Sansterre's Top 100, #96-100. 1991LAL, 2015CLE, 1975WAS, 1988DET, 1990PHO

[Tim Lehrbach]

This is equally fun and informative. Great job!

[penbeast0]

This is the bump for the addition of #98. The 1975 Washington Bullets.

And as always, thanks for reading!

I really like your write-up about Bullets team. Their defense has been historically very underrated - they really dominated competition on that end. Unseld/Hayes combo had a lot to do with that - they were just tough to take advantage on, because this duo didn't have any significant weakness defensively (maybe lack of size, but Unseld was excellent at pushing players away from the rim and Hayes was very good vertical defender despite being 6'9 - he was quite athletic).

Phil Chenier was a good perimeter defender, too: pesky, energetic (also had the team's best stl/36 rate, as it pertains to the very high opponent turnover rate).

And Mike Riordan always looked fairly solid defensively to my eye as well.

I don't really have much relevant eye-test on Truck Robinson, but he has a decent defensive reputation, at least later in his career.

Chenier and Riordan were good defenders (though Riordan was more a 2 playing 3), Charles Johnson and Jim Cleamons when we had them, Kevin Grevey weren't bad on that end. But, I remember those Bullets teams well, and I don't remember Truck being a good defender. Nick Weatherspoon was the guy we looked to for defense at the forward spot off the bench, Kupchak was a high energy guy on both ends, Truck was there for scoring and rebounding. He was like Montrezl Harrell. Loved him though.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I found my new favorite readings for the morning!

I recommend a formatting change/update.

Change the main post to something like this for each team.

1975 Washington Bullets

Spoiler:

information

1988 Detroit Pistons

Spoiler:

information

[sansterre]

I found my new favorite readings for the morning!

I recommend a formatting change/update.

Change the main post to something like this for each team.

1975 Washington Bullets

Spoiler:

information

1988 Detroit Pistons

Spoiler:

information

I can see that being a big improvement in ease of use. Give me a sec to play with it and see if I can make that happen without breaking everything.

Thanks for the reading, and the suggestion!

[Jordan Syndrome]

I found my new favorite readings for the morning!

I recommend a formatting change/update.

Change the main post to something like this for each team.

1975 Washington Bullets

Spoiler:

information

1988 Detroit Pistons

Spoiler:

information

I can see that being a big improvement in ease of use. Give me a sec to play with it and see if I can make that happen without breaking everything.

Thanks for the reading, and the suggestion!

Looks clean!

[penbeast0]

1988 Detroit Pistons

In terms of your Detroit lineup. (a) I would have Rodman as the PF and Dantley as the SF since that's pretty much their career positions. Rodman also tended to guard the post player while Dantley guarded the perimeter player when such a choice presented itself. (b) Dantley "played a lot smaller than his height" -- he was only 6-5 with shoes on and spent his career as an undersized 3 but he was clearly a forward because he lived in the mid-post. I would say he played larger than his height, the only other players that short that I think were that effective in the post were Barkley (who was twice as wide) and arguably Michael Jordan (who tended to slash much more than he posted but was a great post player for a guard). (c) They were indeed a great defensive team and Dantley, who had a lousy defensive rep before coming to Detroit, was regularly praised by Daly for his defense and work ethic (maybe just the coach felt Dantley was the type of player who needed stroking) and Dantley really made Bird look bad in those playoff games, constantly flatfooted as Dantley went around him, by him, or cut away from him as Bird was caught ball watching.

[sansterre]

1988 Detroit Pistons

In terms of your Detroit lineup. (a) I would have Rodman as the PF and Dantley as the SF since that's pretty much their career positions. Rodman also tended to guard the post player while Dantley guarded the perimeter player when such a choice presented itself. (b) Dantley "played a lot smaller than his height" -- he was only 6-5 with shoes on and spent his career as an undersized 3 but he was clearly a forward because he lived in the mid-post. I would say he played larger than his height, the only other players that short that I think were that effective in the post were Barkley (who was twice as wide) and arguably Michael Jordan (who tended to slash much more than he posted but was a great post player for a guard). (c) They were indeed a great defensive team and Dantley, who had a lousy defensive rep before coming to Detroit, was regularly praised by Daly for his defense and work ethic (maybe just the coach felt Dantley was the type of player who needed stroking) and Dantley really made Bird look bad in those playoff games, constantly flatfooted as Dantley went around him, by him, or cut away from him as Bird was caught ball watching.

Great stuff! I've made appropriate changes to their section.

I suffer from relying on the stats for much of this; my basketball general knowledge isn't bad but these posts are greatly enhanced by the addition of input from people with a much greater game film-level understanding than myself.

