Bulls team. However, it is very true that those Bulls were playing unworthy teams in the regular season to get their win marks and their point differential. In 1996 24% of the teams won less than 30 games. In 1971 only 17.6% of the teams won less than 30. And the Western Conference that the Bucks were in only had one such team. The Bucks' divisions' worst team won 45 games that year. The Bulls' division had teams with 21 and 25 wins. Basically expansion stretched out the talent and made there be some genuinely crappy teams for the Bulls to beat up on.

And other than the Bulls there are no teams that can come close to the 1971 Bucks in the regular season AND playoffs. The 1972 Lakers won by 12.3 a game in the regular season but only 2.5 in the playoffs. The 2001 Lakers dominated the playoffs too but only won 56 games in the regular season.

_____________________________________________________________________

3. *Versatility* 
However, if you arent convinced now that the 1971 Bucks were the best team ever think about this one. The Bucks and the 1996 Bulls are the only teams ever to be the best offensive team and the best defensive team in the same year. There are no rating things on basketball reference with which to show this conclusively (because they only started those in 1974) but its pretty obvious. Offensively you can just look at it and its clear. They were the first team to have a .500 FG% and they shot a lot less than the league average while scoring the most in the league. You can see that they were clearly the best offensive team. On defense they let up the third least points in the league but the other teams played a slower pace. Their opponents had the lowest true shooting % in the league at .471. Furthermore, their opponents got the least rebounds of any other teams opponents so they werent getting offensive rebounds. Obviously this isnt conclusive because turnovers werent kept but from what we can see the Bucks were most likely the best defensive team as well as the best offensive team, something only done by the 1996 Bulls. They were also simply one of the best offensive and defensive teams in history too. Let me illustrate that.
_________________________________________________________________________

4. *Offense* 
The 1971 Bucks were the best offensive team of all time. Their TS% was .549. The league average was .500. They were 10% above average. No other team has done that. For instance, the 96 bulls were the best offensive team in the league then and they were only 2.4% above average in TS%. The 1987 Lakers, who many would think was the best offense ever was 7.3% above average. The 1985 Lakers were 8.4% above average. Now, I havent done extensive searching on this but I doubt there is any other team that is as much above the league average in shooting as the 1971 Bucks were.

With that said the Bucks also did things not included in TS% very well. They were one of the most dominating rebounding teams ever, getting 4 more per game over their opponent for instance. 

Basically they had the best post player in the game in Kareem, and the best playmaker in the game in Oscar. This made their offense run like a machine and I struggle to find a team who was better than them offensively.
______________________________________________________________________

5. *Defense*
This is a lot harder to quantify. However, I have a few things to prove that they are one of the best defensive teams of all time. The first is their opponents' TS% in comparison to the league average. It was 5.8% below the league average. The team with the best Defensive rating of all time was the 1975 Bullets. Their opponents only shot 3.8% below the league average. There are teams who are better in this category but let me illustrate how good they were. The 2004 Pistons had a similar 6.2% below league average for their opponents. They are considered one of the best defensive teams ever.

Furthermore, the team with the second lowest defensive rating (which was started in 1974) ever was the 1974 Bucks who had the same starting 5 as the 1971 version. The only difference is that in 1971 all those guys were younger and better defenders. So clearly the 1971 Bucks were beasts defensively and probably one of the greatest teams ever defensively.
_____________________________________________________________________

So heres my conclusion. The 1971 Bucks were one of the top 3 regular season teams and one of the top 3 playoff teams of all time. No other team can say that. Furthermore, they were most likely one of only 2 teams that was the best offensive and defensive team in the league at the same time. They were probably the best offensive team in NBA history while also being one of the top defensive teams ever. They were, in fact, the best team ever too.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

The *1967 Sixers* had a 68-13 record, won the championship & their team had Big Dipper, Hal Greer, Chet Walker & Billy (the Kangaroo kid) Cunningham. 3 HOFers on that team. The best record ever achieved @ that pt.
The *1972 Lakers* are the 2nd best team IMO. They compiled a record 33 conscutive victories & notched 69 wins (the best record ever @ that pt in history) en route to the championship. They had Wilt, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich & Elgin Baylor. This was the final season of Elgin's career & he had already declined from his best yrs. Also Wilt was no longer the scoring machine he's known for b/c it was West & Goodrich's team but I bet Wilt could easily have been the scoring leader if it was his role. He provided the menacing rebounding & interior defense of that team.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

I don't believe that point difference is a great case for annointing them the best team ever. I couldn't be fussed how much you win by, it's how many games you win, the level of the teams you play (for example, whether the West was particularly strong resulting in more games against strong opponents) and whether you won the big games.

I haven't read your whole post yet, and I know you took in more factors than purely point difference. However I don't think point difference does anything to prove they're the best.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> I don't believe that point difference is a great case for annointing them the best team ever. I couldn't be fussed how much you win by, it's how many games you win, the level of the teams you play (for example, whether the West was particularly strong resulting in more games against strong opponents) and whether you won the big games.
> 
> I haven't read your whole post yet, and I know you took in more factors than purely point difference. However I don't think point difference does anything to prove they're the best.


And yes the West WAS particularly strong that year. The average wins of the teams in the West was over 45 wins that year and except for Portland they were all pretty decent teams (the second worst team having 38 wins). And as I said, the Bucks' division was the best division in the league, having the teams with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 7th best records in the entire league. So the Bucks were playing a very hard schedule when they got their wins.

As for point differential I do think its a good indicator of how easy it was for a team to rack up their wins and how dominating they were. You may feel differently but I think its very significant that in the average game the opposing team couldnt even get within single digits of the Bucks.



> The 1967 Sixers had a 68-13 record, won the championship & their team had Big Dipper, Hal Greer, Chet Walker & Billy (the Kangaroo kid) Cunningham. 3 HOFers on that team. The best record ever achieved @ that pt.


They didnt dominate the playoffs though, going 11-4. Furthermore, while you too probably dont put much stock in point differential, those 76ers are a team where their record ended up being way better than their point differential. Based on just that, their record shouldve only been 61-20. And while its impressive that they were still able to pull out so many victories, it still means that they really were not dominating their opponents as the Bucks were.



> The 1972 Lakers are the 2nd best team IMO. They compiled a record 33 conscutive victories & notched 69 wins (the best record ever @ that pt in history) en route to the championship. They had Wilt, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich & Elgin Baylor. This was the final season of Elgin's career & he had already declined from his best yrs. Also Wilt was no longer the scoring machine he's known for b/c it was West & Goodrich's team but I bet Wilt could easily have been the scoring leader if it was his role. He provided the menacing rebounding & interior defense of that team.


They were arguably a better regular season team than the Bucks, although its close. However, they squeaked through the playoffs. I mean, for instance, they were actually outscored by I think 27 or 28 points in their 6 game series against the Bucks that year. Getting blown out twice in a playoff series while only garnering some really really close victories puts their stock down in my eyes.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The 1971 Bucks postseason competition was weak compared to other teams so I agree that just using point spread doesn't seem like a great value to make the case of postseason dominance.

They beat the Warriors who were .500 team (41 wins), the Lakers who did not even win 50 games that years (48 wins), and then the Bullets (42 wins) who were barely above .500.

In contrast to the 72 Lakers who went through MUCH tougher opponents:
Bulls 57 wins, Bucks 63 wins, and the Knicks 48 wins. In short the 72 Lakers weakest opponent had as many wins as the best team the 71 Bucks team faced.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes but that Lakers team was obviously very good as they became the 1972 team the year later. The Bulls were probably better than the Warriors, i'll give you that. And I dont think you can say that a team that makes it to the finals is weak.

Yes, the 72 Lakers played better competition in the playoffs BUT it wasnt as far off as the records show (as the Lakers were better than that record and the Bullets obviously came on very strong late). And the Bucks dominated their opponents while the Lakers absolutely did not so it is still true that the Bucks dominated the playoffs more than those Lakers.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> Yes but that Lakers team was obviously very good as they became the 1972 team the year later. The Bulls were probably better than the Warriors, i'll give you that. And I dont think you can say that a team that makes it to the finals is weak.
> 
> Yes, the 72 Lakers played better competition in the playoffs BUT it wasnt as far off as the records show (as the Lakers were better than that record and the Bullets obviously came on very strong late). And the Bucks dominated their opponents while the Lakers absolutely did not so it is still true that the Bucks dominated the playoffs more than those Lakers.


 Teams vary greatly from year to year so I think you're ignoring team record way too much. You're stating that the Lakers were better then there record because they performed better the NEXT season: I've watched basketball since I was 5 and how good a team plays even with essentially the same players vary greatly (i.e. difference of Detroit of this year and two years ago). Clearly the Lakers of 71 were not the 72 Lakers and there really no way to get around the fact that the other two teams the Bucks faced were very weak particularly compared to the teams the Lakers went through.

Dominating teams with less then 50 wins is no more of value to me and most observers then a team beating a team with close to 60 wins and another team with over 60 wins. It's the equivalent in todays' terms of beating Detroit, SA, Suns in one playoffs: more impressive to me then crushing the Buck, Cleveland, and the Nets.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> Teams vary greatly from year to year so I think you're ignoring team record way too much. You're stating that the Lakers were better then there record because they performed better the NEXT season: I've watched basketball since I was 5 and how good a team plays even with essentially the same players vary greatly (i.e. difference of Detroit of this year and two years ago). Clearly the Lakers of 71 were not the 72 Lakers and there really no way to get around the fact that the other two teams the Bucks faced were very weak particularly compared to the teams the Lakers went through.
> 
> Dominating teams with less then 50 wins is no more of value to me and most observers then a team beating a team with close to 60 wins and another team with over 60 wins. It's the equivalent in todays' terms of beating Detroit, SA, Suns in one playoffs: more impressive to me then crushing the Buck, Cleveland, and the Nets.


Those Lakers teams previous to 1972 were never great regular reason teams, but they WERE great teams, especially in the playoffs. They got to the finals 4 times with less than 50 wins. They averaged less than 44 wins during the previous 12 years yet got to the finals 8 of those years. They are kind of like the Pistons of 2004 and 2005. They werent amazing regular season teams but come playoff time they were great. I would much rather have my team face those 57 win Bulls than those Lakers in a best of 7 playoff series.

And I dont think you can say the Bullets were an inferior team seeing as they got to the finals and beat the two best teams in the Eastern Conference (including a Knicks team that was basically the same, if not better than the one the Lakers faced in the finals the next year). 

Still though, the Lakers DID face better teams as the Bucks in 1972 were a lot better than the 1971 Warriors. However, the difference in playoff point differential was 12 points greater for the Bucks than for those Lakers. I dont care who they played, the Bucks still put in a significantly better playoffs. Personally I cant say that a team that was outscored in a playoff series is the best team ever (and the Lakers had that).


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm not trying to prove that the 72 Lakers were the best team of all time, I just think you're methodology of proving the best team ever by looking at simply point differential if severly flawed.

For example, 96 Bulls beat a Heat team with 42 wins(Heat), 47 wins(NYK), 60 wins (Orlando), and 64 wins (Seattle) and only lost 3 games in that process!! I fail to see how the Bucks beating no team with other 50 wins by a higher point differential makes that the more impressive run.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> I'm not trying to prove that the 72 Lakers were the best team of all time, I just think you're methodology of proving the best team ever by looking at simply point differential if severly flawed.
> 
> For example, 96 Bulls beat a Heat team with 42 wins(Heat), 47 wins(NYK), 60 wins (Orlando), and 64 wins (Seattle) and only lost 3 games in that process!! I fail to see how the Bucks beating no team with other 50 wins by a higher point differential makes that the more impressive run.


Well they won their games by HUGE margins. And the NBA in the 1970s had teams that were all very close to each other. They were all good teams, so a team with like 48 wins or something was a very good team, better than one with 48 wins today because there were much fewer crappy teams to beat up on. I'll bet you that the 1971 Lakers were at least as good a team as the 1996 Magic for instance.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> Well they won their games by HUGE margins. And the NBA in the 1970s had teams that were all very close to each other. They were all good teams, so a team with like 48 wins or something was a very good team, better than one with 48 wins today because there were much fewer crappy teams to beat up on. I'll bet you that the 1971 Lakers were at least as good a team as the 1996 Magic for instance.


 In 1971the Lakers had just the 4th best record in the league
Baltimore the 9th best record and the Warriors the 10th. While it could be argued that the Lakers were on par with the better teams, the Bullets and Warriors were clearly inferior teams. Bullets making the Finals is similar to that crappy NYK team making the Finals a few years back with Ewing hurt.

The 72 Lakers went through the second, third and 5th best records
The 96 Bulls went through the the second, third, 5th.

Eras are different but clearly the Bucks had a bit of cupcake run of teams. Not there fault but its a stretch to think that big scoring differential would have not come down had they not played tougher opponents like other top teams


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> In 1971the Lakers had just the 4th best record in the league
> Baltimore the 9th best record and the Warriors the 10th. While it could be argued that the Lakers were on par with the better teams, the Bullets and Warriors were clearly inferior teams. Bullets making the Finals is similar to that crappy NYK team making the Finals a few years back with Ewing hurt.
> 
> The 72 Lakers went through the second, third and 5th best records
> ...


It wouldve gone down but it would still have been higher than those Lakers. I am quite sure of that. 

And I do think you are stretching it to say that the Bullets were like the 99 Knicks. They had Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld when they were both in their primes and a very good supporting cast. Two years before that team with the same starting 5 had the best record in the league and a year before they had the third best record. They were a very very good team who just had an oddly mediocre regular season but came on well in the playoffs. I would equate them with a lesser version of this year's Heat, as both teams didnt play to their potential in the regular season but were great in the playoffs.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> It wouldve gone down but it would still have been higher than those Lakers. I am quite sure of that.


Why? You haven't really put forth much of an argument except that there scoring differential was large which is simply a bad measure



> And I do think you are stretching it to say that the Bullets were like the 99 Knicks. They had Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld when they were both in their primes and a very good supporting cast. Two years before that team with the same starting 5 had the best record in the league and a year before they had the third best record. They were a very very good team who just had an oddly mediocre regular season but came on well in the playoffs. I would equate them with a lesser version of this year's Heat, as both teams didnt play to their potential in the regular season but were great in the playoffs.


