Are there any NBA teams that you think would have won (or any) more titles if they were in a different era?

[coastalmarker99]

I always wondered if there were any teams that would have been more successful, but for whatever reason, something slowed them down in their own time.

For me, those mid-1960s 76ers teams if they had played in the 1970s could have won anywhere between 3 to 5 titles.

I also wonder how Harden's rockets would have done if they played in a different era and got to avoid that Warriors team.


Likewise for Lebron's Cavs teams.

[migya]

Can't compare eras, there are just too many differences

[moss_is_1]

If you're wondering essentially which teams were good enough to win a title, but had juggernauts and ATG teams in their way?

90's Jazz are one that jumps out right away.
90's Sonics - Brought maybe the greatest team ever to 6 games in the finals in 96.
2000 Pacers - Shaq going nuclear saved the Lakers. Averaged 38/17
1993 Suns - Barkley was MVP, probably pissed off Jordan. Bulls won in 6, Jordan averaged 41/8/6.

[falcolombardi]

If you're wondering essentially which teams were good enough to win a title, but had juggernauts and ATG teams in their way?

90's Jazz are one that jumps out right away.
90's Sonics - Brought maybe the greatest team ever to 6 games in the finals in 96.
2000 Pacers - Shaq going nuclear saved the Lakers. Averaged 38/17
1993 Suns - Barkley was MVP, probably pissed off Jordan. Bulls won in 6, Jordan averaged 41/8/6.

you could include 2016 warriors, spurs and thunder, all good enough to win a ring if they were in a year where they wouldnt have to beat 2 or 3 juggernauts to win a ring

2017 cavs win a ring a lot of years, same with a healthy 17 spurs

2018 rockets too

[sp6r=underrated]

Not perfectly on point but a list of things I believe
1. If Showtime was in the East and Boston was in the West, we'd remember the Celtics as the dominant team of the 80s and they'd have more titles/final appearances than LA.
2. If Cleveland was in the West with one of the contenders taking their place the East, they don't win a title and or seen as much closer to a Sacramento level squad.
3. 94-95 Rockets are the greatest overachievers in post-season history. You run that simulation a 1,000 times I doubt they go back to back 2%.
4. Teens Thunder, Aughts Suns (smallest window of these clubs), 90s Jazz/Sonics, 80s Bucks were good enough to win titles in their era, win some in most simulations and were mainly snakebit.
5. Shaq/Kobe Lakers: overachievers who are remembered mainly as that 01 squad/00 RS when they never played like that outside of most stretches. Most times they only end up with 1-2 titles/2-3 final appearances.
6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.
7. If the 74 Bucks had won the title Kareem is very much a mainstream GOAT candidate.

[falcolombardi]

Not perfectly on point but a list of things I believe
1. If Showtime was in the East and Boston was in the West, we'd remember the Celtics as the dominant team of the 80s and they'd have more titles/final appearances than LA.
2. If Cleveland was in the West with one of the contenders taking their place the East, they don't win a title and or seen as much closer to a Sacramento level squad.
3. 94-95 Rockets are the greatest overachievers in post-season history. You run that simulation a 1,000 times I doubt they go back to back 2%.
4. Teens Thunder, Aughts Suns (smallest window of these clubs), 90s Jazz/Sonics, 80s Bucks were good enough to win titles in their era, win some in most simulations and were mainly snakebit.
5. Shaq/Kobe Lakers: overachievers who are remembered mainly as that 01 squad/00 RS when they never played like that outside of most stretches. Most times they only end up with 1-2 titles/2-3 final appearances.
6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.
7. If the 74 Bucks had won the title Kareem is very much a mainstream GOAT candidate.

disagree with point number 1

1980: they lost to the team lakers beat, if any team had bad luck it was the sixers

1982: they again lost to the team that lakers beat if anyone was screwed it was the sixers facing both

1983: lol no, sixers would destroy them

1985 they easily beat their only tough east rival in bucks, the notion that beating bucks in 5 tired them too much yo face lakers later is wrong to me

87 here there is a fair argument thst the 7 game series vs pistons tired them for the finals so there is a long shot that they may have won from the west

88 they were totally wrecked by detroit so not

overall they went 1-2 vs sixers early in the decade and 1-2 vs lakers in the middle of it

i could imagine them winning 1 ring more and lakers 1 less but much more than that is way too optimisitic

[Bidofo]

6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.

I mean...they were quite literally weakened though. Scott missed the series and Magic was basically done by the 3q of game 2.

[sp6r=underrated]

6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.

I mean...they were quite literally weakened though. Scott missed the series and Magic was basically done by the 3q of game 2.

They outscored by 18 points in the 88 Finals and only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history.

[Bidofo]

6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.

I mean...they were quite literally weakened though. Scott missed the series and Magic was basically done by the 3q of game 2.