[penbeast0]

I don't watch a lot of game film, I'm just old.

[trex_8063]

I really like your write-up about Bullets team. Their defense has been historically very underrated - they really dominated competition on that end. Unseld/Hayes combo had a lot to do with that - they were just tough to take advantage on, because this duo didn't have any significant weakness defensively (maybe lack of size, but Unseld was excellent at pushing players away from the rim and Hayes was very good vertical defender despite being 6'9 - he was quite athletic).

Phil Chenier was a good perimeter defender, too: pesky, energetic (also had the team's best stl/36 rate, as it pertains to the very high opponent turnover rate).

And Mike Riordan always looked fairly solid defensively to my eye as well.

I don't really have much relevant eye-test on Truck Robinson, but he has a decent defensive reputation, at least later in his career.

Chenier and Riordan were good defenders (though Riordan was more a 2 playing 3), Charles Johnson and Jim Cleamons when we had them, Kevin Grevey weren't bad on that end. But, I remember those Bullets teams well, and I don't remember Truck being a good defender. Nick Weatherspoon was the guy we looked to for defense at the forward spot off the bench, Kupchak was a high energy guy on both ends, Truck was there for scoring and rebounding. He was like Montrezl Harrell. Loved him though.

Yeah, by the numbers he does look a lot like Montrezl.
Glad I put in the disclaimer that I don’t have much of an eye-test on him: my comment was based on me mistakenly thinking he’d once been named All-defensive (that’ll teach me to not double check when I’m not sure).

Isn’t Riordan the one who volunteered to take a cheap shot at Barry in that finals, too (causing Attles to come tearing at him from the bench)?

[Odinn21]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

[penbeast0]

Phil Chenier was a good perimeter defender, too: pesky, energetic (also had the team's best stl/36 rate, as it pertains to the very high opponent turnover rate).

And Mike Riordan always looked fairly solid defensively to my eye as well.

I don't really have much relevant eye-test on Truck Robinson, but he has a decent defensive reputation, at least later in his career.

Chenier and Riordan were good defenders (though Riordan was more a 2 playing 3), Charles Johnson and Jim Cleamons when we had them, Kevin Grevey weren't bad on that end. But, I remember those Bullets teams well, and I don't remember Truck being a good defender. Nick Weatherspoon was the guy we looked to for defense at the forward spot off the bench, Kupchak was a high energy guy on both ends, Truck was there for scoring and rebounding. He was like Montrezl Harrell. Loved him though.

Yeah, by the numbers he does look a lot like Montrezl.
Glad I put in the disclaimer that I don’t have much of an eye-test on him: my comment was based on me mistakenly thinking he’d once been named All-defensive (that’ll teach me to not double check when I’m not sure).

Isn’t Riordan the one who volunteered to take a cheap shot at Barry in that finals, too (causing Attles to come tearing at him from the bench)?

Wouldn't surprise me. He was the designated thug (coming in to give hard fouls) for Red Holzman on the Knicks before he was traded to the Bullets in the Earl Monroe deal.

[Owly]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Laimbeer jumps out not just up. It's a soft foul (and a dumb one, he's not blocking a fading away - unless you think the fade is from the bump, I think he's fading anyway - skyhook - just put your hands up, jump up if it helps, with Laimbeer it's not making a difference anyway and obstruct the sight-line) but a foul nonetheless.

https://youtu.be/SSHGG0sGUOc?t=62

But even if it weren't, you can't assume Detroit wins. Primarily because can't even assume Detroit gets the rebound (arguably Worthy is in the best position to get it). But lets say you imagine Laimbeer didn't jump out into Jabbar. And the Detroit are certain to get the rebound. Even then there's 14 seconds left. LA probably press aggressively, foul to force free throws and get a chance to, at worst, tie (if two makes, down 3).

Plus the point is how good they were. They didn't throw the last game because they didn't like the refs call. It's relevant information.

[Odinn21]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Laimbeer jumps out not just up. It's a soft foul (and a dumb one, he's not blocking a fading away - unless you think the fade is from the bump, I think he's fading anyway - skyhook - just put your hands up, jump up if it helps, with Laimbeer it's not making a difference anyway and obstruct the sight-line) but a foul nonetheless.

https://youtu.be/SSHGG0sGUOc?t=62

But even if it weren't, you can't assume Detroit wins. Primarily because can't even assume Detroit gets the rebound (arguably Worthy is in the best position to get it). But lets say you imagine Laimbeer didn't jump out into Jabbar. And the Detroit are certain to get the rebound. Even then there's 14 seconds left. LA probably press aggressively, foul to force free throws and get a chance to, at worst, tie (if two makes, down 3).