I simply don't understand the point of how mediocre 70's teams should be given the benefit of the doubt. Sure the 90's were affected by expansion but you neglect to mention the ABA was in full swing and drawing players away from the NBA in 1971 so the 1970 teams were affected as well. Also having two good players on a hot streak does NOT mean that team was all that good. You can find numerous examples of this. The Nuggets a few years back when they beat Seattle adn stretched a Utah team to 7 games. The Celtics with Pierce and Walker, etc. etc.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> Why? You haven't really put forth much of an argument except that there scoring differential was large which is simply a bad measure


In the playoffs, they far exceeded the point differential that any team has ever had even in the regular season. To me, that is highly impressive, as even if the teams they played werent uber great they were still better teams on average than anyone plays for an entire regular season on average. 14.5 points a game cant be ignored. They averaged a blowout every game. I dont see how you can not be impressed with that.



> I simply don't understand the point of how mediocre 70's teams should be given the benefit of the doubt. Sure the 90's were affected by expansion but you neglect to mention the ABA was in full swing and drawing players away from the NBA in 1971 so the 1970 teams were affected as well. Also having two good players on a hot streak does NOT mean that team was all that good. You can find numerous examples of this. The Nuggets a few years back when they beat Seattle adn stretched a Utah team to 7 games. The Celtics with Pierce and Walker, etc. etc.


The ABA was hardly in full swing in 1971. Look at the players they had then. The only great great players were Rick Barry and Dan Issel. Yeah, it took away some talent, but IMO it took a few more years for the ABA to have equivalent talent to the NBA. 

And two players on a hot streak who get their team TO THE FINALS is a lot different than the teams you mentioned. None of them got to the finals. Furthermore, none of them had 2nd best total record in the NBA over the previous two years with the same core. They just clearly had an off regular season but its very clear that that team was capable of 50+ wins (they had gotten 57 two years before and 50 the previous year). And by the fact that they got to the finals, I would say they started playing that way in the playoffs.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> In the playoffs, they far exceeded the point differential that any team has ever had even in the regular season. To me, that is highly impressive, as even if the teams they played werent uber great they were still better teams on average than anyone plays for an entire regular season on average. 14.5 points a game cant be ignored. They averaged a blowout every game. I dont see how you can not be impressed with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 It doesn't matter if the ABA wasn't at it's peak. Simply put even taking a decent starter from the NBA results in teams being weaker as a sixth man can be the difference btw a great team vs a good team. The point stands that you're unrightfully making mediocre 70's team greater then they actually were.

With regard to the Bullets, now with a 4 round format it's much harder for a mediocre team to make the FINALS as things tend to fall to talent rather then luck the more games are played. And you're continued insistence about the Bullets being anything more then average playoff team is astonishing. They only won 50 games the year before and you have to go a *full two years *back when they had a very good record of 57 games . In each of those two prior season they got nowhere in the playoffs losing in the first round each of those years


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> It doesn't matter if the ABA wasn't at it's peak. Simply put even taking a decent starter from the NBA results in teams being weaker as a sixth man can be the difference btw a great team vs a good team. The point stands that you're unrightfully making mediocre 70's team greater then they actually were.
> 
> With regard to the Bullets, now with a 4 round format it's much harder for a mediocre team to make the FINALS as things tend to fall to talent rather then luck the more games are played. And you're continued insistence about the Bullets being anything more then average playoff team is astonishing. They only won 50 games the year before and you have to go a *full two years *back when they had a very good record of 57 games . In each of those two prior season they got nowhere in the playoffs losing in the first round each of those years


Personally I am judging NBA teams by how they rated to the other teams in the league, so to me the ABA taking some talent out of the NBA is irrelevant. But if you insist on using that, then it would be even more true for the 1972 Lakers because with every year the ABA took better and better talent.

And I wouldnt say the Bullets got nowhere in the playoffs the year before. They took the 1970 Knicks, one of the 15 greatest teams ever IMO to 7 games. They probably wouldve made it out of the first round if they had matched up against any other team that year. And in 71 they played 3 series'. Not that much different from 4 especially since they beat the top two teams in the conference anyways.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

^ You're making a lot of assumptions (they probably would have made it out of the first round, also the Lakers were better then there record, also the Bullets underperformend in the regular season, also the Bullets were better the year before despite them being both having only a mid level seed playoff record and them losing in the first round, also the Bullets should be considered because TWO syears prior they had a good regular season record, also the Laker should be considered better because the NEXT year they were awesom) to justify the only solid statisical evidence you have in scoring differential yet you play down signficantly all the other factors such as team record and wins for other teams. Also playing 3 series versus makes a huge difference: ala the Suns this year won two series despite not being the most talented team out there. The less games played the more statiscal chance that weaker competition gets through.

Fact of the matter is no matter what year you look at and when you compare it to other teams in the league, the 71 Bucks played nowhere near the level of competition that other teams went through. No matter if you look at team record, conference standing, division winners, etc: there playoff competition was weak. Does that make the 71 Bucks NOT the best team ever? Not necessarily, but scoring differential isn't close to making a strong case for them having the best playoff run ever. IMO, a stronger case would be that they had the best regular season ever and although they didn't face the toughest competition it remains that they dominanted in the playoffs like they did the regular season. I.e. rather then adding significantly to the case that they were the best team ever, the playoffs confirmed the regular season performance was no fluke. A subtle difference but I think an important one.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> ^ You're making a lot of assumptions (they probably would have made it out of the first round, also the Lakers were better then there record, also the Bullets underperformend in the regular season, also the Bullets were better the year before despite them being both having only a mid level seed playoff record and them losing in the first round, also the Bullets should be considered because TWO syears prior they had a good regular season record, also the Laker should be considered better because the NEXT year they were awesom) to justify the only solid statisical evidence you have in scoring differential yet you play down signficantly all the other factors such as team record and wins for other teams.


Those arent really assumptions as much as explaining why I dont consider the teams as weak as you do. Those Bullets and Lakers were just better than 48 and 42 win teams. It is not irrelevant to point out that both of those teams with the same core group of players were able to post VERY good records in other years. 



> Also playing 3 series versus makes a huge difference: ala the Suns this year won two series despite not being the most talented team out there. The less games played the more statiscal chance that weaker competition gets through.


Thats true, but seeing as the Bullets beat the top two teams in the conference I think its unlikely they wouldve lost if you added an extra round in there. It's possible, yes, but not probable. They just played a great playoffs before the finals came around.


Now I have never said that the Bucks faced an average group of playoff teams. Those teams were below average, as their records cannot be completely ignored. However, I think they faced more around the quality of 55 and 50 win teams when you talk about the Lakers and Bullets. With that said though, they dominated the playoffs by a greater margin than the regular season. No team has ever gone through the regular season with that kind of point differential, let alone done it in the playoffs. Maybe they couldnt have done that feat if they were against better teams (however, that year there really werent any other amazing teams; more on that later) but that doesnt mean that its still not an amazing feat to average a blow out game for the entire playoffs.
______________________________________________________________________

Furthermore, when we talk about the greatest players of all time we compare them to other players in their era. Now to some extent it makes sense to do that with teams too. And in the case of the Bucks they were far away better than every other team in the NBA that season. Now you may call this an assumption but I dont think any team in the NBA that year couldve taken the Bucks to 6 games. They didnt play the two 50 win teams in the Knicks and Bulls, but they played the teams that beat both of them and either swept them or won in 5. Now I realize that 1971 was a weak year in terms of having some excellent teams but it is still significant to point out that they had no team close to them. The 1972 Lakers had the Bucks close to them. The great 80s Celtics and Lakers were always close. The 90s Bulls always needed 6 games in the finals (except for 91). I would venture to say that no other team has ever been so much better than the second best team in the league than the Bucks were that year.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> Those arent really assumptions as much as explaining why I dont consider the teams as weak as you do. Those Bullets and Lakers were just better than 48 and 42 win teams. *It is not irrelevant to point out that both of those teams with the same core group of players were able to post VERY good records in other years. *


This is a HUGE assumption that I'll keep pointing out as false. Teams even with the same core are very different from year to year just by a role player or even team unity. This is a big failure of you're argumetn particularly with the Bullets who you're trying to point were better then they were from there record two years prior. For example, the Pistons this year essentially have the same core but the team they had two years ago was significantly better because there roleplayers off the bench were better. Other years are essentially irrelevant when you have the record of that year to look at it.




> Thats true, but seeing as the Bullets beat the top two teams in the conference I think its unlikely they wouldve lost if you added an extra round in there. It's possible, yes, but not probable. They just played a great playoffs before the finals came around.


The odds greatly increase: 4 seven games series vs. 1 5 game and 2 7 game series. Less games increase the chance that an inferior team can play above themselves



> Now I have never said that the Bucks faced an average group of playoff teams. Those teams were below average, as their records cannot be completely ignored. However, I think they faced more around the quality of 55 and 50 win teams when you talk about the Lakers and Bullets. With that said though, they dominated the playoffs by a greater margin than the regular season. No team has ever gone through the regular season with that kind of point differential, let alone done it in the playoffs. Maybe they couldnt have done that feat if they were against better teams (however, that year there really werent any other amazing teams; more on that later) but that doesnt mean that its still not an amazing feat to average a blow out game for the entire playoffs.


Sure it is but most obervers realize that beating quality teams is far more important then beating mediocre teams. You expect to encounter a 50 win team in the first or second round not in the conference finals or finals itself. I'm not saying it's NOT an amazing feat but it has very little relevance when talking about the best team of all time when they played inferior competition. 71 was simply a down year. 



> Furthermore, when we talk about the greatest players of all time we compare them to other players in their era. Now to some extent it makes sense to do that with teams too. And in the case of the Bucks they were far away better than every other team in the NBA that season. *Now you may call this an assumption but I dont think any team in the NBA that year couldve taken the Bucks to 6 games. *They didnt play the two 50 win teams in the Knicks and Bulls, but they played the teams that beat both of them and either swept them or won in 5. Now I realize that 1971 was a weak year in terms of having some excellent teams but it is still significant to point out that they had no team close to them. The 1972 Lakers had the Bucks close to them. The great 80s Celtics and Lakers were always close. The 90s Bulls always needed 6 games in the finals (except for 91). I would venture to say that no other team has ever been so much better than the second best team in the league than the Bucks were that year.


Yes it is this you're opinion and not based on hard evidence: you're making an assumption. With you're route of logic of using other year's performance then the 1972 Lakers should be the best team ever because they beat essentially the same core of the Bucks that were there there in 1971 (so even though they won 63 games they're equivalent to beating a 70 win team) and had tougher opponents in the Finals and 1st round. 1971 was simply a weak year: hard to take a team that dominanted such a weak year and make them the best all time.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

This is an intense thread. Neither Pioneer or lessthanjake is giving up :biggrin:. '72 Lakers & '67 Sixers are the best 2 teams in NBA history. Case closed.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

I usually don't like Charley Rosen's articles but he makes some great pts & arguments this time. He is a basketball columnist for Fox Sports for anyone who isn't familiar w/ Rosen. He listed his greatest teams ever.

http://talk.ocregister.com/archive/index.php/t-15715.html


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

No. 4: 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
Record: 67-15
Offense: 109.9 ppg (4th in league)
Defense: 99.5 ppg (3rd in league)

This was the second consecutive Bulls championship under the direction of Phil Jackson. By then, all the players were familiar with, and accepted the necessity of, the triangle offense. This wasn't the case in the previous season, in which assistant coach Johnny Bach undermined Jackson's game plan, and Michael Jordan didn't embrace the offense until the championship series against the Lakers. 

M.J., of course, was the apex of the triangle, averaging 30.1 ppg (1st) and 2.28 spg (6th). He was at the top of his game, and at the top of the league. There was nothing he couldn't do on a basketball court.


Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were the perfect one-two punch for the 1991-92 Bulls. (Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images) 

Jordan's main sidekick was Scottie Pippen (21.0 ppg) an incredible defender and facilitator. With his length and athleticism, Pippen could excel at every position except center. Like a middle linebacker in the NFL, it was Pippen who called the defensive signals. While he seemed arrogant to the fans and the media, his teammates appreciated his encouragement and his help. His only flaw was his habit of taking one or two hasty perimeter shots per game.

Horace Grant (14.2 ppg; .578 FG%) was in his prime. An outstanding post-up defender, quick and sure on his defensive rotations, Grant was also a dependable jump shooter from the vicinity of the foul line, a runner, and a determined rebounder. Sure, sometimes he zigged when he should have zagged, and he was often Jackson's scapegoat — but, through it all, Grant always came to play.

Bill Cartwright (8.0 ppg) had aching legs and a balky back, yet he could still play forceful, elbow-flailing defense in the paint. He wasn't the scorer he used to be, but he could still sink enough of his spinning, wobbling jumpers to keep a defense honest. Passing was always a challenge for Cartwright, and this was the reason that M.J. cited for not trusting him with the ball. The situation was resolved when Cartwright simply informed Michael that if he didn't pass him the ball he'd knock M.J.'s head off. 

B. J. Armstrong (9.9 ppg) was the weak link. His defense was not up to snuff, and he so wanted to be like Mike that he frequently aborted the offense and went off on his own. Still, he was quick to the hoop, and the team's best 3-point maker (40.2%).

The bench was iffy. Craig Hodges (4.3 ppg) was a 3-point specialist (37.5%), but not much of a defender. John Paxson (7.0 ppg) was always in the right place at the right time, and was also celebrated for his bull's-eye shooting (52.8%). Of the big men, Stacey King (7.0) was usually in the wrong place at the wrong time. And Will Perdue (4.5 ppg) was minimally talented (teammates referred to him as Will Per-doo-doo) and saved his best work for retrieving missed teammates' shots. 

The Bulls' switching defense confounded most of their opponents. They were a hot-shooting bunch — their .508 FG percentage led the league. They played with heart and precision — and when in doubt, M.J. was there to air it out.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

No. 3: 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers
Record: 69-13
Offense: 121.0 (1st)
Defense: 108.7 (6th)

This was easily the most versatile team ever. They wanted to run, and Wilt Chamberlain's board-control coupled with his accurate outlet passes to the likes of Jerry West and Gail Goodrich, make their fast break irresistible. If necessary, they could utilize Chamberlain's still formidable post-presence to play grind-it-out basketball. They could play small-ball and big-ball. They could load their lineup with defenders or with scorers. They stormed through the regular season, winning a record 33 games in succession. And their average point differential (+12.3) was another record.

