#7 Highest Peak of All Time (Bird '86 wins)

[MacGill]

No, it had to be 85. It was a year he did not win it all.

Then it shouldn't be used in a peak season project if the year being thrown around 1986 was his best year where this did not happen. Only context from the actual year in 86 itself.

[mysticbb]

No, where is this evidence coming from?

The results were presented on the old apbr board, unfortunately most of that is gone due to a hack.

This is from B-R:

In the NBA, dominating good teams is clearly the best indicator of postseason success. Teams that had more regular-season dominations (big wins over good teams) won 64.8% of their "final four" series, including 73.3% of their Finals matchups.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8159

That doesn't support either thing here. In fact, beating up on bad teams is supposed to be a better predictor than winning close games against good teams. And yeah, if a team dominates basically all teams, it is supposed to be better anyway. There is no differentiation between beating up on bad teams and dominating good teams either. But one thing is for sure, this blog entry does not support what you may think it does.

[Doctor MJ]

it's between Bird 86 and Walton 77 for me, but since neither is getting much of a traction, I'll vote for Duncan 03 as well. I've always been tough on him but he does have excellent arguments vs Bird and Walton. his 02 season seems as the best for me actually, though it should be said that Lakers really struggled to defend PFs all the time.

btw, I think Bird's defense gets severely underrated. yes, he sucks ass a perimeter defender one on one, but he's GREAT team defender and he has massive impact as a PF. there's a reason why Celtics regressed without Bird's defense significantly. his defensive rebounding, positioning and length were really valuable. he's probably the best player left now. doesn't seem to have a big flaw (man defense is overrated) whereas other candidates all have something you can nitpick on. LeBron - didn't play defense in 09 ECFs, doesn't play well with other star players. Walton - can't score, can't break down the defense off isolations. Duncan - regresses vs good post defenders (Grant 01, Malone 04, Sheed 05, Varejao/Ilgauskas 07, Gasol 08), doesn't make a great impact offensively. Magic - net zero defensively. KG - scoring drop off in the postseason, regresses vs good defenders a lot.

also I don't think SD chargers is on the pannel. anyway, vote for Duncan 03.

First off, you are correct SD isn't on the panel yet. So with your vote, looks like a tie going into the home stretch.

[bastillon]

I don't see how anyone can honestly vote for Bird. He was a fairly poor playoff performer(with only 2-3 great playoffs) and his regular season performance is nowhere near good enough to rank him #7 highest peak. If you can argue Bird you should be able to argue Kobe as well who was the better two way player and playoff performer. Lebron 09 and Duncan 03 dominated the regular season and playoffs. They were more impactful and did not play on stacked teams.

You are aware that we are not discussing all time rankings, rather all-time PEAK rankings?

You are aware that in '86 Bird was the KEY of arguably the GOAT team?

You are aware that the Celtics ripped off a 39-5 stretch during which Bird had a PER of over 32?

You are aware that Bird had a 26-9-8 playoffs on 50-40-90 shooting, and averaged a triple double in the Finals?

that post made me feel bad about voting for Duncan. he's a great player but of the remaining guys Bird 86 was clearly the best. they were destroying pretty elite competition (Pistons, Bucks, Rockets...) with Bird playing at unreal levels, lifting a good team to GOAT level, and playing against great defenders (Pressey, McCray). dude was insane. 39-5 record with 32+ PER is unimaginable. his numbers without McHale deserve a mention as well. somebody made a post about him earlier but I can't find it.

[colts18]

that post made me feel bad about voting for Duncan. he's a great player but of the remaining guys Bird 86 was clearly the best. they were destroying pretty elite competition (Pistons, Bucks, Rockets...) with Bird playing at unreal levels, lifting a good team to GOAT level, and playing against great defenders (Pressey, McCray). dude was insane. 39-5 record with 32+ PER is unimaginable. his numbers without McHale deserve a mention as well. somebody made a post about him earlier but I can't find it.