Plus the point is how good they were. They didn't throw the last game because they didn't like the refs call. It's relevant information.

That was not a foul, even Riley and Abdul-Jabbar acknowledge that. And my point was changing a single possession leading to an entirely, probably way higher ranking. So, the point stands still.

Either read my posts more carefully, or don't bother engaging with wrong assumptions. This is not the first time this happened and it's not OK or nice.

[Owly]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Laimbeer jumps out not just up. It's a soft foul (and a dumb one, he's not blocking a fading away - unless you think the fade is from the bump, I think he's fading anyway - skyhook - just put your hands up, jump up if it helps, with Laimbeer it's not making a difference anyway and obstruct the sight-line) but a foul nonetheless.

https://youtu.be/SSHGG0sGUOc?t=62

But even if it weren't, you can't assume Detroit wins. Primarily because can't even assume Detroit gets the rebound (arguably Worthy is in the best position to get it). But lets say you imagine Laimbeer didn't jump out into Jabbar. And the Detroit are certain to get the rebound. Even then there's 14 seconds left. LA probably press aggressively, foul to force free throws and get a chance to, at worst, tie (if two makes, down 3).

Plus the point is how good they were. They didn't throw the last game because they didn't like the refs call. It's relevant information.

That was not a foul, even Riley and Abdul-Jabbar acknowledge that. And my point was changing a single possession leading to an entirely, probably way higher ranking. So, the point stands still.

Either read my posts more carefully, or don't bother engaging with wrong assumptions. This is not the first time this happened and it's not OK or nice.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. But if you think something is "not OK or nice" there's a report button or a facility to stop seeing others' posts.

Source on Jabbar?
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/05/15/kareem-says-laimbeer-fouled-him/

[sansterre]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Totally understandable. If we imagine that the Pistons had won game 6 by one point, their MoV for the series goes up around 4 and their overall ranking on this list (between the tiny bump to their SRS and winning the Finals) puts them around #73 overall. This high up, everyone is really, really close. All it would take for any of these teams to jump 10-20 places is one little break that had them win a series that they lost. It just happens that the '88 Pistons were a lot closer to that sort of thing than most.

It's the crappy part of lists like these; they're inherently dependent on how luck (at least parts of it) broke down. The '15 Cavs should be way higher, but they were down both Love and Irving. I'm not sure how to integrate that sort of information into a formula; they're already rewarded for outplaying the Lakers over the series, and for being the best team in the league. But their other postseason performances (only a +8.73 playoff SRS) don't do them any favors. Ultimately, they're more punished for a weak showing against the Bullets in the first round than they are punished for losing to the Lakers in spite of a superior MoV.

[Odinn21]

Laimbeer jumps out not just up. It's a soft foul (and a dumb one, he's not blocking a fading away - unless you think the fade is from the bump, I think he's fading anyway - skyhook - just put your hands up, jump up if it helps, with Laimbeer it's not making a difference anyway and obstruct the sight-line) but a foul nonetheless.

https://youtu.be/SSHGG0sGUOc?t=62

But even if it weren't, you can't assume Detroit wins. Primarily because can't even assume Detroit gets the rebound (arguably Worthy is in the best position to get it). But lets say you imagine Laimbeer didn't jump out into Jabbar. And the Detroit are certain to get the rebound. Even then there's 14 seconds left. LA probably press aggressively, foul to force free throws and get a chance to, at worst, tie (if two makes, down 3).

Plus the point is how good they were. They didn't throw the last game because they didn't like the refs call. It's relevant information.

That was not a foul, even Riley and Abdul-Jabbar acknowledge that. And my point was changing a single possession leading to an entirely, probably way higher ranking. So, the point stands still.

Either read my posts more carefully, or don't bother engaging with wrong assumptions. This is not the first time this happened and it's not OK or nice.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. But if you think something is "not OK or nice" there's a report button or a facility to stop seeing others' posts.

Source on Jabbar?
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/05/15/kareem-says-laimbeer-fouled-him/

I also remember Abdul-Jabbar talking about it's not being a foul in one of his books. Not sure in which one though. Riley himself called that foul as phantom foul without sarcasm, so there's that.

We had many and different heated discussions in the past and you kept talking about what I was not saying and kept putting things in my mouth that I did not say, since then you're in my ignore list TBH. Though it does not work for quote notifications. So, here we are.