Jerry West (25.8 ppg [7th]; 9.7 apg [1st]) was the fail-safe scorer. His patented move was to dribble at full speed to his right and then instantaneously pull up and shoot. West was also an extraordinary finisher, and his leaping ability enabled him to snare more than a normal guard's share of rebounds. His defense was so good that opponents had specific instructions concerning what to do when they enjoyed a two-on-one fast break advantage where West as the sole defender: Because of West's long arms and quick hands, they were told to always take the ball straight to the rim and never risk passing it. He was a perfectionist who took full advantage every time his defender turned his head or made a misstep. Mr. Clutch and Mr. Logo.

Gail Goodrich (25.9 ppg [5th]) was a quarter inch shy of standing 6-foot-1, and his nickname was "Stumpy." But he had 37-inch arms, huge hands, and he was a lefty. Nobody could match his intensity, and only Bill Bradley could approximate his perpetual motion. Goodrich scored with clever moves to the hoop — flips and hooks — and an uncanny fall-back jumper. Defense, however, was his downfall. 

The spotlight was always on Chamberlain (14.8 ppg; 19.2 rpg [1st]; .649 FG% [1st]). At age 35, Wilt was convinced by coach Bill Sharman to play like his archenemy, Bill Russell. That meant playing defense, blocking shots (which weren't yet officially recorded), rebounding, passing, and setting teeth-rattling screens. When the fast-break was derailed, Chamberlain could still fill the basket with a variety of fadeaway jumpers, spinning dunks, and (from the right box) unstoppable finger rolls. 

Harold "Happy" Hairston (13.1 ppg; 13.1 rpg) was a smallish 6-7, 225-pound power forward. Besides his prowess as a rebounder, Hairston was the rare player at his position who could fill a lane on the break. He never thought twice about diving headfirst for a loose ball, he learned how (and where) to pass, and he played acceptable defense. The only flaw in Hap's game was his penchant for taking too many shots.

Jim McMillian (18.8 ppg) was a savvy small forward. The Lakers were 6-3 when Elgin Baylor was forced to retire — because Sharman hated Tick Tock's lack of defense, lack of effort in practice sessions, as well as his unwillingness to get out and run. As soon as McMillian replaced Baylor in the starting lineup, L.A. was off on its 33-game undefeated streak. McMillian was a lights-out shooter from either baseline, and he utilized screens to perfection. He could run, make accurate passes, make judicial decisions, and play hard-nosed defense. McMillian was so smooth and effortless that his teammates called him "Butter." 

The Lakers also had a potent bench: Pat Riley (6.7 ppg) played defense with a vengeance, and hit enough open jumpers to be a limited threat on offense. Flynn Robinson (9.9 ppg) could bury his rainbow jumpers at any time and against any defender. LeRoy Ellis (4.6 ppg) was the fastest big man in the league, and his mid-range jumpers and driving hooks made him a dangerous scorer as well. John Q. Trapp (5.7 ppg) was an enforcer with a jump shot. 

Sharman's full-speed-ahead game plan was a perfect blend of quickness and precision, of self-expression combined with responsibility. He paid attention to every detail and convinced his players to do the same.

Why the 1971-72 Lakers would have beaten the 1991-92 Bulls: The Lakers had much better team speed, and a vastly superior bench. Chamberlain would have overwhelmed Cartwright at both ends, and Hairston would have out-quicked Grant. Goodrich's lack of size would have been nullified by Armstrong's headstrong decision-making, and with neither of them being especially defensive-minded, Goodrich's offense would easily have trumped Armstrong's. Also, since McMillian worked off screens and used misdirection cuts, he would have avoided challenging Pippen's smothering one-on-one defense. Yes, M.J. was bigger and stronger than West, but Mr. Clutch had that one unstoppable pull-and-pop move. 

The biggest factor, though, would have been Chamberlain's total command of the boards.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

No. 2: 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
Record: 72-12
Offense: 105.2 (1st)
Defense: 92.9 (3rd)
Michael Jordan (30.4 ppg [1st]; 2.6 spg [3rd]) was a better long-range shooter (42.7%) than he'd previously been. Also a better turnaround jump shooter from the low post. If he had to pick his spots to play all-out defense, he always picked the right spots. At age 33, he was still Mr. Wonderful.

Scottie Pippen (19.4 ppg) still insisted on taking too many ill-advised shots, but he and M.J. were as comfortable in the triangle offense as Br'er Rabbit was in the briar patch. 

Luc Longley (9.1 ppg) was a gifted passer and was therefore a considerable upgrade over Cartwright. Luc had the bulk (7-2, 320) to clog the middle, and to bang with the other behemoths. But it was his ability to read defenses and make precise passes that helped make the triangle difficult to defend.

Ron Harper (7.4 ppg) was a cagey veteran. Although he couldn't score points by the dozen as he once did, he saved his shots for clutch situations. His defense was remarkable as was his court awareness. Harper rarely made foolish moves.


Dennis Rodman could matchup with anyone in the league in the 1995-96 season. (Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images) 

Dennis Rodman (5.5 ppg; 14.9 rpg [1st]) solved the mysteries of the triangle offense in a matter of weeks. He was smart and quick (vertically and horizontally). He willingly sacrificed his body, ran the court, and played madcap defense.

Toni Kukoc (13.1 ppg) was defenseless, but, at 6-foot-10, he handled the ball like a guard and could create shots against almost anybody. If he also demonstrated sticky fingers, he was a dependable scorer whenever a game was on the line.

Teammates were amazed whenever Steve Kerr missed an open shot (8.4 ppg; .515 3FG% [2nd]). A gutsy player whose decision-making ability was impeccable. Bill Wennington (5.3 ppg) was a seven-footer who could hit mid-range jumpers all day long. Jud Buechler (3.8 ppg) was another 3-point specialist (44.4%) who could sit on the bench for long stretches and still hit his mark.

The Bulls overwhelmed the rest of the league with their precision offense, their explosive scoring, their suffocating defense — and with His Airness performing routine miracles.

Why the 1995-96 Bulls would have beaten the 1971-72 Lakers: Better team speed. Better overall defense among the starters. Kukoc would have been too much for any of the Lakers' subs (or starters) to handle. Wennington would have gotten all the open jumpers he desired against Chamberlain's stay-at-home defense. Rodman could run with Hairston, and would have reduced Chamberlain's mastery of the boards. Harper's long armed-defense would have made Goodrich sweat for his shots. 

Why the 1995-96 Bulls would have beaten the 1991-92 Bulls: Better rebounding and team defense. Better team speed and bench players. Much better execution of the offense. M.J.'s offense was more versatile than before. Wennington would force Cartwright away from the hoop. Harper would have negated Armstrong. Kukoc would have his way against any of the second-stringers.


----------



## neoxsupreme (Oct 31, 2005)

No. 1: 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers
Record: 68-13
Offense: 125.1 (1st)
Defense: 115.8 (3rd)
This was the most powerful team ever, and as with every team he'd ever played for, it all started with Wilt Chamberlain. 

Whereas Bill Sharman would use psychology to get Chamberlain to play a team game, Alex Hannum used the threat of physical force to accomplish the same end. In any case, The Dipper was still in the prime of his career averaging 24.1 ppg (3rd); 24.2 rpg (1st); 7.8 asp (3rd); .683 FG% (1st); he single-handedly controlled just about every aspect of any given game. 

Chet Walker (19.3 ppg [11th]; .561 FG% [6th]; 7.9 rpg) was a brawny 6-foot-7 small forward, whose favorite moves featured backing, banging, and leaning into his defender in order to create space for his jumper. He was relentless on either baseline (but preferred the left), and could also post with the same kind of blast-away maneuvers. 

Lucious Jackson (12.8 ppg; 8.9 rpg) was a combination of brute force and athleticism that was usually found on a football field. But Jackson happened to be 6-9, 250. He played hard, he fouled hard, and sometimes his shots were as heavy and hard as stones. With Jackson and Chamberlain assaulting the boards, opposing bigs were mostly reduced to spectators. (The exceptions being Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond.) And by the waning minutes of a game, the big guys wearing the wrong-colored jerseys would be too bruised and too exhausted to run, jump, and play hard.


At one guard spot, Hal Greer's sheer strength (22.1 ppg [6th]) was matched only by Oscar Robertson. Greer could shoot springers, back his man into the paint, and drive like hell-on-wheels. He played bone-to-bone defense, made clever passes, and rebounded like a big man.

The point guard was Wali Jones (13.2 ppg) a tough little guy with a weird one-and-a-half-handed-wrist-snapping jumper. He mostly played aggressive defense, carried the ball safely over the time line, and initiated the offense. Solid, steady, but an inconsistent shooter.

Dave Gambee (6.5 ppg) was another bruising big man off the bench. Larry Costello (7.8 ppg) was an intense, strong-bodied guard. Bill Melchionni (4.3 ppg) was mostly a speedster.

But it was Philly's dynamic sixth man who created the lop-sided matchup that made the team virtually unbeatable. Billy Cunningham (18.5 ppg; 7.5 rpg) was called "The Kangaroo Kid", but besides reaping the benefits of his exhilarating hops, he was a left-handed slasher who was seldom denied entrance into the paint. It mattered little that his jumpers (and his free throws) were brickish, because Billy C could always run, drive and/or jump his way into a host of easy buckets. He was the oomph in the offense. The pace-changer; the swift and lethal dagger that mortally wounded an opponents' chance to salvage a tight ball game. 

Why the 1966-67 Sixers would have beaten the 1995-96 Bulls: The Bulls were essentially a finesse team and susceptible to bully-boy tactics. The top-rated 76ers would have pushed the Bulls around like they were hollow. Chamberlain would have turned Longley topsy-turvy. Rodman might have gotten into Jackson's head (as he habitually did with Karl Malone), but since Lucious was a banger and not relied upon to score, the ploy would have had a minimal effect. If Pippen would have out-quicked Walker on one end, Walker would have put lumps on Pippen's chest at the other end. M.J. surely would have contained Greer, and Harper would have limited Jones' effectiveness. But Cunningham would have obliterated Kukoc. Meanwhile, Rodman would have been out-muscled in the paint and Philly would have played volleyball on the offensive glass.

Why the 1996-67 Sixers would have beaten the 1971-72 Lakers: Power, power, and more power. The 31-year-old Chamberlain would have out-energized, outlasted, and out-performed the 35-year-old model. Walker would have his way with McMillian on the baseline. Jackson couldn't run with Hairston, but whenever he caught him Luke wouldn't have let him loose. West and Greer were a toss-up — sometimes speed would have the advantage and sometimes strength would. Goodrich would have torn up Jones. But none of the Lakers' scrubs could have dealt with Cunningham. Power translates into rebounds, which translates into more shots and also easy shots. The Lakers would have had difficulty gearing up their fast break with total command of the boards. No contest here.

Why the 1966-67 Sixers would have beaten the 1991-92 Bulls: See above. And add these facts: Jones was tougher than Armstrong. Young Wilt would have sent Hospital Bill to the emergency room. Jackson would have worn Grant to a nub. Plus, the Sixers' bench was greatly superior to Chicago's. The Bulls could have triumphed only if M.J. shot over 70 percent and scored 80-plus points. Highly improbable but not entirely impossible.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> This is a HUGE assumption that I'll keep pointing out as false. Teams even with the same core are very different from year to year just by a role player or even team unity. This is a big failure of you're argumetn particularly with the Bullets who you're trying to point were better then they were from there record two years prior. For example, the Pistons this year essentially have the same core but the team they had two years ago was significantly better because there roleplayers off the bench were better. Other years are essentially irrelevant when you have the record of that year to look at it.


The Pistons were better two years ago? But doesnt that defeat the point you are making about regular season records showing how good a team is? I mean the Pistons won 10 more games this year than two years ago.

Regular season records arent everything. Teams overachieve in the regular season (Pistons this year) and they underachieve in the regular season (Heat this year). My point is that the Bullets clearly underachieved in the regular season that year but came on strong in the playoffs. I dont see how you can disagree with that. It seems rather clear to me.



> The odds greatly increase: 4 seven games series vs. 1 5 game and 2 7 game series. Less games increase the chance that an inferior team can play above themselves


They actually played three 7 games series'. Furthermore they beat the top two teams in the conference. They earned their trip to the finals that year even if they didnt have to go through 3 series' to do it. You are right though, less games can create upsets (like the 1981 Rockets beating the Lakers in a three game series). But that applies more to each individual series. What I mean is that its easier for an upset to happen in a best of 5 series than a best of 7 series. However, the Bullets beat the two best teams in the conference in best of 7 series' so thats irrelevant here.



> Sure it is but most obervers realize that beating quality teams is far more important then beating mediocre teams. You expect to encounter a 50 win team in the first or second round not in the conference finals or finals itself. I'm not saying it's NOT an amazing feat but it has very little relevance when talking about the best team of all time when they played inferior competition. 71 was simply a down year.


I dont think it was a down year as much as that there were a lot of teams with talent but it was pretty evenly spread out so no team, besides the Bucks, could dominate. I mean you look at a lot of these teams that year and there are a lot of teams with great players on them that didnt even win 50 games. Does it mean that those teams were worse than other teams that have won 50 games in history? Not necessarily. It just means that a lot of teams back then were pretty good. Now, if a team has a superstar and another star player they will get 50 wins. That wasnt true back then because almost every team had that.



> Yes it is this you're opinion and not based on hard evidence: you're making an assumption. With you're route of logic of using other year's performance then the 1972 Lakers should be the best team ever because they beat essentially the same core of the Bucks that were there there in 1971 (so even though they won 63 games they're equivalent to beating a 70 win team) and had tougher opponents in the Finals and 1st round. 1971 was simply a weak year: hard to take a team that dominanted such a weak year and make them the best all time.


What team that year do you think couldve taken them to 6 games? The only one with a chance is probably the Knicks I would say.

