Who is the greatest team of all time? (GOAT team FINALS) 1971 Milwaukee Bucks v. 2017 Golden State Warriors

[penbeast0]

This tournament has rolled on almost perfectly predictably except for a couple of upsets by the 83 Sixers. Now it's the #1 SRS in NBA history v. the #2.

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1971 Milwaukee Bucks
Lew Alcindor (Kareem)
Greg Smith
Bob Dandridge
Jon McGlocklin
Oscar Robertson

Luscius Allen
Bob Boozer

The highest SRS of all time, the best offense AND the best defense in the league, Kareem surrounded by talent, what's not to like? Kareem was energized by the arrival of Oscar Robertson, not peak Oscar but still one of the strongest and smartest guards to ever play. Bob Dandridge provided a nice 2 way 3rd star, McGlocklin was a pure jump shooter who could play point and Smith was a dirty work player. Allen and Boozer provided starter quality minutes off the bench, both playing over 20 mpg in the playoffs as coach Larry Costello shortened his rotation to 7 players. The teams play with 1971 rules and referees and Milwaukee has homecourt.


2017 Golden State Warriors
Stephon Curry
Klay Thompson
Kevin Durant
Draymond Green
(Zaza Pachulia)

Andre Iguolada
David West
Shaun Livingston
Ian Clark
Patrick McCay

Possibly the great shooting team in NBA history but also the team that relied the most on the 3 ball. They were the top ranked offense in the NBA and also the 2nd ranked defense. They have great players 1-4 and Iggy was a terrific sixth man, playing almost twice the minutes of nominal starters Zaza Pachulia. They also go deeper and more frequently to their bench than most teams so that will help with the pace issues. Now they face Kareem and the 71 Bucks with no 3 ball and with Milwaukee having home court as well.

[Jaivl]

Huh? First of all, didn't Boston advance vs the Bulls? Also, what about GSW and PHI?

[penbeast0]

ok, I feel officially STOOPID; give me a minute or two to get my act straight. Thanks for the wakeup call; this should be the right matchup.

[pandrade83]

Placeholder for a later post. These teams come from such different eras & the rules will not be what the Warriors are used too & these teams are constructed so very differently that it requires some more thought than I have time for tonight.

[Samurai]

As a lifelong Warriors fan, my heart wants the Dubs to win this tournament but my head tells me to vote for the Bucks.

Shooting fewer 3's as in the match-up with the 83 Sixers is one thing, but eliminating the 3-point shot completely as would be done here takes away a key component of the Warriors offense. Klay, KD and Curry will still bury the outside shot, but having a 25-foot shot only count for 2 points hurts them. The Bucks will have no one to guard KD, but considering the style of play at the time, I expect that they will let KD shoot from the outside and look to double him if he posts up. And while no one can flat-out stop KD, Dandridge can harass him and make KD less comfortable than most. Kareem will discourage anyone who wants to drive to the rim and neither Zaza or JaVale will pose enough of an offensive threat to occupy him from helping out his teammates.

I think Klay will do a good job defending Oscar, to the point that I don't see the Big O as having a huge offensive series. Curry should also do fine guarding McGlocklin since he is well familiar with guarding outstanding catch-and-shoot guys (Korver, Redick, etc.). KD's length on defense can give Dandridge trouble.

But the Warriors have no one to defend Kareem. Zaza lacks the mobility and will quickly get in foul trouble if he tries to get too physical (subtlety is not his strong suit). I don't think JaVale has the stamina or man-defense IQ to guard Kareem for any meaningful stretch of time. Green is just way too small to bother the skyhook or to keep Kareem from getting optimum position under the basket. The Dubs will be forced to constantly double-team Kareem, and the Bucks were outstanding at sending the open man to cut to the rim for a layup, particularly since Kareem was very good at hitting the cutter with a pass.

If they were playing under 2017 rules and conditions I would vote Warriors fairly easily. But in the early 70's, having a dominant big was critical. The Bucks have the GOAT big (IMO), and the center position is the one weak spot in the Warriors lineup.

[iggymcfrack]

So is this actually the correct Finals matchup or not? I think people would be more likely to vote if they knew the answer to that question.

[penbeast0]

yes

[pandrade83]

I think the warriors are the GOAT team. But this scenario poses three related major problems.

1). The warriors can’t shoot 3s. Well they can, it just counts for 2. This seriously diminishes the threat of Steph, robs klay of most of his offensive value and even downgrades kd and iggy. Suddenly the terrifying warrior attack is merely very good.

2. The center position. Kareem is just a monster and the warriors really have no way of defending him. He’s having a monster series. Furthermore, having a strong center was basically a pre-requisite in this era. It’s possible that kd could do a bob mcadoo impression but even that requires a significant adjustment as he wasn’t rebounding at that level or preparing to defend a behemoth like Kareem.

3. Equipment problems. Steph has struggled with injuries in the modern era and if he played in this era it’s a fair question whether he would even have the opportunity to become a star due to health concerns.

Despite these issues, golden state’s shooting prowess and skill should still make them the most powerful offense of the era - perhaps considerably so. The challenge is that I’m less sure of their defensive abilities in this setting. I see them
As an above average but definitely not elite defense in this era - one that can get smashed inside and on the boards.