[Odinn21]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Totally understandable. If we imagine that the Pistons had won game 6 by one point, their MoV for the series goes up around 4 and their overall ranking on this list (between the tiny bump to their SRS and winning the Finals) puts them around #73 overall. This high up, everyone is really, really close. All it would take for any of these teams to jump 10-20 places is one little break that had them win a series that they lost. It just happens that the '88 Pistons were a lot closer to that sort of thing than most.

It's the crappy part of lists like these; they're inherently dependent on how luck (at least parts of it) broke down. The '15 Cavs should be way higher, but they were down both Love and Irving. I'm not sure how to integrate that sort of information into a formula; they're already rewarded for outplaying the Lakers over the series, and for being the best team in the league. But their other postseason performances (only a +8.73 playoff SRS) don't do them any favors. Ultimately, they're more punished for a weak showing against the Bullets in the first round than they are punished for losing to the Lakers in spite of a superior MoV.

I think '88 Pistons would make my top 50 or 60 teams. But that would lead an entirely different conversation because that'd be about fundamental issue regarding SRS (and MOV) approach.

For example the Bad Boys didn't have the best SRS values but looking at the teams on their SRS values, it'd be safe to say they were actually better than their SRS number would suggest. Similarly for Larry Brown's Pistons.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1886988
This thread of mine got no traction at the time but I still have those concerns about SRS.

[sansterre]

I don't agree with this '88 Pistons being this low because it's one of the teams, if you could change outcome of one single possession, their results would be entirely different.

Quick rewind;
Game 6, 27 seconds left on the clock and the Lakers were trailing by 1. They gave the ball to Abdul-Jabbar in 10 seconds and there was a phantom foul on Bill Laimbeer 3 seconds later and Abdul-Jabbar was on the free throw line.

Without that phantom foul, they were champions with a higher postseason SRS (thus a higher final SRS as well).

And it wasn't something like Ray Allen's three pointer in game 6 of 2013 Finals. That phantom foul should not have happened and it randomly changed the entire outcome.

Totally understandable. If we imagine that the Pistons had won game 6 by one point, their MoV for the series goes up around 4 and their overall ranking on this list (between the tiny bump to their SRS and winning the Finals) puts them around #73 overall. This high up, everyone is really, really close. All it would take for any of these teams to jump 10-20 places is one little break that had them win a series that they lost. It just happens that the '88 Pistons were a lot closer to that sort of thing than most.

It's the crappy part of lists like these; they're inherently dependent on how luck (at least parts of it) broke down. The '15 Cavs should be way higher, but they were down both Love and Irving. I'm not sure how to integrate that sort of information into a formula; they're already rewarded for outplaying the Lakers over the series, and for being the best team in the league. But their other postseason performances (only a +8.73 playoff SRS) don't do them any favors. Ultimately, they're more punished for a weak showing against the Bullets in the first round than they are punished for losing to the Lakers in spite of a superior MoV.

I think '88 Pistons would make my top 50 or 60 teams. But that would lead an entirely different conversation because that'd be about fundamental issue regarding SRS (and MOV) approach.

For example the Bad Boys didn't have the best SRS values but looking at the teams on their SRS values, it'd be safe to say they were actually better than their SRS number would suggest. Similarly for Larry Brown's Pistons.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1886988
This thread of mine got no traction at the time but I still have those concerns about SRS.

SRS has plenty of faults. It really loves winning by big margins: there are several teams on my list that jumped 20+ positions because of one series where they obliterated another team by 15+ a game. And it has a really dim view of teams with low MoV over weak teams; a lot of good teams really seem to mail in those round 1 games, and SRS hates that (because, sometimes, really good teams lose those series, paging the 90s Sonics). So there are plenty of times where SRS will be in love with a team where I don't really agree.

And yet. Do you know who playoff SRS loves? The '96 Bulls. Also the '71 Bucks. Also the '86 Celtics. Also the '01 Lakers. And so on. While it may seem spurious, beating the tar out of other teams is something that all the teams we *know* were awesome did. SRS is what says that the '88 Lakers were a worse team than the '88 Pistons, even though the Lakers won the series.

Isn't it possible that we're conflating the success of the '89 and '90 Pistons with the '88 Pistons? The '90 Pistons posted a +10.48 playoff SRS (52nd on the list); the '89 Pistons posted a +13.16 playoff SRS (24th on the list). And, as you may infer, they're both ranked much higher than the '88 version. The reason that the '88 team is so much lower than the other two isn't because they didn't win the Finals (though that doesn't help), it's because by any objective standard they simply played worse. It's a natural thing to see how close the '88 Pistons got, then see how they played in '89 and think "I know this team is much better than that." It's understandable, but it doesn't make the '88 Pistons as good as the '89 Pistons; they weren't.