I dont understand how you can assume that a year with a lot of parity is automatically weak. COuld it not just be that there were a lot of strong teams so no team besides the Bucks could shine? It certainly seems to be that way to me. How many other years would the John Havlicek/Jo Jo White/Dave Cowens Celtics fail to make the playoffs even when there were no significant injury problems? How many years would a team with Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Happy Hairston and Gail Goodrich fail to win 50 games? Not many. If 1971 was a 'weak year' as you called it they why didnt those talented teams (not to mention those early 70s Knicks with no injury problems for the year) dominate? You cant possibly say that EVERY team in the league was on a down year in terms of chemistry and other things. Yet thats the only way to explain it without admitting that it wasnt a weak year.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> The Pistons were better two years ago? But doesnt that defeat the point you are making about regular season records showing how good a team is? I mean the Pistons won 10 more games this year than two years ago.


Dude, they picked up Rasheed Wallace after the All-Star break: look at there record after they got Sheed: it was ridicuoulsoy good.:angel:



> Regular season records arent everything. Teams overachieve in the regular season (Pistons this year) and they underachieve in the regular season (Heat this year). My point is that the Bullets clearly underachieved in the regular season that year but came on strong in the playoffs. I dont see how you can disagree with that. It seems rather clear to me.


Yeah they were REALLY good two years prior so they were better then there record in 1971. Really clear. Heat like the Pistons two years ago made personel changes neither of the three teams. The only team that applies to is the Lakers of 71 who added Chamberlain but they didn't get Bill Sharman to coach till *1972. *What rather clear to me is that you're in love you're hypothesis so much that you refuse to see that the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1971 team which was clearly reflected by there regular season record and the Bullets were not a strong opponent




> They actually played three 7 games series'. Furthermore they beat the top two teams in the conference. They earned their trip to the finals that year even if they didnt have to go through 3 series' to do it. You are right though, less games can create upsets (like the 1981 Rockets beating the Lakers in a three game series). But that applies more to each individual series. What I mean is that its easier for an upset to happen in a best of 5 series than a best of 7 series. However, the Bullets beat the two best teams in the conference in best of 7 series' so thats irrelevant here.


Just because they got to the Finals does not disprove they were a weak Finals opponents (they had to go to 7 games in each of those series) and overall the league was weak.




> I dont think it was a down year as much as that there were a lot of teams with talent but it was pretty evenly spread out so no team, besides the Bucks, could dominate. I mean you look at a lot of these teams that year and there are a lot of teams with great players on them that didnt even win 50 games. Does it mean that those teams were worse than other teams that have won 50 games in history? Not necessarily. It just means that a lot of teams back then were pretty good. Now, if a team has a superstar and another star player they will get 50 wins. That wasnt true back then because almost every team had that.
> 
> What team that year do you think couldve taken them to 6 games? The only one with a chance is probably the Knicks I would say.
> 
> I dont understand how you can assume that a year with a lot of parity is automatically weak. COuld it not just be that there were a lot of strong teams so no team besides the Bucks could shine? It certainly seems to be that way to me. How many other years would the John Havlicek/Jo Jo White/Dave Cowens Celtics fail to make the playoffs even when there were no significant injury problems? How many years would a team with Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Happy Hairston and Gail Goodrich fail to win 50 games? Not many. If 1971 was a 'weak year' as you called it they why didnt those talented teams (not to mention those early 70s Knicks with no injury problems for the year) dominate? *You cant possibly say that EVERY team in the league was on a down year in terms of chemistry and other things. Yet thats the only way to explain it without admitting that it wasnt a weak year.*


You've got to kidding. I'm not assuming anything in terms of weakness of the league. The facts stand out clearly:
The NBA expandend in 1971 (adding three teams) and the ABA was in it's third year. That's a HUGE number of good to decent players taken away from the previous number of NBA teams. So talent just wasn't spread out evenly it was lost to more teams competing for the same amount of players. So if you do have a strong team it's easier for that team to put up huge numbers. I.e. a prime Barry Bonds getting to bat against three to 5 teams worth of minor league pitchers


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> Dude, they picked up Rasheed Wallace after the All-Star break: look at there record after they got Sheed: it was ridicuoulsoy good


They played slightly below a 64 win pace even with Sheed in the lineup.



> Yeah they were REALLY good two years prior so they were better then there record in 1971. Really clear. Heat like the Pistons two years ago made personel changes neither of the three teams. The only team that applies to is the Lakers of 71 who added Chamberlain but they didn't get Bill Sharman to coach till 1972. What rather clear to me is that you're in love you're hypothesis so much that you refuse to see that the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1971 team which was clearly reflected by there regular season record and the Bullets were not a strong opponent


With the talent the Bullets had they were able to be a great team. They had been such a team the previous two years. But thats fact. They had all the pieces to be a great team. Granted, that year they didnt do it in the regular season. But they DID do it in the playoffs. 

And I never said the 1971 Lakers were as good as the 1972 version. I just pointed out that prior to 1972 that team had always been not amazing in the regular season but great in the playoffs. I see no reason to think that it wasnt the same thing that year. Heres the fact though. The Bucks dominated a team with all the pieces and talent to be a 69 win team. Thats impressive.



> You've got to kidding. I'm not assuming anything in terms of weakness of the league. The facts stand out clearly:
> The NBA expandend in 1971 (adding three teams) and the ABA was in it's third year. That's a HUGE number of good to decent players taken away from the previous number of NBA teams. So talent just wasn't spread out evenly it was lost to more teams competing for the same amount of players. *So if you do have a strong team it's easier for that team to put up huge numbers*. I.e. a prime Barry Bonds getting to bat against three to 5 teams worth of minor league pitchers


Werent the Celtics a strong team? Yet they didnt even make the playoffs. The 1996 Hawks (and I use 1996 because it was the year of that Bulls team. I could use most any year) made the playoffs and won more games than those Celtics. They were led by Mookie Blaylock and Steve Smith. Are you gonna tell me that they were better than the Havlicek/Cowens/Jo Jo White/Don Nelson Celtics in a year without any injury problems? I think not. Yet they did better. If 1971 was a weak year the Celtics shouldve been the ones doing better. Yet they werent. They were a very strong team that not only didnt put up 'huge numbers' they didnt even make the playoffs.

Werent the Lakers a strong team? They didnt even win 50 games that year. The 1996 Lakers won 53 games being led by Cedric Ceballos, Nick Van Exel, and Elden Cambell (they had Magic for 32 games but still played a 50 win pace without him anyways). Are you gonna tell me they were a better team than the Wilt/West/Goodrich/Hairston Lakers? I think not, but by saying the 1971 season was weak, thats exactly what you are doing. And furthermore we once again see that a strong team didnt dominate as you said they would.

The 76ers won 47 games that year with Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Bailey Howell and some other great players. In 1996 the Cavaliers won the same number of games with a starting five of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Michael Cage, and Bobby Phills, as well as a bench ravaged by injuries. The 76ers are clearly the better team yet their record doesnt show it. If it was a weak year why is that?

The 1971 Knicks were a very strong team. They had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Bill Bradley, Cazzie Russell, and Dick Barnett. They won only 52 games. Far from 'huge numbers.' In 1996 the Pacers lead by Reggie Miller and Rik Smits won 52 games also. The Knicks are clearly a better team.

The Bullets that year had Earl Monroe, Gus Johnson, and Wes Unseld as well as some other great players. They had no real injury troubles. The 1996 Blazers won more games with Clifford Robinson being their best player. You tell me which year was weak.

The Hawks that year had Lou Hudson, Pete Maravich, and Walt Bellamy and only won 36 games. Ill even use a different year this time. In 1986 the Kings won 36 games with Eddie Johnson and Reggie Theus being their best players. I would say the Hawks are a better team. They won less games. If the league was weak then why did a weaker team in the leagues heyday get the same record? And just cause I cant resist, the Warriors in 1996 got the same record with Latrell Sprewell as their leading scorer and the rest of the team being totally injury destroyed. 

The Warriors that year won 41 games. They had Nate Thurmond and Jerry Lucas, an amazing frontcourt, and an all star in Jeff Mullins in the backcourt. In 1987 the Pacers won the same number of games with Chuck Person as their best player. The Hornets in 1996 won the same number with Larry Johnson and Glen Rice leading the charge.

Tiny Archibald, Norm Van Lier, Tom Van Arsdale, and three other guys who were all stars in that era could only muster 33 wins for the Royals. Rick Fox and Dina Radja won that many for the Celtics in 1996. In 1984 the Bullets won more than that with Jeff Ruland as their best player and no one who would sniff an all star game except Jeff Malone (but he was a rookie that year and not the same player he became).

The Pistons won 45 games that year. But they had Dave Bing and Bob Lanier, not to mention an all star in Jimmy Walker. In 1984 the Nets won as many games with Otis Birdsong, Buck Williams, and Daryll Dawkins. 

How is it that the 1971 NBA season was a weak year, yet the teams consistently compare favorably to teams with the same records in other years? Fact is, it wasnt a weak year and it was DEFINATELY stronger than 1996. 

But back to what you said about how strong teams could dominate in 1971. Quite hte opposite seems to be true. Besides the Bucks all the good teams in the league seemed to have down years in terms of regular season record. The Knicks went down from 60 wins to 52 wins with the same core lineup. The Celtics got 44 wins that year yet in the next two years with the same core they won 56 then 68. The Bullets had gotten 50 and 57 the previous two years and only won 4 less games the next year with Earl Monroe out for the year and Gus Johnson missing half the year. The 48 win Lakers won 69 the next year. The Bulls won 57 games the next year. The Warriors won 51 the next year. It seems to be the opposite of what you said. Strong teams dominated in other years but NOT 1971.

For each individual one of those examples above you can say that teams get better and worse over the years even with the same core but you cant do that when it happened with virtually every good team in the league. It cant just be explained away by chance.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> They played slightly below a 64 win pace even with Sheed in the lineup.


Amazing considering Sheed wasn't in training camp and the small sample size causes strength of schedule to come into play: clearly a bad example to compare to the Bullets and Lakers




> With the talent the Bullets had they were able to be a great team. They had been such a team the previous two years. But thats fact. They had all the pieces to be a great team. Granted, that year they didnt do it in the regular season. But they DID do it in the playoffs.


This sort of relativism is amazing. By making it to the Finals is every Finals team a great team then? The New Jersey Nets a few years back are great team because they beat the 2 and 3 seeds in there conference. The Bullets for a Finals team were not that good: it's not like 80's Lakers going against the Celtics or even the Bulls going against the Sonics.



> And I never said the 1971 Lakers were as good as the 1972 version. I just pointed out that prior to 1972 that team had always been not amazing in the regular season but great in the playoffs. I see no reason to think that it wasnt the same thing that year. Heres the fact though. The Bucks dominated a team with all the pieces and talent to be a 69 win team. Thats impressive.


In prior posts you have made it clear you think the Lakers were better in part because they did so well the next year. They had a whole new philosophy with a much better coach and a whole season to figure out what do with Wilt: the fact remains the Lakers were an OK playoff team in 1971 and not the same level of competition that Other teams have faced in the playoffs. Again you have not made a compelling case with either the Bullets or the Lakers to say that they were much better then there records implied - the bucks faced mediocre competition compared to other great team and is a big reason there point differential in the playoffs was so big. Teams are very different from year to year




> Werent the Celtics a strong team? Yet they didnt even make the playoffs. The 1996 Hawks (and I use 1996 because it was the year of that Bulls team. I could use most any year) made the playoffs and won more games than those Celtics. They were led by Mookie Blaylock and Steve Smith. Are you gonna tell me that they were better than the Havlicek/Cowens/Jo Jo White/Don Nelson Celtics in a year without any injury problems? I think not. Yet they did better. If 1971 was a weak year the Celtics shouldve been the ones doing better. Yet they werent. They were a very strong team that not only didnt put up 'huge numbers' they didnt even make the playoffs.


That Celtics team had no bench and were terrible after the 4 guys you mentioned - I wonder what that team would have done if the league wasn't diluted by the NBA expansion and ABA? Plus that was Cowens ROOKIE year: bad example. JJ White and Don Nelson were simply above average players. The only guy on that team who had a typical great year was Havlicek who carried that team.

Plus 8 out of 17 teams made the playoffs in 1971: 47%. In 1996, 16 out of 28 teams made so 57 % of teams made it: so judging who and who didn't make the playoffs to judge a strength of the year doesn't make sense.



> Werent the Lakers a strong team? They didnt even win 50 games that year. The 1996 Lakers won 53 games being led by Cedric Ceballos, Nick Van Exel, and Elden Cambell (they had Magic for 32 games but still played a 50 win pace without him anyways). Are you gonna tell me they were a better team than the Wilt/West/Goodrich/Hairston Lakers? I think not, but by saying the 1971 season was weak, thats exactly what you are doing. And furthermore we once again see that a strong team didnt dominate as you said they would.


No the Lakers weren't that great: they had to deal with Baylor getting hurt which through off there game plan and had a coach who didn't have control of his players. That Lakers team also had Eddie Jones, Vlade Divac and so really had a strong starting 5 plus a good bench in Sedale Threat, Lynch, and Peeler. No great singular talent but that was a solid team



> The 76ers won 47 games that year with Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Bailey Howell and some other great players. In 1996 the Cavaliers won the same number of games with a starting five of Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills, Danny Ferry, Michael Cage, and Bobby Phills, as well as a bench ravaged by injuries. The 76ers are clearly the better team yet their record doesnt show it. If it was a weak year why is that?


It's amazing you keep bringing up 1996 to help prove my point: Guess what happened the year before in 95 - yes EXPANSION. But in any case I think you didn't watch the Cavs that year and I did: Terrell Brandon IMO had one of the great seasons of any PG I've seen (he got on the cover of SI because of the season which is remarkable because he played for the most boring team ever): his PER of 25 for example is on par with a typical Magic year and more then what Steven Nash produced the last two years. Terrell Brandon of 96 was better then anybody on the 71 76ers team



> The 1971 Knicks were a very strong team. They had Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, Bill Bradley, Cazzie Russell, and Dick Barnett. They won only 52 games. Far from 'huge numbers.' In 1996 the Pacers lead by Reggie Miller and Rik Smits won 52 games also. The Knicks are clearly a better team.


You neglect to mention that the Pacers also had Marc Jackson, Dale Davis, Ricky Pierce, Antonio Davis, Travis Best, AND Derrick McKey. The 71 Knick are not clearly a better team.