Duncan played better overall playoff competition than Bird. SRS of opponents in the playoffs:

03: 3.85 (13th best ever for champion)
05: 3.70 (18th best)
07: 3.67 (19th best)
99: 2.67 (32nd)

86: 2.32 (34th)

All 4 Spurs title teams were higher than the 3 Bird teams.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll take my opportunity here to speak to the trend I'm seeing:

Sure looks to me like we're seeing an "anybody but LeBron" voting pattern if we're actually reaching the point where Duncan leaps passed other people and becomes not only a legit candidate for the first time, but also likely to win the first time he seriously gets discussed.

Taking that as the case, I'll say that there's nothing against the rules about this, but anyone who is considering voting for Duncan who doesn't actually have him 1st or 2nd on their current list of candidates should really think about what they are doing.

In terms of micro-optimization, it can seem like the right strategic choice to vote a "lesser of two evils" method. When it works the way you want, those two "evils" get sorted in the right order, and as long as it keeps working, the "most evil" choice will eventually get placed where you want him to.

However, practically speaking here, what this means is that the choices who get in between the time you start this approach and the time the "most evil" gets in become almost randomized.

Go back and look at the first page of the Project thread, and you'll see people giving their top 10's. Magic & Bird are regularly beating Duncan, and I'm pretty sure if I did any peak vs peak thread of Magic vs Duncan or Bird vs Duncan, Duncan would lose their too.

If you truly have become convinced that Duncan should be ahead of these other guys, then by all means, vote for Duncan. However, if people are voting for Duncan who have him 3, 4, 5 spots down on their list, what this is indicating is that people are essentially handing their vote to whichever posters are happening to vote first in a given thread. The result will be a final product that likely looks less like your own personal list than if you had simply stuck to your guns and spent your time arguing for what you actually believe.

So just something to keep in mind folks...

[bastillon]

that post made me feel bad about voting for Duncan. he's a great player but of the remaining guys Bird 86 was clearly the best. they were destroying pretty elite competition (Pistons, Bucks, Rockets...) with Bird playing at unreal levels, lifting a good team to GOAT level, and playing against great defenders (Pressey, McCray). dude was insane. 39-5 record with 32+ PER is unimaginable. his numbers without McHale deserve a mention as well. somebody made a post about him earlier but I can't find it.

Duncan played better overall playoff competition than Bird. SRS of opponents in the playoffs:

03: 3.85 (13th best ever for champion)
05: 3.70 (18th best)
07: 3.67 (19th best)
99: 2.67 (32nd)

86: 2.32 (34th)

All 4 Spurs title teams were higher than the 3 Bird teams.

those numbers mean nothing without context. 05, 07 and 99 are irrelevant here anyway. as for 03, Duncan was fortunate to play vs Dirk-less Mavs, problematic Lakers previously discussed by me and fatal9 in #6 peak thread and two other teams that wouldn't make a 2nd round in the west (Marbury's Phx, Kidd's Nets). Spurs had a +6.0 MOV.

meanwhile Bird played vs Pistons (much better than record suggested, all the pieces were there basically, just needed time to gel), Bucks (insane SRS) and Rockets (good enough to beat Showtime Lakers). Celtics had a +10.4 MOV.

seriously you don't wanna go this way. Celtics proved themselves against high level teams. Spurs 03 lucked out into going up against poor competition. perfect window. right moment, right time.

[colts18]

that post made me feel bad about voting for Duncan. he's a great player but of the remaining guys Bird 86 was clearly the best. they were destroying pretty elite competition (Pistons, Bucks, Rockets...) with Bird playing at unreal levels, lifting a good team to GOAT level, and playing against great defenders (Pressey, McCray). dude was insane. 39-5 record with 32+ PER is unimaginable. his numbers without McHale deserve a mention as well. somebody made a post about him earlier but I can't find it.