At the end of the day, my favorite thing about SRS is that it forces us to reconsider our assumptions. If an SRS-driven system thinks that the '88 Pistons were only the 97th best team of the shot clock era, maybe we were wrong. Maybe the '88 Pistons were only a really good team that used failure as the motivation necessary to become an all-time great team in '89.

But of course, your mileage may vary. This is just one attempt to make a comprehensive list that's as objective as possible, with all the warts that come with it.

[Odinn21]

SRS has plenty of faults. It really loves winning by big margins: there are several teams on my list that jumped 20+ positions because of one series where they obliterated another team by 15+ a game. And it has a really dim view of teams with low MoV over weak teams; a lot of good teams really seem to mail in those round 1 games, and SRS hates that (because, sometimes, really good teams lose those series, paging the 90s Sonics). So there are plenty of times where SRS will be in love with a team where I don't really agree.

And yet. Do you know who playoff SRS loves? The '96 Bulls. Also the '71 Bucks. Also the '86 Celtics. Also the '01 Lakers. And so on. While it may seem spurious, beating the tar out of other teams is something that all the teams we *know* were awesome did. SRS is what says that the '88 Lakers were a worse team than the '88 Pistons, even though the Lakers won the series.

Isn't it possible that we're conflating the success of the '89 and '90 Pistons with the '88 Pistons? The '90 Pistons posted a +10.48 playoff SRS (52nd on the list); the '89 Pistons posted a +13.16 playoff SRS (24th on the list). And, as you may infer, they're both ranked much higher than the '88 version. The reason that the '88 team is so much lower than the other two isn't because they didn't win the Finals (though that doesn't help), it's because by any objective standard they simply played worse. It's a natural thing to see how close the '88 Pistons got, then see how they played in '89 and think "I know this team is much better than that." It's understandable, but it doesn't make the '88 Pistons as good as the '89 Pistons; they weren't.

At the end of the day, my favorite thing about SRS is that it forces us to reconsider our assumptions. If an SRS-driven system thinks that the '88 Pistons were only the 97th best team of the shot clock era, maybe we were wrong. Maybe the '88 Pistons were only a really good team that used failure as the motivation necessary to become an all-time great team in '89.

But of course, your mileage may vary. This is just one attempt to make a comprehensive list that's as objective as possible, with all the warts that come with it.

I beg to differ cause of a test I ran awhile back.

In the three point era, the playoffs series after 1st rounds those went to a game 7 ended in favour of the team with negative MOV on overall 45% of the time.
So, your approach to use regular season SRS as the postseason SOS would correct some of it but not all.

Also, SRS entirely misses the quality loss from injuries. For example 1991 Lakers were pretty crippled in the NBA Finals. And this SRS-driven system would do nothing to account for it. Actually it looks like it'll boost 1991 Bulls due to MOV being bigger than what should've been under injury-free situation.

Heck, you gave the example yourself with 1989 Pistons. The Pistons swept the Lakers with almost 7 ppg MOV because Magic was not healthy in the NBA Finals. And then you turned to say "1989 Pistons were much better than 1988 version".
No, they were not. I know that for a fact. The both versions were on the same level. One of them got a call (arguably) that shouldn't happen and one of them got not one but two teams with a unhealthy superstar to sweep (Boston and LA).

Another thing is, MOV and any +/- data have a different scale in different seasons.
1988 Pistons; 5.46 SRS (2nd), 6th in ORtg and 2nd in DRtg, 3rd in NRtg
1989 Pistons; 6.24 SRS (4th), 7th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg, 4th in NRtg
So, looking at solely SRS would overlook the scale. Rankings should matter as well.

1989 Pistons had one of the easiest routes to an NBA title and this SRS-driven system of yours doesn't make me reevaluate 1988 Pistons by looking how well 1989 Pistons did against a joke of a competition.

[mailmp]

Maybe the '88 Pistons were only a really good team that used failure as the motivation necessary to become an all-time great team in '89.

But of course, your mileage may vary. This is just one attempt to make a comprehensive list that's as objective as possible, with all the warts that come with it.

The Pistons swept the Lakers with almost 7 ppg MOV because Magic was not healthy in the NBA Finals. And then you turned to say "1989 Pistons were much better than 1988 version".
No, they were not. I know that for a fact.

Oh, okay, since you “know that for a fact”, I guess the matter is settled.

You know, I “know for a fact” that actually the Pistons peaked in 1990. Funny how that goes.