> The Bullets that year had Earl Monroe, Gus Johnson, and Wes Unseld as well as some other great players. They had no real injury troubles. The 1996 Blazers won more games with Clifford Robinson being their best player. You tell me which year was weak.


The Blazers also had a young Aaron Mckie Sabonis, and a prime Rod Strickland : did you watch the NBA in the 90's? 

In fact you mentioned so far 5 of the playoff teams from 1971. Let's see who you forgot to mention from 1996: Orlando with a loaded team, Seattle with loaded team, the Spurs, and Utah. Hmm sure looks to me that 1996 not only had just as strong team but had MORE of them



> But back to what you said about how strong teams could dominate in 1971. Quite hte opposite seems to be true. Besides the Bucks all the good teams in the league seemed to have down years in terms of regular season record. The Knicks went down from 60 wins to 52 wins with the same core lineup. The Celtics got 44 wins that year yet in the next two years with the same core they won 56 then 68. The Bullets had gotten 50 and 57 the previous two years and only won 4 less games the next year with Earl Monroe out for the year and Gus Johnson missing half the year. The 48 win Lakers won 69 the next year. The Bulls won 57 games the next year. The Warriors won 51 the next year. It seems to be the opposite of what you said. Strong teams dominated in other years but NOT 1971.


You also clearly are not understanding my point of expansion With loss of talent all teams would be negatively affected so the majority of teams wouldn't be affected as there competition gets worse as well. The teams on the extremes would be affected however so a really really good team i.e the Bucks who were better just because Jabbar was a year older would face weaker competition and the bad teams would be really bad. The teams near the median of the Guassian curve would be least affected while teams at the extremes would differentiate. So on one side you have the Bucks who were great (6 games better then the best team in 1970) and teams like the Cavs and Braves were also far worse then any team in 1970.

And you keep mentioning the same core which is not the case. Cowens was a rookie in 1971 and clearly got better and they added Pual Silas in 1972. The Lakers I explained got Phil Jackson err Bill Sharman which made a huge difference and chemistry was far better as Elgin Baylor was gone. What happened in the years after 1971 was the league adjusted to expansion by the bad teams getting even worse and the good teams got better. The 1971 Bucks were lucky to have there team set in 1971 by having Kareem get older adn trading for Oscar


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

neoxsupreme said:


> I usually don't like Charley Rosen's articles but he makes some great pts & arguments this time. He is a basketball columnist for Fox Sports for anyone who isn't familiar w/ Rosen. He listed his greatest teams ever.
> 
> http://talk.ocregister.com/archive/index.php/t-15715.html


OT: Have you ever read Rosen's "The Wizard of Odds," it's supposed to be a great read for basketball junkies. It's been recommended to me a few times but I've never been able to get my hands on it. I'm going to be buying it in the next month or so off Amazon.


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

I would take the '86 Celtics over that Bucks team any day. I would also take the '96 Bulls and '83 Sixers over that team.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> Amazing considering Sheed wasn't in training camp and the small sample size causes strength of schedule: clearly a bad example to compare to the Bullets and Lakers


And what about last year's Pistons? 54 wins. Were they better or worse than this year's team?



> This sort of relativism is amazing. By making it to the Finals is every Finals team a great team then? The New Jersey Nets a few years back are great team because they beat the 2 and 3 seeds in there conference. The Bullets for a Finals team were not that good: it's not like 80's Lakers going against the Celtics or even the Bulls going against the Sonics.


Every finals team is at least a worthy opponent. They arent all the 80s Celtics and Lakers, but they are all good.



> In prior posts you have made it clear you think the Lakers were better in part because they did so well the next year. They had a whole new philosophy with a much better coach and a whole season to figure out what do with Wilt: the fact remains the Lakers were an OK playoff team in 1971 and not the same level of competition that Other teams have faced in the playoffs. Again you have not made a compelling case with either the Bullets or the Lakers to say that they were much better then there records implied - the bucks faced mediocre competition compared to other great team and is a big reason there point differential in the playoffs was so big. Teams are very different from year to year


I wouldnt say they had a MUCH better coach. I mean the coach from 1971 went on to win the coach of the year award in the ABA (which Bill Sharman also did) and Bill Sharman wasnt exactly a coaching genius. Both were good coaches. Sharman may have been a bit better.

And what do you mean by 'they had a full season to figure out what to do with Wilt?' The Lakers had had him for a full season back in 1969. 

They were not only an OK team. They had Wilt, West, and Goodrich and a good solid bench. Thats not just ok. 



> That Celtics team had no bench and were terrible after the 4 guys you mentioned - I wonder what that team would have done if the league wasn't diluted by the NBA expansion and ABA? Plus that was Cowens ROOKIE year: bad example. JJ White and Don Nelson were simply above average players. The only guy on that team who had a typical great year was Havlicek who carried that team.


They were not exactly terrible after those guys. Don Chaney was a solid player and they had 3 decent guys off the bench who missed a combined 10 games in the year. Any bench with 3 decent guys who arent injured at all is not a terrible bench.

Jo Jo White was only an average player? He was an all star that year. And Don Nelson is at least an above average starter. Hes not gonna be a beast, but he put up numbers similar to Josh Howard on the Mavs.

And Cowens may have been a rookie but he put up numbers that were pretty much in line with what he did the rest of his career. He became a better passer later I guess, but he was basically a very similar player the next year when they won like 12 more games.



> Plus 8 out of 17 teams made the playoffs in 1971: 47%. In 1996, 16 out of 28 teams made so 57 % of teams made it: so judging who and who didn't make the playoffs to judge a strength of the year doesn't make sense.


THe hawks also won 2 more games. Did I not also mention that?



> No the Lakers weren't that great: they had to deal with Baylor getting hurt which through off there game plan and had a coach who didn't have control of his players. That Lakers team also had Eddie Jones, Vlade Divac and so really had a strong starting 5 plus a good bench in Sedale Threat, Lynch, and Peeler. No great singular talent but that was a solid team


The 1971 team had Wilt Chamberlain, Gail Goodrich, Jerry West, and Happy Hairston. The 1996 team had some borderline all stars but basically was not that great of a team. You can mention the names of the guys on their team as if they were good as much as you want but none of those guys were ever more than mildly above average players except for Eddie Jones, and that was his second year, he hadnt gotten to his peak yet in any way shape or form. Are you really gonna tell me that that 1996 team would beat the 1971 one, cause thats just a pile of crap. 



> It's amazing you keep bringing up 1996 to help prove my point:


I knew youd say that so I brought up other years later, and purposely had them be in the 80s when the NBA was at its peak.



> But in any case I think you didn't watch the Cavs that year and I did: Terrell Brandon IMO had one of the great seasons of any PG I've seen (he got on the cover of SI because of the season which is remarkable because he played for the most boring team ever): his PER of 25 for example is on par with a typical Magic year and more then what Steven Nash produced the last two years. Terrell Brandon of 96 was better then anybody on the 71 76ers team


Terrell Brandom put up 19/6/3 numbers. Are you seriously going to tell me that he was better than a prime Bill Cunningham, one of the 50 greatest players ever who was putting up 23/11/5 and made the All NBA first team? That is the most ridiculous thing anyone has said in this entire thread. Terrell Brandon had a very good year but he didnt even make All NBA third team.

He didnt put up Magic like numbers. I dont know how his PER got that high (PER is odd sometimes, like how D-Rob gets ridiculously high numbers. I cant always figure out why) but he wasnt more than an above average borderline all star player that year in every way except that he turned the ball over very little. But to say he was better than Billy Cunningham that year is outrageous.



> You neglect to mention that the Pacers also had Marc Jackson, Dale Davis, Ricky Pierce, Antonio Davis, Travis Best, AND Derrick McKey. The 71 Knick are not clearly a better team.


You say that as if I should be impressed. None of those guys you mentioned are that great of players first off. Secondly Ricky Pierce was 36 then and not that good. Marc Jackson had an off year. Dale Davis has never been more than an average center. Antonio Davis took another 5 years to become pretty good, and that year didnt play all that many minutes. Travis Best is just an average player at best, was a rookie, and was out for 23 games that year. Oh and I forgot to mention that their second best player, Rik Smits missed 19 games. 

How in the world could you EVER tell me the 71 Knicks are not clearly a better team. That is patently ridiculous. They had two of the 50 greatest players ever playing in their prime. They had two other hall of famers playing around their peak. They had two other players who made an all star game in their careers. I struggle to find a starting position where the Knicks dont have the better player. Maybe SG but thats only if you count Frazier as a PG.



> The Blazers also had a young Aaron Mckie Sabonis, and a prime Rod Strickland : did you watch the NBA in the 90's?


Wow Aaron Mckie...in his second year...not a player worth mentioning. I like Sabonis a lot and he put up some very efficient numbers and was a great player that year but he played less than half the minutes that year (23.8 minutes per game). Rod Strickland was good but not even ever an all star in his career. 

The Bullets had Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld, who are both I believe in the top 50 players ever and if they arent they are still hall of famers. Gus Johnson was all NBA 2nd team that year. Jack Marin was an all star level player. Kevin Loughery was very good. They had a solid bench. They were a better team than those Blazers. Its that simple. The Blazers are just outclassed.



> In fact you mentioned so far 5 of the playoff teams from 1971. Let's see who you forgot to mention from 1996: Orlando with a loaded team, Seattle with loaded team, the Spurs, and Utah. Hmm sure looks to me that 1996 not only had just as strong team but had MORE of them


Why would I mention those teams? I am comparing teams with similar records. No team besides the Bucks in 1971 had a similar record to those teams. 



> You also clearly are not understanding my point of expansion With loss of talent all teams would be negatively affected so the majority of teams wouldn't be affected as there competition gets worse as well. The teams on the extremes would be affected however so a really really good team i.e the Bucks who were better just because Jabbar was a year older would face weaker competition and the bad teams would be really bad. The teams near the median of the Guassian curve would be least affected while teams at the extremes would differentiate. So on one side you have the Bucks who were great (6 games better then the best team in 1970) and teams like the Cavs and Braves were also far worse then any team in 1970.


That makes very little sense. I would say the Knicks were on the extreme as they were very good but their records went down. Furthermore, with the Bucks there were three expansion teams in the league but none of them were in their division and the Blazers were the only one even in their conference (and they still won 29 games so they werent ridiculously bad). The Bucks played a total of 8 games against the Cavs and Braves. It is hardly what changed their record as you imply. Their record changed cause they got Oscar Robertson. 



> And you keep mentioning the same core which is not the case. Cowens was a rookie in 1971 and clearly got better and they added Pual Silas in 1972. The Lakers I explained got Phil Jackson err Bill Sharman which made a huge difference and chemistry was far better as Elgin Baylor was gone. What happened in the years after 1971 was the league adjusted to expansion by the bad teams getting even worse and the good teams got better. The 1971 Bucks were lucky to have there team set in 1971 by having Kareem get older adn trading for Oscar


They didnt get Silas in 1972. They got him in 1973. Elgin played as little in 71 as 72. He was not a factor in either year. And maybe thats what happened after 1971 but its not what was going on in the actual year 1971 because clearly the good teams werent posting amazing records.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> And what about last year's Pistons? 54 wins. Were they better or worse than this year's team?
> 
> 
> > No they weren't as good: they lost Mike James, Okur, Williamson. The reason they were better this year is Billups had by far his best regular season
> ...


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> A worthy opponent doesn't equal being equivalent to what other teams went through: the Bullets weren't as good of a Finals as other teams. In a sense they were near the bottom of equals


I wouldnt say they were much worse than the Knicks team the 72 Lakers faced. Both had sub 50 win records. The Knicks were playing without Willis Reed. The 67 Sixers team faced a 44 win Warriors team. 



> My mistake with Wilt but I'll stick by what Sharman did for that team. I've read plenty of accounts that he had a huge influence on Wilt. Similarly to how Phil Jackson had a huge influence on a group of underachieving Lakers.


Yeah ive read the same things. But what he really did was have Wilt become totally non focused on offense. Obviously it looks like a good move but let me just point out that no one on the Lakers in 72 had a TS% higher than what Wilt had the year before when he was scoring more. So I dont know if that move made them a better scoring team. But maybe him focusing on defense made that facet of the game better for them. I dont know. Obviously it worked, and some of the credit goes to Sharman but certainly that cant explain all of the improvement. 



> This is the big problem I see with you're analysis again: players and teams are different from year to year. Goodrich was just OK in 1971 and his stats reflect that. It wasn't till 1972 that his stats jumped. His scoring shot up 8 points a game in 1972 and remarkably as well his FG% increased as well. So yes they were just Ok in 1971 and became exceptional when Goodrich played by far his best year ever.


You ignore the fact that he was a 20 point scorer in the previous two years with the Suns. I would argue that he sorta took over the offensive load that Wilt stopped taking during the 1972 season. But he was very much capable of scoring in 1971 its just he was the #3 option and became the #2 option in 72.



> His rookie was Cowens lowest scoring average and PER for another till he was past his prime at 30 so yes it looks pretty clear he improved. And yes the Celtics weren't that good


I didnt say he didnt improve, just that he didnt improve drastically. He became a bit better in later years, yes, but he was still very good in 1971. 



> The 96 Hawks were also 6th best in the conference and the 11 the best team in the league. The 71 Celtics were the 3rd best team in the conference and had the 8 best record


Obviously with 29 teams instead of 17, a team with the same record is going to rank lower. 



> The 96 Lakers had a much deeper squad but considering you believe players and teams are the same calibre (i.e. Goodrich) no matter what year they play it doesn't surprise you make a statement like this. The Lakers had 5 (6 including Magic) who had PER's over 15 and had about 4 guys have career years. But of course if a player doesn't make the HOF no matter how good of a single season they have the other team with a HOF player is better.


Who had a career year? I cant find a player who didnt have a better year another time. 

And you have to understand I am not saying people are good just by virtue of making the HOF, I am just using that as evidence that they were good. The fact is that nobody on that 96 team had as good of a year as BOTH Wilt AND West had in 71. Cedric Ceballos had a great year, but hes no West or Chamberlain. Hes like a Goodrich level player at best.