They outscored by 18 points in the 88 Finals and only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history.

I see, I guess your gripe would be the narrative they only won because they were weakened. The 89 Lakers were definitively weakened, a shame it wasn't a fully healthy matchup.

[Owly]

6. The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false. 88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime. Detroit was just an excellent team.

I mean...they were quite literally weakened though. Scott missed the series and Magic was basically done by the 3q of game 2.

They outscored by 18 points in the 88 Finals and only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history.

So
Regarding the point "The view Bad Boys only beat weakened Showtime is false"
1) Your counterpoint doesn't change the poster showing this to be wrong.

Regarding LA: "88-89 Showtime was as good as the best of Showtime"
1) 1987 Lakers SRS: 8.31.
1988 Lakers SRS: 4.81
Indeed - and this is not the Showtime era but - the '88 SRS is the only one between '87 and '91 below 6.35.

Regarding "only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history."
1) This would require having seen every finals in NBA history (to be true ... though it can be falsified by less).
2) This would require closely cataloguing every call in finals history.
3) Have you seen the '98 finals. See Eisley shot clock. Or (iirc) Harper shot clock. These are explicitly not "judgement calls" about interpretation of the rules.
4) You don't "only los[e]" because of one call. You win or lose on the totality of the game which, will of course be be influenced by multiple marginal calls.
4a) Even if one were to take all prior as a given - which you shouldn't, it all influences the outcome - this is not the last play of the game.
5) Assuming you're thinking of Laimbeer bumping Abdul-Jabbar on his hook ... do you know the game situation. For one Worthy looks favorite for a rebound and either way it's not going to be the last play (if they didn't grab the board LA would surely foul and look for a 3 to tie).
6) Rewatch the play ...
a) Does Laimbeer jump purely vertically or forwards?
b) If forwards does he initiate contact with a shooting Jabbar?

[sp6r=underrated]

I mean...they were quite literally weakened though. Scott missed the series and Magic was basically done by the 3q of game 2.

They outscored by 18 points in the 88 Finals and only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history.

I see, I guess your gripe would be the narrative they only won because they were weakened. The 89 Lakers were definitively weakened, a shame it wasn't a fully healthy matchup.

That is my gripe. they get pegged as basically weak champions when they outscored the 88 Celtics & 88 Lakers by clear margins and yet it gets completely dismissed. A little known fact Detroit from 1987-1990 outscored their opponents in every series and finished 6/2/4/4 in SRS. That is a short run but quite similar to the best of Showtime and the best of the 80s Celtics outside 86 ATG club.

The dismissal is partly because they were "bad boys" who damaged the NBA. Contrary to their fans, Laimbeer's crap really was awful and the stigma attached to them is wells deserved. They were also complete punks in defeat. They showed no class in 91. It was a pathetic display rivaled by the 2011 Lakers throwing multiple cheapshots at Dallas in that blowout Game 4.

But they also get dismissed for another reason that I don't like: ensemble teams always get **** on because we're so used to the idea that teams need a superstar that we dismiss the ensemble clubs that play at a championship level without one. We also tend not to respect defensive centric teams unless they have a Russell or KG on em.

[sp6r=underrated]

Regarding "only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history."
1) This would require having seen every finals in NBA history (to be true ... though it can be falsified by less).
2) This would require closely cataloguing every call in finals history.
3) Have you seen the '98 finals. See Eisley shot clock. Or (iirc) Harper shot clock. These are explicitly not "judgement calls" about interpretation of the rules.
4) You don't "only los[e]" because of one call. You win or lose on the totality of the game which, will of course be be influenced by multiple marginal calls.
4a) Even if one were to take all prior as a given - which you shouldn't, it all influences the outcome - this is not the last play of the game.
5) Assuming you're thinking of Laimbeer bumping Abdul-Jabbar on his hook ... do you know the game situation. For one Worthy looks favorite for a rebound and either way it's not going to be the last play (if they didn't grab the board LA would surely foul and look for a 3 to tie).
6) Rewatch the play ...
a) Does Laimbeer jump purely vertically or forwards?
b) If forwards does he initiate contact with a shooting Jabbar?

Congratulations you nailed a poster engaging in hyperbole on the internet. Have a cookie.

It was still putrid call.

[Owly]

Regarding "only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history."
1) This would require having seen every finals in NBA history (to be true ... though it can be falsified by less).
2) This would require closely cataloguing every call in finals history.
3) Have you seen the '98 finals. See Eisley shot clock. Or (iirc) Harper shot clock. These are explicitly not "judgement calls" about interpretation of the rules.
4) You don't "only los[e]" because of one call. You win or lose on the totality of the game which, will of course be be influenced by multiple marginal calls.
4a) Even if one were to take all prior as a given - which you shouldn't, it all influences the outcome - this is not the last play of the game.
5) Assuming you're thinking of Laimbeer bumping Abdul-Jabbar on his hook ... do you know the game situation. For one Worthy looks favorite for a rebound and either way it's not going to be the last play (if they didn't grab the board LA would surely foul and look for a 3 to tie).
6) Rewatch the play ...
a) Does Laimbeer jump purely vertically or forwards?
b) If forwards does he initiate contact with a shooting Jabbar?