This should translate into an elite team still - but not the one that was unbeatable in their era.

If the environmental conditions were reversed, I’d easily take them. But given these rules and uncertainty of kd’s ability to become bob mcadoo and Steph’s health concerns, I take Bucks in 7.

[trex_8063]

yes

Bump (and check your PM's).

[trex_8063]

Let me preface by saying that I think the '17 Warriors are possibly the greatest team ever assembled.

But the format of this project stipulates that we'll be playing in the rules/circumstances of the EARLIER team. The big factor that creates here is: lack of a 3pt line. That diminishes so much of the value of Curry, Thompson, and to a lesser degree Durant. Still a very good offensive team, but not the colossus they can otherwise be in their own time.

For me, that's kind of the deciding factor (and the Bucks have the HCA as well). I just don't think they can generate good enough offense firing away from mid-to-long range and only getting 2pts per make; meanwhile I think they'll have a helluva time [as everyone did] stopping Kareem.

My pick: '71 Bucks (6 or 7 games)

[Laimbeer]

Oscar was past it, Dandridge was a second year player. Greg Smith and Jon McGlocklin? Kareem was great but this team is getting a bit overrated.

[PCProductions]

But the format of this project stipulates that we'll be playing in the rules/circumstances of the EARLIER team. The big factor that creates here is: lack of a 3pt line. That diminishes so much of the value of Curry, Thompson, and to a lesser degree Durant. Still a very good offensive team, but not the colossus they can otherwise be in their own time.

Doesn't this give the earlier team an inherent advantage?

[penbeast0]

Doesn't this give the earlier team an inherent advantage?

Yes, deliberately so. Despite attempts to avoid it, there is generally a strong prejudice toward more modern teams from the onward where people are more familiar with the superstars and their abilities. There also is a real widening of the player pool, particularly in this century where the NBA has expanded it's international recruiting beyond just 7 footers. The degree to which this is countered by expansion and the growing size of the league is in dispute but most of us feel that the current decade is the deepest and most talented in NBA history. There is also much less question about how well a modern team would shoot 2's than how a pre-line team would shoot 3's. So, this was an attempt to counter recency advantage to make a better tournament.

Despite this, you notice that the Russell Celtic teams, the greatest dynasty in NBA history, were both summarily dismissed in the first round. I am personally surprised that the Bucks are still alive; I thought the 67 Sixers and all 3 of the 80s superteams were stronger but this isn't just my opinion, it's a board wide contest.

[pandrade83]

But the format of this project stipulates that we'll be playing in the rules/circumstances of the EARLIER team. The big factor that creates here is: lack of a 3pt line. That diminishes so much of the value of Curry, Thompson, and to a lesser degree Durant. Still a very good offensive team, but not the colossus they can otherwise be in their own time.

Doesn't this give the earlier team an inherent advantage?

The OP explicitly said it's to help combat recency bias.

[PCProductions]

Doesn't this give the earlier team an inherent advantage?

Yes, deliberately so. Despite attempts to avoid it, there is generally a strong prejudice toward more modern teams from the onward where people are more familiar with the superstars and their abilities. There also is a real widening of the player pool, particularly in this century where the NBA has expanded it's international recruiting beyond just 7 footers. The degree to which this is countered by expansion and the growing size of the league is in dispute but most of us feel that the current decade is the deepest and most talented in NBA history. There is also much less question about how well a modern team would shoot 2's than how a pre-line team would shoot 3's. So, this was an attempt to counter recency advantage to make a better tournament.

Despite this, you notice that the Russell Celtic teams, the greatest dynasty in NBA history, were both summarily dismissed in the first round. I am personally surprised that the Bucks are still alive; I thought the 67 Sixers and all 3 of the 80s superteams were stronger but this isn't just my opinion, it's a board wide contest.

It's an interesting counter to that general sentiment. I just wonder under an objective lens who the greater team between these two specifically would be without that stipulation. It would be close regardless, IMO.

[freethedevil]

Are we comparing how they did relative to their leagues or how they would do against each other? Because the former is debatbale. The latter is hilariously skewed in the warrior's favor.

edit: ah we're using 70's rules. okay that makes this interesting. no three pointers? Would teams still come out a little to defend curry(they wouldn't come half court)? Offensively kd+steph cancel each other out. High speed passing is likely more effective than kareem's isos, but The warriors might get killed defneisvely.

[penbeast0]

Bucks: Samurai, pandrade, trex,

Warriors: Laimbeer

Buck lead finals 3-1

[JordansBulls]

So if Warriors can't beat the 1971 Bucks how do they beat the 1992 Bulls using earlier rules?

[70sFan]

So if Warriors can't beat the 1971 Bucks how do they beat the 1992 Bulls using earlier rules?

Because rules were different in 1971 than 1992. Lack of three point line, tougher ballhandling rules, lack of traveling, cruder equipments...

[Hal14]

The 71 Bucks were tougher, played better defense, rebounded the basketball better. They have 2 of the top 15 players of all-time (Kareem and Oscar) while the Warriors don't have anyone in the top 15.

The Bucks get my vote.