> It absolutely not outrageous. It's not ridiculous Terrell Brandon was abosuletly terrific and it shows you don't know much about how to normalize statistics comparing Billy Cunninghma 23/11/5 with Brandon's 19/6/3. The 96 Cavs had a limited number of possesion (scoring 90ppg) versus Cunningham whose team average 115 ppg. So at a minimum the 76ers had about 25 more possession a game!! Needless when you normalize Brandon's number are not only more impressive but he also had a significantly higher TS% - he scored more more points, did it far more efficiently, had about the same assists, and outrebounded Cunningham: outrageous. Brandon again had a career year that he was never able to achieve again. But again if you're a 50 greatest player it doesn't matter what season you compare to the 50th greatest player automatically had a better season.


Ok lets normalize. Based on normalization (which usually ends up downgrading past players too much anyways as star players didnt take up the load in scoring as much as they do now with the exception of Wilt) Cunningham's numbers are 18/8/4.5. Thats still better than 19/6/3 

And you wanna normalize points, rebounds and assists, but not TS%? The TS% of the league in 71 was .500. It was .542 in 1996. When you adjust Brandon is still higher but only very slightly. 

Cunningham still looks better to me with those adjusted stats, even when as I said, adjusting stats that way always make older players look worse because over the years as scoring has gone down, the amount of points the star player is expected to get has really not changed. Furthermore, you cant fully ignore the All NBA first team Cunningham got. Sometimes stats dont always tell the story. Brandon didnt even make 3rd team.



> You again overrate these old teams: the problem with using HOF from the older era of the NBA is the percentage of players who got in was much larger then in later years. A guy like Debusschere would never make the HOF if played right now while Reggie Miller who by any stretch had a better career of all things isn't a lock to get in. There is no way Bradley would get inducted as he never averaged more then 17 ppg and was an inefficient score at that as well


Reggie will easily make it first off. Secondly Debusschere was a very good player. He was one of if not the best defender of his era. He was a very dependable scorer on a team full of such players (I mean no one was gonna put up huge scoring numbers on the uber passing equal opportunity Knicks teams of the early 70s). He was a very good rebounder. He did make an All NBA team. He probably wouldnt be in the HOF if he wasnt on that championship Knicks team though. But he was still great. Same with Bradley. Their numbers were down from what they couldve been because of the team they played for, but their stock went up cause of all the winning. So its kind of a wash.



> You have to mention those teams because the league had MORE teams. If you want to make a fair comparison go from the standings where you have to look at Orlando, Seattle, Utah, SA and compare them to the teams which you already have mentioned in 1971


You are obviously misunderstanding what I am doing here. I am trying to show how the NBA was weaker in 1996 than in 1971 so I am comparing teams with similar records and showing how the 1971 team was better. There would be no use comparing 1971 teams to those teams in 1996 with excellent records as those teams SHOULD be better because they did in fact get better records. But if you insist I will say that the 71 Lakers compare pretty well with the 96 Magic.
Wilt + West = Shaq + Penny, probably better actually
Hairston + Goodrich > Horace Grant + Dennis Scott IMO
The rest of the Lakers < The rest of the Magic

Of course Shaq missed 28 games as well and they still won 60. The Magic with all their pieces in were a better team than the Lakers but with Shaq missing so much time its pretty damn close yet the Lakers won 12 less games.



> You still aren't getting the effects of expansion. NOt only did the Bucks did get to play the Cavs, Braves, and you forget to add in Portland. The other teams were weaker as players form those 3 teams plus the ABA would have normally been on the other squads. Of course there record got better because of Oscar Robertson but we're comparing dominance and the Bucks significanly improving while everyone else downgraded is why they had big statiscal edge in the regular season


I purposely didnt mention the Blazers because they were an ok team that year. Besides the Bucks went 3-1 against them so it didnt help their record anyways.

Everyone else wasnt downgraded though. The Knicks werent downgraded but their record went down. It shouldve gone up cause of expansion. The same is true of the Lakers. The got Wilt for the entire season instead of 12 games yet only improved 2 games. I could go on and on. You make this hypothesis that every other team got worse and the Bucks SHOULDVE dominated cause they didnt get worse, yet good teams who didnt get downgraded or changed really DIDNT dominate and in fact got worse. I am not saying expansion didnt help the Bucks (they went 11-1 against expansion teams) but there are crappy teams every year that the best teams ever will beat up on. Besides, the Bucks went on a 64 win pace against non expansion teams (as in only teams that won 33 games and above). Furthermore, you can say that expansion took away some talent from existing teams, which is technically true but there are three points to be made. The first is that the high scorers on those expansion teams were rarely double digit scorers beforehand so this wasnt devastating to anyone. The second is that once again good teams who didnt lose anything like the Knicks DIDNT get better. The third is that I could use that argument for the entire rest of NBA history. As there are more teams, the talent keeps getting more and more spread out, so a team that happens to have a load of talent is even better. The thing is though that that ends up downgrading all the great teams that came after the 1971 Bucks even more than it does to the Bucks (as there keeps being more expansion). The only truly amazing team that came before really any expansion was the 67 Sixers (and maybe those great Celtic teams too I guess). 



> I meant to say 1973 to explain why there record jumped when you brought up the Celtic 73 improvement.


Yeah they DID get better cause of Silas but they had already won 56 games the year before without him. Also this is off topic but I have to say that I think the 73 Celtic team played WAY above their means in the regular season. For one their point differential wasnt amazing (expected record based on that: 61 wins). And obviously second, cause they didnt win the championship. But thats for a different thread.



> In another note which I just came to me is that because possessions and ppg were much more in the 70's you have to make another adjustment to correctly use scoring differential.
> 71 Bucks 118.4-106.2 = 12.2
> 96 Lakers 105.2-92.9 = 12.3


Well if you wanna do that then you might as well just look at expected win-loss record on basketball-reference as that takes into account point differential AND how many points are being scored. In that case only the 96 and 97 Bulls are better and we both know that expansion made those Bulls teams able to do that.

Link:

http://www.basketball-reference.com...at=eWPct&sort=desc&limit=25&submit=View+Teams


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> I wouldnt say they were much worse than the Knicks team the 72 Lakers faced. Both had sub 50 win records. The Knicks were playing without Willis Reed. The 67 Sixers team faced a 44 win Warriors team.


They certainly weren't the calibre of any team in the 80's, 96 Bulls, Wilt's Philly team



> Yeah ive read the same things. But what he really did was have Wilt become totally non focused on offense. Obviously it looks like a good move but let me just point out that no one on the Lakers in 72 had a TS% higher than what Wilt had the year before when he was scoring more. So I dont know if that move made them a better scoring team. But maybe him focusing on defense made that facet of the game better for them. I dont know. Obviously it worked, and some of the credit goes to Sharman but certainly that cant explain all of the improvement.


Coaching makes a huge improvement and even it doesn't matter who gets the credit: 72 Lakers were a far better team.



> You ignore the fact that he was a 20 point scorer in the previous two years with the Suns. I would argue that he sorta took over the offensive load that Wilt stopped taking during the 1972 season. But he was very much capable of scoring in 1971 its just he was the #3 option and became the #2 option in 72.


You're still not getting it: of course he was better because he was the #2 option in 1972 and that team was correspondinly better. In 1971 he was not so that team wasn't that good so it useless to try to use the 1972 team as some sort of barometer for the 71 Bucks since it was constructed differently




> I didnt say he didnt improve, just that he didnt improve drastically. He became a bit better in later years, yes, but he was still very good in 1971.


His number went up significantly (PER of 15.4 to 20.2 in his prime) is a big jump not a "bit" better




> Obviously with 29 teams instead of 17, a team with the same record is going to rank lower.


So its a poor comparison




> Who had a career year? I cant find a player who didnt have a better year another time.


Ceballas' only two years with a PER over 21 was in 95 and 96
Elden Campell was highest PER as a starter came in 96 (only one of two years he had a PER over 18)
Divac's highest PER was in 96 (by far)




> And you have to understand I am not saying people are good just by virtue of making the HOF, I am just using that as evidence that they were good. The fact is that nobody on that 96 team had as good of a year as BOTH Wilt AND West had in 71. Cedric Ceballos had a great year, but hes no West or Chamberlain. Hes like a Goodrich level player at best.


Far more depth: the 96 players had well above average players across the board in all there starters and a strong bench. Not many teams have a good player at every position unless you're the Detroit Pistons at various point in times




> Ok lets normalize. Based on normalization (which usually ends up downgrading past players too much anyways as star players didnt take up the load in scoring as much as they do now with the exception of Wilt) Cunningham's numbers are 18/8/4.5. Thats still better than 19/6/3 And you wanna normalize points, rebounds and assists, but not TS%? The TS% of the league in 71 was .500. It was .542 in 1996. When you adjust Brandon is still higher but only very slightly.
> 
> Cunningham still looks better to me with those adjusted stats, even when as I said, adjusting stats that way always make older players look worse because over the years as scoring has gone down, the amount of points the star player is expected to get has really not changed. Furthermore, you cant fully ignore the All NBA first team Cunningham got. Sometimes stats dont always tell the story. Brandon didnt even make 3rd team.


Staticically it's not valid to normalize TS% like that as it's a percentage and not a per game statistic. Brandon for a PG so scored more, had more assists, and scored more efficiently then Cunningham: outrageous to consider he had a better season then Cunningham:biggrin:

Brandon played for one of the most boring teams of all time it's really no surprise he didn't get the recognition he deserved




> Reggie will easily make it first off. Secondly Debusschere was a very good player. He was one of if not the best defender of his era. He was a very dependable scorer on a team full of such players (I mean no one was gonna put up huge scoring numbers on the uber passing equal opportunity Knicks teams of the early 70s). He was a very good rebounder. He did make an All NBA team. He probably wouldnt be in the HOF if he wasnt on that championship Knicks team though. But he was still great. Same with Bradley. Their numbers were down from what they couldve been because of the team they played for, but their stock went up cause of all the winning. So its kind of a wash.


Agree with you here but what can you do: players from the beginning of any league have an easier time coming in. I don't agree with the sacrificing for the team theory as both Bradley Deb's numbers didn't increase with other teams or correlate with winning/losing 




> You are obviously misunderstanding what I am doing here. I am trying to show how the NBA was weaker in 1996 than in 1971 so I am comparing teams with similar records and showing how the 1971 team was better. There would be no use comparing 1971 teams to those teams in 1996 with excellent records as those teams SHOULD be better because they did in fact get better records. But if you insist I will say that the 71 Lakers compare pretty well with the 96 Magic.
> Wilt + West = Shaq + Penny, probably better actually
> Hairston + Goodrich > Horace Grant + Dennis Scott IMO
> The rest of the Lakers < The rest of the Magic
> ...


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> They certainly weren't the calibre of any team in the 80's, 96 Bulls, Wilt's Philly team


Yes, and the teams I just mentioned didnt win the championship...



> Coaching makes a huge improvement and even it doesn't matter who gets the credit: 72 Lakers were a far better team.


They were a better team obviously but the 71 team still had all the pieces that the 72 team had even if they didnt gel together as well.



> You're still not getting it: of course he was better because he was the #2 option in 1972 and that team was correspondinly better. In 1971 he was not so that team wasn't that good so it useless to try to use the 1972 team as some sort of barometer for the 71 Bucks since it was constructed differently


Goodrich was better in 1972, Wilt was worse. Wilt got better on defense though so that helped I guess.



> His number went up significantly (PER of 15.4 to 20.2 in his prime) is a big jump not a "bit" better


19.3 in his prime first off. Secondly PER in general went up during that time period (I mean in 1971 the highest PER of anyone not named Lew Alcindor was 23.5) so one should expect his PER to go up some.

If you would just look at his real numbers youd see that they didnt go up hugely. His scoring went up some, his assists went up some, his TS% went up some over the years. He basically became better by a bit in every aspect of the game but his game wasnt drastically different in 71. 

Furthermore, they won 56 games in 1972 and if you look at his per40 minute stats from 71 and 72 they are almost identical. He scored a bit more efficiently and thats what gave him a slightly better PER that year but that doesnt equal 12 more wins.



> Ceballas' only two years with a PER over 21 was in 95 and 96
> Elden Campell was highest PER as a starter came in 96 (only one of two years he had a PER over 18)
> Divac's highest PER was in 96 (by far)


You rely on PER a bit too much I think. But besides that you are wrong. Elden Cambell was a starter in 2002 and had a higher PER. And Vlade's highest PER was NOT 1996. In fact he had a higher PER in 9 other years just in his first 12 seasons. 1996 was even below his career average.

Ceballos did have a career year in terms of PER but the year before he had gotten more PPG, RPG, and APG so you could hardly call it his definite career year.



> Far more depth: the 96 players had well above average players across the board in all there starters and a strong bench. Not many teams have a good player at every position unless you're the Detroit Pistons at various point in times


Meh Elden Cambell and Vlade Divac were pretty average that year. I dont care what PER says you can look at their stats and see that they were average players. Van Exel was nothing more than average. Eddie Jones was pretty average too. Ceballos had a good year especially in terms of scoring but while he was a good player, he wasnt ever absolutely amazing. Maybe they had a deep team with a lot of decent players but they are not the same as the Pistons. 

Ben Wallace > Divac
Rasheed Wallace > Elden Cambell
Prince = Eddie Jones (that year at least. Jones hadnt hit his peak yet)
Hamilton < Ceballos (but only VERY slightly)
Billups > NVE (by a lot)

And not only were they not the same as the Pistons, they also were nowhere near as good a team and wouldnt have been good enough to win 53 games in almost any other era. The Lakers defense wasnt all that great and Ceballos being your go to scorer in crunch time is never good (no knock on him, hes just not at that level). The whole having a solid player at every position thing doesnt work unless you have a few things. You need great team defense. They didnt have that. You need to have at least one all star level player. They didnt have one all star. With that said, they wouldnt have been a 53 win team in any other era, including 1971.



> Staticically it's not valid to normalize TS% like that as it's a percentage and not a per game statistic.


Are you serious? Ok let me give you an example. Lets say the league average is .500 for TS%. A player gets .550. Another year the league average is .600. Getting .550 that year is TOTALLY different. You have to adjust. The first year the player was 10% above average. So that would be equivalent to a .660 in the second year. Tell me how thats not valid.



> Brandon for a PG so scored more, had more assists, and scored more efficiently then Cunningham: outrageous to consider he had a better season then Cunningham


All by slight amounts. Then you come across that big old rebounding deficit there.