Congratulations you nailed a poster engaging in hyperbole on the internet. Have a cookie.

It was still putrid call.

If you deliberately don't mean what you say and you're going to do that in an environment without tone or inflection, you risk getting called on it. If you don't care that's up to you, but I think being right or wrong, accurate or not matters.

Seriously though I'd suggest you engage with the points (mentally). I believe they're all accurate and on 6, watch the replay (fwiw, the announcers don't seem in any doubt, the ref seems reasonably positioned) Laimbeer jumps out and into a shooting Jabbar. If one thinks it's a "soft" call, that they "shouldn't" give at that point ... that's an opinion thing. But he jumps out into a shooting Jabbar and by the rules that is a foul.

[Owly]

They outscored by 18 points in the 88 Finals and only lost Game 6 because of the worst call in NBA Finals history.

I see, I guess your gripe would be the narrative they only won because they were weakened. The 89 Lakers were definitively weakened, a shame it wasn't a fully healthy matchup.

That is my gripe. they get pegged as basically weak champions when they outscored the 88 Celtics & 88 Lakers by clear margins and yet it gets completely dismissed. A little known fact Detroit from 1987-1990 outscored their opponents in every series and finished 6/2/4/4 in SRS. That is a short run but quite similar to the best of Showtime and the best of the 80s Celtics outside 86 ATG club.

The dismissal is partly because they were "bad boys" who damaged the NBA. Contrary to their fans, Laimbeer's crap really was awful and the stigma attached to them is wells deserved. They were also complete punks in defeat. They showed no class in 91. It was a pathetic display rivaled by the 2011 Lakers throwing multiple cheapshots at Dallas in that blowout Game 4.

But they also get dismissed for another reason that I don't like: ensemble teams always get **** on because we're so used to the idea that teams need a superstar that we dismiss the ensemble clubs that play at a championship level without one. We also tend not to respect defensive centric teams unless they have a Russell or KG on em.

So this is closer to a valid point ... and is distinct from what you actually initially said.

I don't think they are that close to the best of the Lakers Showtime (extending into Slowtime era) or Celtics all bar one Celtic team. Detroit only once broke 6 SRS (6.24, '89 an expansion year). That's less than the average of Boston 85-87 (7.366666667), 84-86 (7.316666667), 86-88 (7.26); LA 85-87 (7.213333333), Boston 86-88. LA 89-91. Boston 80-82, 83-85, 82-84 ...
LA, particularly in the actual Showtime era is closer to arguable but weren't always pushed in the West, and the league was a little more compressed than in the late 80s early 90s (though whether one adjusts for this is debatable, I am inclined towards saying it is what it is and then from that the earlier Showtime teams were a bit lucky and are a bit overrated), but later, despite many recent titles (so perhaps not maxing RS?) they are (albeit mostly only slightly) above 6.5 consistently bar '88 - a clear down year.
Detroit were consistent 88-90 for a best 3 year spell at 5.703333333.

Can one argue the '88 team with Dantley rather than Aguirre team gets underrated? I think so. Can one argue the absence of an actual superstar and ensemble production (and defense) would get a team underrated, yes. I think the more vocal Detroit advocates (though I may be conflating vocal backers of an individual Piston) don't tend to argue the latter point and I don't really recall hearing the former. Fwiw, re '88 my impression is Bird is hurting in the '88 playoffs (based somewhat on memories of watching and mainly on what he said) so I think Boston are below their notional RS power. But that is only an impression and it could be the job Rodman does on him (defense certainly can get under credited). The degree of the points margin victory versus LA '88 was somewhat surprising though.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

The 1985-86 Rockets wouldve won a title in a lot of other years in NBA history. Beating Magic Kareem and Worthy any other year automatically meant you were champions. Nobody else ever laid such a beating on healthy Showtime.

However that specific year the Rockets' "reward" for beating Showtime just happened to be the 67 win GOAT tier Boston team.

Toughest b2b high calibre teams anyone has ever faced in successive series in NBA playoff history imho.

[SeattleJazzFan]

late 90s Jazz get one in the mid to late-00s.

[migya]

It would've been an interesting and great finals is the Suns and Knicks faced in 1993. Both teams were better than a number of championship teams.

[AussieBuck]

Bucks would be way better in earlier eras locking down the paint (weakness above the break threes) and having 4 guys on the court who can operate from the low post.