Duncan played better overall playoff competition than Bird. SRS of opponents in the playoffs:

03: 3.85 (13th best ever for champion)
05: 3.70 (18th best)
07: 3.67 (19th best)
99: 2.67 (32nd)

86: 2.32 (34th)

All 4 Spurs title teams were higher than the 3 Bird teams.

those numbers mean nothing without context. 05, 07 and 99 are irrelevant here anyway. as for 03, Duncan was fortunate to play vs Dirk-less Mavs, problematic Lakers previously discussed by me and fatal9 in #6 peak thread and two other teams that wouldn't make a 2nd round in the west (Marbury's Phx, Kidd's Nets). Spurs had a +6.0 MOV.

meanwhile Bird played vs Pistons (much better than record suggested, all the pieces were there basically, just needed time to gel), Bucks (insane SRS) and Rockets (good enough to beat Showtime Lakers). Celtics had a +10.4 MOV.

seriously you don't wanna go this way. Celtics proved themselves against high level teams. Spurs 03 lucked out into going up against poor competition. perfect window. right moment, right time.

That doesn't mean the 86 Rockets were a good team. They still were a 2.11 SRS and 51-31 team. They weren't good, they just got fortunate to exploit a good matchup (their bigs vs. LA's lack of bigs). There is no measure that shows the 86 Rockets as a real good team. They weren't good in 85 or 87. Their SRS was mediocre in 86. They beat crap opponents before the Lakers. The only reason anyone thinks they are good is because they got a fluke win vs. a good matchup.

The Bucks were a good team, but Moncrief was injured during those playoffs. But a solid win nonetheless. About the same level as the Spurs win vs. 03 Mavs.

The Celtics also played a 30 win -3.12 SRS Bulls team, and a 2.59 SRS Hawks team. The 03 Spurs beat a Nets team with a 4.42 SRS which is better than 3 of the teams the Celtics beat.

[ElGee]

This page makes me cry a little on the inside. Colts18 says "you can't reward Bird for being unhealthy." I'm not even sure what that sentence means in English, let alone the weirdness of his next statement about a 1985 bar fight in a discussion about his 1986 season. Then he says something totally incorrect about SRS (yes, you'll get a 9 SRS if you beat good teams by 3, and no you wouldn't look at mean SOS in a 3 to 4 series sample since the mean could be quite misleading)...as if this is supposed to show that voting for Bird here is blasphemy. I'm with Doc MJ that the voting patterns have turned whacky in the last 2-3 threads. It feels like a "chase LeBron" voting pattern.

Look, people seem to have a really hard time understanding how to analyze injuries. If the question is "how good was that guy when healthy," you ELIMINATE the injured play. When you look at Bird's best years -- and I've presented the data quite clearly -- the team, and (Bird) was amazing, EXCEPT when he was injured. In 1986, he wasn't injured! Talking about his injuries here makes absolutely no sense, and I have to think the people doing this need to take a long look in the mirror at their own agenda, since we are in a project about peaks...and these people have yet to demonstrate a lack of understanding on that front until now.

And Bast, you can change your vote by simply editing your voting post.

[bastillon]

That doesn't mean the 86 Rockets were a good team. They still were a 2.11 SRS and 51-31 team. They weren't good, they just got fortunate to exploit a good matchup (their bigs vs. LA's lack of bigs). There is no measure that shows the 86 Rockets as a real good team. They weren't good in 85 or 87. Their SRS was mediocre in 86. They beat crap opponents before the Lakers. The only reason anyone thinks they are good is because they got a fluke win vs. a good matchup.

The Bucks were a good team, but Moncrief was injured during those playoffs. But a solid win nonetheless. About the same level as the Spurs win vs. 03 Mavs.

The Celtics also played a 30 win -3.12 SRS Bulls team, and a 2.59 SRS Hawks team. The 03 Spurs beat a Nets team with a 4.42 SRS which is better than 3 of the teams the Celtics beat.

yup Hakeem's team rarely improved in the postseason and their SRS accurately reflected their strength. just as it did during 93-97, particularly in 95. Hakeem's teams can't be judged by SRS. Rockets just played a lot better than 2.11 SRS team. it's not a fluke win vs LA, they were just a better team in that series. they didn't win 4-3. they won 4-1. they destroyed the Lakers on the boards. Hakeem was posting insane statline like 30/14/4blk or smth. Olajuwon went on to post those kind of numbers countless times in his playoff career. Rockets were far better because of his much improved play under pressure.

also rofl @ Bulls being -3.12 SRS team. you gotta be kiddin me. you probably forgot about some guy we voted in at #1, you know, Michael Jordan, who wasn't there in the RS and he kind of torched the Celtics for 40+ ppg including the highest scoring performance of playoff history. I mean do you HONESTLY believe Jordan team in the playoffs is a -3 SRS team ?