> Agree with you here but what can you do: players from the beginning of any league have an easier time coming in. I don't agree with the sacrificing for the team theory as both Bradley Deb's numbers didn't increase with other teams or correlate with winning/losing


Bradley didnt play on any other team. And you are right about Deb but the thing with him is that by the time he reached his peak he was playing behind Dave Bing, who lead the league in scoring while Deb was there so once again he wasnt playing in a system that let him score a great deal. I dont know if he couldve scored a lot but I am sure he was capable of it.



> Since there are more teams you just can't compare teams with similar records you have to look at where they placed in terms of standings. It's easier to normalize then by simply putting teams as they finished in the top 10% of teams versus the top 30% etc. rather then by looking at straight record particularly since this thread started long ago about teams in the playoffs. Nearly all the lower rung teams you're comparing got eliminated in the first round which didn't exist in 71 because they are weak compared to the higher echelon teams


Why does there being more teams mean I cant compare their records? Why do I have to look at top 10% or 30% or something? A record is far more indicative of how well a team did against the rest of the league. For instance in 73 the Knicks won 57 games but theyd only be top 24% in the league. In 1975 the you only need 48 wins to be in the top 24% of the league. Those arent comparable teams or a comparable regular season achievement it just reflects how many teams with REALLY good records there were. You only want me to use that method because it makes teams that only won 40 something games in 1971 look like they achieved as much as a 50 something win team in other ears. No. A record is far more showing of what they did against the competition that year.



> Shaq and Penny at there point in career were clearly above West/Chamberlain. 72 was a bit different as the Magic didn't have the 3rd scorer like what Goodrich eventually did in 72 but he wasn't that lethal in 71 until Sharman switched his role


Are you sure. Let me take your route and use PER. West and Chamberlain were 2nd and 9th in the league in PER. Shaq and Penny were 3rd and 9th. It doesnt seem clear to me at all. West was 2nd in MVP voting. Penny was 3rd. Both Wilt and West were top 10 in TS%. Both Shaq and Penny werent. Wilt was a better rebounder than Shaq and West was a better passer than Penny. Wilt was a better defender than Shaq and West was a better defender than Penny. They were pretty close. 



> I disagree with you're first point: a barely double digit scorer coming off the bench can be a huge difference for a team. Look at what a pretty mediocre player Flip Murray did for the Cavs after they acquired him. I think when you're looking at great teams you also have to look at roleplayers and not just the great players. Utah had Stockton and Malone but outside of Hornacek they never really had much of help from the supporting cast which was subpar throughout there careers


What did Flip Murray do for them exactly? Basketball reference has him being a detriment to the team.

And yet still while Stockton and Malone were both at their peaks (roughly 1989-2001) they only failed to win 50 games once over 13 years. They averaged 55.6 wins per game during that period.

But yes, role players matter, but you act like the Bucks didnt lose role players either. The lost Len Chappel to the Cavs who was an 8 points 4 rebounds guy. They lost Freddie Crawford to the Braves whose line was 7.6/2.9/2.4. Those were their two highest scoring bench players the year before. They lost as much to expansion as any other team. 



> Second point with the Knicks: Cazzie Russell was a big part of there success from 70 I believe he was hurt that year playing only 57 games and he wasn't nearly as effective for them when he did play.


Cazzie Russell as good but he nothing more than a 6th or 7th man on that team. He played the 7th most minutes on the team in 1970 and scored the 6th most points. And I wouldnt say he wasnt nearly as effective. His PER went from 16.9 to 14.7. But if you wanna play that game then fine. Bill Bradley missed 11 more games in 1971 than in 1970. Cazzie Russell played 21 more games in 1970 than in 1971. Bradley was more important to that team though so injuries may have slightly affected the Knicks but not hugely.



> Third is clearly wrong for several reasons: one the game has grown which is an incremental process but clearly occurs over the long term: more people play ball and such things as prestige/money draw more people into the pool. Two from 90's onward the amount of international players has steadly increased. Three the NBA/ABA merger put a huge shot in the arm in terms of talent for the NBA as only 4 ABA teams came in. I would say the 70's NBA were hurt most as they had to deal with expansion and the ABA and didn't have international talent come in as well.


Thats exactly what I wanted you to acknowledge. Expansion happens partly because the game is being played more and there are actually more pro level players. 



> The 56 wins clearly seems correlated with Cowens having a better season


How is it clear that him going from 17/15/2.8 to 18.8/15.2/3.1 in 2.3 more minutes per game made them win 12 more games? Thats absurd. 



> If you want the definition of greatest team relative to competition then the Bulls/Bucks/Lakers are 3 good choices but all 3 had the benefits of an NBA that was weak relatively to other eras. I would say the Bulls were least affected because of the foreign influx (but this had just begun) and the lack of the ABA. Still I think other teams were "greater" if the definition is changed to head to head matchup and strength of the league is taken into account. The 80's Lakers, Celtics, and 83 Philly team not only had the upper echelon stars but they had far more breadth of talent then the 70's Bucks or Lakers


I am sort of going for the greatest relative to the competition but I am taking competition into account some. But you are making it count too much. Judging competition is always going to be an opinion matter. For instance, I disagree that the Bulls were least affected. 

I feel like you can look at every non expansion team in 1971 and find a bonafide superstar of the league or two and that instantly makes such a team able to win a game. The same I feel isnt true of 1996. I mean this is subjective but I am gonna count players I would really consider if I were to make a top 50 players of all time list (I dont agree wholly with the list the NBA made and would definately make some changes). I count 23 players that I would definately at least consider who were playing a lot of minutes in 1971 (and if you want me to name those 23 players I will). Thats with 17 teams. I only count 20-22 (depending on if I count two certain players who I am not sure I should count) in 1996 when there were 29 teams. You would probably get different numbers on this if you were to do it but I doubt youd be that far off cause I was generous for the 1996 players (for instance, I counted Shawn Kemp). So the superstar to team ratio is a lot higher in 1971 than in 1996 and thats a big reason why I feel like 1971 wasnt that weak a year and its also the reason I think there was a lot of parity in the league that year. A crappy team with a superstar is still gonna win 30 something games and almost every team in 1971 had at least that.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

lessthanjake said:


> They were a better team obviously but the 71 team still had all the pieces that the 72 team had even if they didnt gel together as well.
> 
> Goodrich was better in 1972, Wilt was worse. Wilt got better on defense though so that helped I guess.


What does it matter if the pieces were in place? The puzzle wasn't solved till 72




> 19.3 in his prime first off. Secondly PER in general went up during that time period (I mean in 1971 the highest PER of anyone not named Lew Alcindor was 23.5) so one should expect his PER to go up some.[/quote
> A players individual PER is normalized to that season so I'm not sure how you're getting that overall PER went up. That's why it's the best stat for comparing players across eras: you don't have to go by ranking, etc.
> 
> 
> ...


A bit better in every facet of the game is a big difference: most players just improve in one facet. His TS% in particular skyrocketed from 1971 to 72 (.468 to .509). 



> You rely on PER a bit too much I think. But besides that you are wrong. Elden Cambell was a starter in 2002 and had a higher PER. And Vlade's highest PER was NOT 1996. In fact he had a higher PER in 9 other years just in his first 12 seasons. 1996 was even below his career average.
> 
> Ceballos did have a career year in terms of PER but the year before he had gotten more PPG, RPG, and APG so you could hardly call it his definite career year.


PER is by far the most succint measure of a lot variables plus it normalizes for pace and season. Campbell only played 28 minutes a game in 2002




> Meh Elden Cambell and Vlade Divac were pretty average that year. I dont care what PER says you can look at their stats and see that they were average players. Van Exel was nothing more than average. Eddie Jones was pretty average too. Ceballos had a good year especially in terms of scoring but while he was a good player, he wasnt ever absolutely amazing. Maybe they had a deep team with a lot of decent players but they are not the same as the Pistons.
> 
> Ben Wallace > Divac
> Rasheed Wallace > Elden Cambell
> ...


This diatribe is a bit strange is I didn't say they were as good as the Pistons. It's just very rare for a team to have above average players at every position. Divac, Ceballos, Campbell, Van Exel, Jones were ALL very good players who would've started on most teams in the NBA if that position wasn't occupied by an ALL-Star player. You're not giving that team enough credit as they also played to each other strenghts



> Are you serious? Ok let me give you an example. Lets say the league average is .500 for TS%. A player gets .550. Another year the league average is .600. Getting .550 that year is TOTALLY different. You have to adjust. The first year the player was 10% above average. So that would be equivalent to a .660 in the second year. Tell me how thats not valid.


Blah this is going to get complicated:
TS% is an individual statistic and so is very difficult to normalize by using the league average. i.e you simply can't say that Babe Ruth would have batted at a higher percentage if he played in a different era with different pitching where batters on the whole batted higher. This is quite different from normalizing for pace as you're adjusting to a per possesion number for how many possesion that player actually gets to play in. i.e. you're not adjusting the ppg to the league average. It's perfectly valid to say that compared to the league average was in Cunningham the top 10% of forwards in TS% and that was no different from how Brandon compared to his era in terms of PG's (I have no idea if there were I'm just throwing a number out) but you can't simply do player A TS% - league TS% and say that is a valid comparison. Why because if you assume a bell curve of TS% , the league average only gives you the median w/o giving you the standard deviation so you can't assume a player having a TS% of 10% above average in year 2 would be equivalent to a player having a TS% 10% average in year 1. Think of it this way as you get the more efficient it will be likely harder to get the same incremental increase: i.e. .600 is already very efficient so in reality an increase of just 5% from average(TS of .630) will place the player in top 5 in TS% that year but an increase of 10% from avergae in year one (TS% of .550) will place him in only in the top 20. Another problem with this sort of strategy is a 10% increase from .600 requires to .060 but only .05 from .500

Plus you have to take into account the 3pt line which would change things before and after it was instituted in terms of TS%



> All by slight amounts. Then you come across that big old rebounding deficit there.


Brandon was a PG so I'm not sure why reboudning is a big deal. It should be noted by just using PPG is an indirect measure of pace and in all likelihood making Cunninghams numbers still appear to be a bit better then they should be as teams were more inefficient in the 71 then compared to 96 so they had to have more possesion to score the same number of points




> Bradley didnt play on any other team. And you are right about Deb but the thing with him is that by the time he reached his peak he was playing behind Dave Bing, who lead the league in scoring while Deb was there so once again he wasnt playing in a system that let him score a great deal. I dont know if he couldve scored a lot but I am sure he was capable of it.


Maybe maybe not: never watched him so I'm going with straight numbers here and nothing indicates that he would be a significant scorer elsewhere and more importantly would have been an efficient high volume scorer



> Why does there being more teams mean I cant compare their records? Why do I have to look at top 10% or 30% or something? A record is far more indicative of how well a team did against the rest of the league. For instance in 73 the Knicks won 57 games but theyd only be top 24% in the league. In 1975 the you only need 48 wins to be in the top 24% of the league. Those arent comparable teams or a comparable regular season achievement it just reflects how many teams with REALLY good records there were. You only want me to use that method because it makes teams that only won 40 something games in 1971 look like they achieved as much as a 50 something win team in other ears. No. A record is far more showing of what they did against the competition that year.


Blah damn normative distrubitions again: comparing by standing is a much better method. The more teams equals more bad and good teams. So a 53 win team in a year when the league had more bad teams relative to them doesn't necessarily tell you a whole lot as a 42 win team from a league with fewer teams had to face the good/average teams relative to them more often: the bell curve for that year is wider. In addition, remember this thread started about playoff strenght and in 96 these lower rung playoff teams all got knocked out in the first round which didn't exist in 71




> Are you sure. Let me take your route and use PER. West and Chamberlain were 2nd and 9th in the league in PER. Shaq and Penny were 3rd and 9th. It doesnt seem clear to me at all. West was 2nd in MVP voting. Penny was 3rd. Both Wilt and West were top 10 in TS%. Both Shaq and Penny werent. Wilt was a better rebounder than Shaq and West was a better passer than Penny. Wilt was a better defender than Shaq and West was a better defender than Penny. They were pretty close.


PER normalizes by season so you can compare it straight up and don't have to use rankings based on season: that's another reason why it's such a useful stats. Shaq's and Penny's PER from 96 blow out Wilt and West from 71. My biggest edge is basically Shaq (I don't know how good West's defense was compared to Penny's that might negate the difference there) but Shaq was already a a dominant player in 96. Particularly when you normalize the number: in particular Shaq was a far more dominant scorer while Wilts rebound rate was only slight higher then Shaq's



> What did Flip Murray do for them exactly? Basketball reference has him being a detriment to the team.


Flip gave them scoring which they were desperate for. What stats are you basing that he was a detriment to the team? He had positive +/- and the Cavs had a very good record with him.



> And yet still while Stockton and Malone were both at their peaks (roughly 1989-2001) they only failed to win 50 games once over 13 years. They averaged 55.6 wins per game during that period.


And we're not talking about the Jazz in this conversation are we? Despite having arguably the best PF and best PG of there generation they still never really had a remarkable team.



> But yes, role players matter, but you act like the Bucks didnt lose role players either. The lost Len Chappel to the Cavs who was an 8 points 4 rebounds guy. They lost Freddie Crawford to the Braves whose line was 7.6/2.9/2.4. Those were their two highest scoring bench players the year before. They lost as much to expansion as any other team.


The Bucks weren't affected because they got Oscar Robertson.




> Cazzie Russell as good but he nothing more than a 6th or 7th man on that team. He played the 7th most minutes on the team in 1970 and scored the 6th most points. And I wouldnt say he wasnt nearly as effective. His PER went from 16.9 to 14.7. But if you wanna play that game then fine. Bill Bradley missed 11 more games in 1971 than in 1970. Cazzie Russell played 21 more games in 1970 than in 1971. Bradley was more important to that team though so injuries may have slightly affected the Knicks but not hugely.


What was there record w/ and w/o Russell?




> Thats exactly what I wanted you to acknowledge. Expansion happens partly because the game is being played more and there are actually more pro level players.


Umm still doesn't mean the 71 NBA season was hit far harder then other NBA seasons




> How is it clear that him going from 17/15/2.8 to 18.8/15.2/3.1 in 2.3 more minutes per game made them win 12 more games? Thats absurd.


