Best NBA teams according to ELO

[MaxRider]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ng-to-elo/

top 5
95-96 Bullls
96-97 bulls
85-86 Celtics
14-15 Warriors
08-00 Lakers

08-00?? you mean 09?

seriously man 14-15 Warriors haven't win the champ yet and they are top 5 best team in history?

Did you read the article?

why read when the writer included 14-15 Warriors in top 5 but not 71-72 Lakers

[Rili67]

Over all I would say you could make small arguments here and there, but mostly it's a pretty sound list.

Haven't you guys watched this years warriors team, and at points just said "holy crap, how does anyone beat this team?"
I know I have. This warriors team can be damn scary, and if they finish off the rockets and cavs/hawks, I see no reason why they couldn't be at least a top 10 team all time. They won 67 freaking games this year...

[nfmos]

08-00?? you mean 09?

seriously man 14-15 Warriors haven't win the champ yet and they are top 5 best team in history?

Did you read the article?

why read when the writer included 14-15 Warriors in top 5 but not 71-72 Lakers

Well its hard to make a judgment on their methodology when you haven't read the article that explains the methodology. I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, but the article explains clearly how they came to their conclusions.

[WESCO]

He carries that team far more than people realize

Not only the people that lanslided his MVP voting realized it.

Everyone that's been a warrior fan realised this.

Anyone who calls themselves a basketball should know this.

But yes our defense has been horrible

[MaxRider]

Did you read the article?

why read when the writer included 14-15 Warriors in top 5 but not 71-72 Lakers

Well its hard to make a judgment on their methodology when you haven't read the article that explains the methodology. I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, but the article explains clearly how they came to their conclusions.

no disrespect to this year Warriors team
they are great team
but when he didn't include the team that won 33 games in a row
i don't want to spend too much time going over his methodology
some will argue back then team are not as competitive
come on this is 33 games in a row
i don't think even the Warriors can beat T-Wolves 33 games in a row

[Warspite]

I fail to see how Jeff Lynn thinking the Warriors are better than the 83 or 67 sixers is thread worthy.

[Heat3]

not buying these rankings.

at best these rank how the teams perform relative to their competition but that is not enough for an accurate all time ranking.

meh, just checked. the thunder are ranked higher than the heat team that beat them in the finals 4-1.

Edit: looking further, spurs ranked higher than thunder when thunder beat them too lol.

26 '11-12 San Antonio Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
36 '11-12 Oklahoma City Thunder 1743 1686 1711 1713
42 '11-12 Miami Heat 1729 1679 1712 1707

[Beffiosa]

Did you read the article?

why read when the writer included 14-15 Warriors in top 5 but not 71-72 Lakers

Well its hard to make a judgment on their methodology when you haven't read the article that explains the methodology. I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, but the article explains clearly how they came to their conclusions.

The explanation how they came to their conclusion were clear but inconclusive. His main argument were based on the strength of the conference in a historical perspective and used warriors record and stats to compete with a conference' reputaion. They never factored in the plethora of injuries that have crippled the main competitors in the conference while Golden State remained relatively healthy. We should also take into consideration that Golden State also played 30 games against a historically bad Eastern Conference. Golden State was basically the building that stood firm while its surrounding neighbors crumbled due to injuries. The competion has been watered down do much that a wounded Houston team ended up with the 3rd best record in the league. Those things needed to be considered when putting a team like Warriors above some historically great teams.
I'm not arguing for nor against Golden State's place in history, I'm just saying that their reasoning behind their conclusion is full of holes.

[nfmos]

why read when the writer included 14-15 Warriors in top 5 but not 71-72 Lakers

Well its hard to make a judgment on their methodology when you haven't read the article that explains the methodology. I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, but the article explains clearly how they came to their conclusions.

The explanation how they came to their conclusion were clear but inconclusive. His main argument were based on the strength of the conference in a historically perspective and used warriors record and stats to compete with a conference' reputaion. They never factored in the plethora of injuries that have crippled the main competitors in the conference while Golden State remained relatively healthy. We should also take into consideration that Golden State also played 30 games against a historically bad Eastern Conference. Golden State was basically the building that stood firm while its surrounding neighbors crumbled due to injuries. The competion has been watered down do much that a wounded Houston team ended up with the 3rd best record in the league. Those things needed to be considered when putting a team like Warriors above some historically great teams.
I'm not arguing for nor against Golden State's place in history, I'm just saying that their reasoning behind their conclusion is full of holes.

As a Warrior fan I would concede that a lot of things have fallen into place this year, but I don't think these are variables that warrant a virtual asterisk against this team and its achievements. Saying that we played 30 games against a historical bad East doesn't wash because 1) all the other good teams this year had the same schedule, and 2) when we start talking about watered down leagues, every decade is then inherently more watered down than the decade before where there were less teams. (Of course the talent pool has increased with the international players becoming a lot better).

And are we then going to go back and start diminishing every great team by their opponents injuries, not just of superstars but of lesser known key contributors? I'm sure all the great teams didn't play against 100% healthy opponents 100% of the time. Even to this date, people insist the Western Conference is crazy tough, but now we are trying to say that Golden State had it easy?

I think when you are ranking how great teams are, you really have no way of measuring how great they would be against each other because the differences in each era in play, conditioning, training, etc., all you can do is measure how great they were compared to their contemporaries, or how far they distanced themselves from the rest of the pack. By that measure, this year's GSW team was one of the greatest teams based on their regular season, with the rest of their story still pending.

[BoutPractice]

Dammit, someone already made the Electric Light Orchestra joke.

[a_sensei]

This brought me down. Bruce.

[VideoGameJames]

not buying these rankings.

at best these rank how the teams perform relative to their competition but that is not enough for an accurate all time ranking.

meh, just checked. the thunder are ranked higher than the heat team that beat them in the finals 4-1.

Edit: looking further, spurs ranked higher than thunder when thunder beat them too lol.

26 '11-12 San Antonio Spurs 1771 1671 1733 1725
36 '11-12 Oklahoma City Thunder 1743 1686 1711 1713
42 '11-12 Miami Heat 1729 1679 1712 1707

08-09 Cavs are 13th, ahead of 80s Lakers teams and Shaq era Lakers teams. 08-09 Celtics are 43rd while 08-09 Magic are 77th but the Magic beat both the Celtics and Cavs.
09-10 Magic are 19th, they went 61-21 and lost in ECF in 6 to a 50-32 Celtics team, I cant even understand how this team is so high even just based purely on numbers. 09-10 champion Lakers are 57th.

Clearly, the rating system has some serious flaws.