Not only did he get better in every per game category he became a very efficient scorer. His TS% which you fail to mention improved by 40 points. 



> I am sort of going for the greatest relative to the competition but I am taking competition into account some. But you are making it count too much. Judging competition is always going to be an opinion matter. For instance, I disagree that the Bulls were least affected.
> 
> I feel like you can look at every non expansion team in 1971 and find a bonafide superstar of the league or two and that instantly makes such a team able to win a game. The same I feel isnt true of 1996. I mean this is subjective but I am gonna count players I would really consider if I were to make a top 50 players of all time list (I dont agree wholly with the list the NBA made and would definately make some changes). I count 23 players that I would definately at least consider who were playing a lot of minutes in 1971 (and if you want me to name those 23 players I will). Thats with 17 teams. I only count 20-22 (depending on if I count two certain players who I am not sure I should count) in 1996 when there were 29 teams. You would probably get different numbers on this if you were to do it but I doubt youd be that far off cause I was generous for the 1996 players (for instance, I counted Shawn Kemp). So the superstar to team ratio is a lot higher in 1971 than in 1996 and thats a big reason why I feel like 1971 wasnt that weak a year and its also the reason I think there was a lot of parity in the league that year. A crappy team with a superstar is still gonna win 30 something games and almost every team in 1971 had at least that.


This posts are taking way too much of my time so I won't ask you to name you're 20 (although I'm interested ): but I will point the same problem that I pointed out last time is that you discount the non-superstar way too much - a guy like Rasheed Wallace is not a "superstar" by most criteria but put him in any era and he would be huge factor in terms of team success. I see this play out with Shawn Kemp who was ridiculous in 96 for example and you call it being generous to include him.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Man, Im so glad I stopped reading this half way through the first page.......I scrolled through the 3rd page and its bloody LONG! Probably a good debate....

anyway, 96 Bulls for me thanks.


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

magohaydz said:


> Man, Im so glad I stopped reading this half way through the first page.......I scrolled through the 3rd page and its bloody LONG! Probably a good debate....
> 
> anyway, 96 Bulls for me thanks.


Haha...same here, its a heavyweight debate that will never be decided because it is all subjectivism. 

Anyways...I would go with the 96 Bulls too. A lineup of defensive speed and agility ranging from Ron Harper to MJ to Scottie to Rodman. Luc was a big body in the post that deserves honorable mention. This team stopped opponents dead in their tracks and took out their best players. That bench was amazing too, probably the best in the league at that time: Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington and Randy Brown. Also, they had the best coach that year Phil Jackson. 

Jordan was MVP of the Regular season, all-star game, and Finals, 1st team All-NBA and all-nba D. Same with pippen all-nba 1st team and 1st team Defense. Rodman was on the 1st team defense as well. I believe that is the only time where one team had 3 members on all-nba 1st team D. Kukoc was 6th man of the year, PJ was COTY. Only lost 3 games in the postseason and 13 out of 100 games. 

Anyways, Wilts 67 Sixers are the only team that I would CONSIDER beating the 96 Bulls in a best of 7. I would put money on them if the odds were like 1:3. Hal Greer was just like a scottie pippen as a role player, the kangaroo kid was one blue collared athlete, chet walker, and big Wilt in his prime patrolling the paint. 

96 Bulls in 6 because they have more shut down defenders in their starting lineup. It would be Wilt against the team and when Wilt plays a one man game, its harder for his team to win.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

> What does it matter if the pieces were in place? The puzzle wasn't solved till 72


To me, a team with the same pieces cant deviate 21 games between two years. They can get better by a lot but not THAT much better. Now, I believe the 72 Lakers were actually good enough to get 69 wins. So it's not that they overachieved so much in 72. That leads me to believe that they underachieved in 71. And I am not saying this for arguments sake or something. I honestly believe that. A team cant really go from a mediocre playoff team to one of the best teams ever just by changing their game plan a bit.




> A players individual PER is normalized to that season so I'm not sure how you're getting that overall PER went up. That's why it's the best stat for comparing players across eras: you don't have to go by ranking, etc.


Yes but its very very clear that the star players of different years had different PERs. Ive said this a few times but ill say it again, the modern era of the NBA (the 60s basically) teams scored over 110 ppg and star players got a certain amount of points. Now, over the years the star players have been expected to score just as many points, while the teams themselves are scoring a lot less. This means that stars of an earlier era will generally have lower PERs than stars of later eras. The only star of an earlier era who this is not true of is Wilt because at least while he played for the Warriors he was expected to score around the same percent of his teams points as star players are now. As a result, his PER is sky high. Other than him though, if you look at the top seasons of all time for PER they are totally disproportionately from the 90s and 2000s. You can also look at certain years and see first hand how star players just had lower PERs. For instance, in 1971 the second highest PER was Jerry West, who had 23.5. In 1972 West was third with 23.1. These numbers put him around the same PER as Chris Bosh this year. Now these were arguably Jerry West's best years. He was second in MVP voting both years. Yet his PER is only similar to Chris Bosh's. Now no way will you tell me youd be even close to considering taking 2006 Chris Bosh over a 1971 or 1972 Jerry West. No one would. Yet if you just look at PER they look very similar. This is why its pretty accepted fact among people here and among the APBR people that you cant really compare PERs across eras. 



> A bit better in every facet of the game is a big difference: most players just improve in one facet. His TS% in particular skyrocketed from 1971 to 72 (.468 to .509).


First off TS% was going up every year at that point so he SHOULD have scored more efficiently that year or else it wouldve been a drop. But yes, even accounting for that he still got a lot more efficient. But that doesnt equal 12 more wins as you implied.




> PER is by far the most succint measure of a lot variables plus it normalizes for pace and season. Campbell only played 28 minutes a game in 2002


Yet he put up similar numbers in 2002 to his 1996 season in 15% less minutes per game. His 2002 year was better in terms of PER. His 1997 year was arguably better in terms of pure stats. No way is 1996 obviously his best year as a starter. 



> This diatribe is a bit strange is I didn't say they were as good as the Pistons. It's just very rare for a team to have above average players at every position. Divac, Ceballos, Campbell, Van Exel, Jones were ALL very good players who would've started on most teams in the NBA if that position wasn't occupied by an ALL-Star player. You're not giving that team enough credit as they also played to each other strenghts


Having a team full of above average starters IMO shouldnt get you over 50 wins. Heres a very equivalent starting lineup of current players based on PER.

Luke Ridnour
Micheal Redd
Caron Butler
Drew Gooden
Brad Miller

Each of those guys have similar PERs to a corresponding positioned player on the 96 team. Yet I wouldnt say that team could win 53 games this year. Would you?



> TS% is an individual statistic and so is very difficult to normalize by using the league average. i.e you simply can't say that Babe Ruth would have batted at a higher percentage if he played in a different era with different pitching where batters on the whole batted higher.


Yes but you can take how much above average Ruth was in those years (and therefore how much he benefitted his team in comparison to if they had a normal player in his place) and apply that to current times. I am not saying that a player from the 70s would shoot a higher TS% if he was put in todays era, I am simply comparing how much better they shot compared to an average player of the era. And you CAN compare that easily.



> Why because if you assume a bell curve of TS% , the league average only gives you the median w/o giving you the standard deviation so you can't assume a player having a TS% of 10% above average in year 2 would be equivalent to a player having a TS% 10% average in year 1.


I dont care about deviations. Average is average whether theres a small amount of deviation or not. Think about it. If the average TS% was .500 but the best player was only .505 then the person with .505 wouldnt be benifitting his team with his efficiency near as much as a player with a TS% of .600 when the average is .500 even if there are a lot of other people in the .600 range.



> Plus you have to take into account the 3pt line which would change things before and after it was instituted in terms of TS%


Not really. The 3 pt line helped TS% but thats part of why TS% has gone up over the years and I am accounting for all of that.



> Brandon was a PG so I'm not sure why reboudning is a big deal. It should be noted by just using PPG is an indirect measure of pace and in all likelihood making Cunninghams numbers still appear to be a bit better then they should be as teams were more inefficient in the 71 then compared to 96 so they had to have more possesion to score the same number of points


Cunningham was a forward. Why should assists be a big deal? Thats basically the type of argument you are using there. The fact of the matter is that while different positions get different amounts of assists and rebounds naturally, Cunningham is still better overall if you look at the two. Brandon was only basically an average PG in terms of assists. Cunningham was a great passer for a forward (one of the best ever). Cunningham was an above average rebounder for his position, while Brandon was probably slightly above average but not by as much as Cunningham.



> Maybe maybe not: never watched him so I'm going with straight numbers here and nothing indicates that he would be a significant scorer elsewhere and more importantly would have been an efficient high volume scorer


Well neither of us know if he couldve been. But scoring isnt everything. He was one of the best defenders of his generation too.



> Blah damn normative distrubitions again: comparing by standing is a much better method. The more teams equals more bad and good teams. So a 53 win team in a year when the league had more bad teams relative to them doesn't necessarily tell you a whole lot as a 42 win team from a league with fewer teams had to face the good/average teams relative to them more often: the bell curve for that year is wider. In addition, remember this thread started about playoff strenght and in 96 these lower rung playoff teams all got knocked out in the first round which didn't exist in 71


That makes no sense. Why would a greater percent of the teams be bad and good when there are more teams? That DOES happen somtimes because of expansion teams being really bad but its not a natural result of more teams. 



> PER normalizes by season so you can compare it straight up and don't have to use rankings based on season: that's another reason why it's such a useful stats. Shaq's and Penny's PER from 96 blow out Wilt and West from 71. My biggest edge is basically Shaq (I don't know how good West's defense was compared to Penny's that might negate the difference there) but Shaq was already a a dominant player in 96. Particularly when you normalize the number: in particular Shaq was a far more dominant scorer while Wilts rebound rate was only slight higher then Shaq's


You cant really compare PER across eras too well as ive explained earlier. Also you say you dont know about West's defense. He was all NBA first defensive team that year so it was damn good. Wilt was also probably a better defender at that point in his career than Shaq although he hadnt to be a dominant defender quite yet (it would take another year for him to be all defensive team). However, I guess you could argue Shaq over Wilt there but West was better than Penny by a good margin. 



> Flip gave them scoring which they were desperate for. What stats are you basing that he was a detriment to the team? He had positive +/- and the Cavs had a very good record with him.


Look at b-r.com yourself. He was a below average efficiency scorer who didnt pass or rebound very well and turned the ball over too much. 

And I was basing that on Player Wins and Player Losses by the way.



> And we're not talking about the Jazz in this conversation are we? Despite having arguably the best PF and best PG of there generation they still never really had a remarkable team.


Ummm they won 64 games in 1997 and had the 12th best expected win-loss record in NBA history (based on their point differential). The only reason they didnt win the finals was they played a team that won 69 games and had the 2nd best expected win-loss record in NBA history.

But I dont see how you cant say that they never had a remarkable team when they had a team that had a more impressive point differential than the 86 Celtics and the 87 Lakers.



> The Bucks weren't affected because they got Oscar Robertson.


Thats a totally ridiculous argument you are trying to make. You cant just say "Well you have to not count how good they were cause they got a star player."

Thats totally ridiculous. Yes, they got better from the year before, but yes, they wouldve been even better without expansion. Expansion hurt their team as much as any other so you cant use that as an excuse.



> What was there record w/ and w/o Russell?


Theres no way to find that out that I know of.



> Not only did he get better in every per game category he became a very efficient scorer. His TS% which you fail to mention improved by 40 points.


He also played more minutes though. Look at the per40 minute stats and the points/rebounds/assists look very very similar. 



> This posts are taking way too much of my time so I won't ask you to name you're 20 (although I'm interested ): but I will point the same problem that I pointed out last time is that you discount the non-superstar way too much - a guy like Rasheed Wallace is not a "superstar" by most criteria but put him in any era and he would be huge factor in terms of team success. I see this play out with Shawn Kemp who was ridiculous in 96 for example and you call it being generous to include him.


Well you cant really say that there are more Sheed-like players in other eras cause those arent the guys anyone really remembers too much. They arent as famous (although ironically Rasheed probably will be remembered and is famous). Both of us cant claim to know who was really a borderline star like that across eras. So my point was focused mainly on how teams with a superstar WILL win like 30 games at least even if otherwise they are crappy, just cause the superstar is there. There are a lot of teams like that in 1971. And fine I will list them for both years (it takes time but I am doing this at 2 in the morning so theres nothing better for me to be doing haha). My criteria for those I would at least consider for my top 50 is this. Obviously if they are in the current NBA top 50 list theyd be considered. I have a book written by Elliot Kalb listing his top 50. If they are in that or in the part at the back of the book where he lists some guys that just missed out I would consider them for mine cause he knows his stuff. And if they were voted on as the next 10 for the top 60 by that TNT panel of guys then they would be considered by me. And even if they dont satisfy any of those there are a lot of guys I just like and would consider (an example being Artis Gilmore).

1971: Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave DeBusschere, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, Earl Monroe, Wes Unseld, Pete Maravich, Walt Bellamy, Tiny Archibald, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Connie Hawkins, Dave Bing, Bob Lanier, Nate Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Elvin Hayes, and Lenny Wilkins

1996: Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, Shaq, Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Joe Dumars, Alonzo Mourning, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, David Robinson, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Mitch Richmond, Chris Mullin, Dikembe Mutombo, and Jason Kidd. 

The two from 1996 that I am not sure I should count are Grant Hill (cause I just dont know if I would consider him or not when it comes down to it) and Kevin Garnett (he wasnt anywhere the same player in 1996). But even if I count those two its still disproportionate towards 1971.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Luke Ridnour
Michael Redd
Caron Butler
Drew Gooden
Brad Miller

I have no problem believing they'd win 50 games, especially in the East. That's a good team, although they pretty much have no bench. The team would have a leader, either Michael Redd or Caron Butler would step up.


----------



## lessthanjake (Jul 4, 2005)

Lachlanwood32 said:


> Luke Ridnour
> Michael Redd
> Caron Butler
> Drew Gooden
> ...


I dont know. Maybe that was a bad comparison as Redd is better than Ceballos, Butler is better than a really young Eddie Jones, and Miller is better than Divac.


----------