[PTB Fan]

It's kinda became a standard here for players who aren't involved in discussions as much as some to end up being selected.

[ardee]

That doesn't mean the 86 Rockets were a good team. They still were a 2.11 SRS and 51-31 team. They weren't good, they just got fortunate to exploit a good matchup (their bigs vs. LA's lack of bigs). There is no measure that shows the 86 Rockets as a real good team. They weren't good in 85 or 87. Their SRS was mediocre in 86. They beat crap opponents before the Lakers. The only reason anyone thinks they are good is because they got a fluke win vs. a good matchup.

The Bucks were a good team, but Moncrief was injured during those playoffs. But a solid win nonetheless. About the same level as the Spurs win vs. 03 Mavs.

The Celtics also played a 30 win -3.12 SRS Bulls team, and a 2.59 SRS Hawks team. The 03 Spurs beat a Nets team with a 4.42 SRS which is better than 3 of the teams the Celtics beat.

The '86 Rockets weren't a good team? Right, because conference champions are not good teams

Hakeem and Sampson was an INSANE combo. Hakeem averaged 27-12 with 4 blocks per game in those Playoffs. Sampson played off him and went 20-11-4... 4 apg as a 4 when he wasn't even having the offense run through him? That guy was GOOD.

The Rockets had games when Hakeem went 38-16-4 with 6 steals and 5 blocks.

They had games when Hakeem and Sampson sprung for 36-19 and 33-17-10 in the same goddamn game.

They also made the Finals WITHOUT their third best player, John Lucas, who was a 16-8 guy off the bench behind Hakeem and Sampson.

To think that the '03 Spurs competition was better than the '86 Celtics' competition is just laughable.

[bastillon]

It's kinda became a standard here for players who aren't involved in discussions as much as some to end up being selected.

we should've gone with nominees system

[ardee]

I'll take my opportunity here to speak to the trend I'm seeing:

Sure looks to me like we're seeing an "anybody but LeBron" voting pattern if we're actually reaching the point where Duncan leaps passed other people and becomes not only a legit candidate for the first time, but also likely to win the first time he seriously gets discussed.

Taking that as the case, I'll say that there's nothing against the rules about this, but anyone who is considering voting for Duncan who doesn't actually have him 1st or 2nd on their current list of candidates should really think about what they are doing.

In terms of micro-optimization, it can seem like the right strategic choice to vote a "lesser of two evils" method. When it works the way you want, those two "evils" get sorted in the right order, and as long as it keeps working, the "most evil" choice will eventually get placed where you want him to.

However, practically speaking here, what this means is that the choices who get in between the time you start this approach and the time the "most evil" gets in become almost randomized.

Go back and look at the first page of the Project thread, and you'll see people giving their top 10's. Magic & Bird are regularly beating Duncan, and I'm pretty sure if I did any peak vs peak thread of Magic vs Duncan or Bird vs Duncan, Duncan would lose their too.

If you truly have become convinced that Duncan should be ahead of these other guys, then by all means, vote for Duncan. However, if people are voting for Duncan who have him 3, 4, 5 spots down on their list, what this is indicating is that people are essentially handing their vote to whichever posters are happening to vote first in a given thread. The result will be a final product that likely looks less like your own personal list than if you had simply stuck to your guns and spent your time arguing for what you actually believe.

So just something to keep in mind folks...

This... It started after Jordan and Shaq, when Russell got voted in out of nowhere. That was mainly because people were voting LeBron.

Then after Wilt got voted in, Hakeem suddenly picked up in no. 5 when no one was discussing him before that, and the most shocking result was Kareem in no. 6 when he literally didn't get a single mention in the preceding five threads (except for Josephpaul who was continually voting his '71 season).

If it didn't defeat the purpose of honest voting in the project, I would switch my vote to LeBron just so he could get voted in and people would start a normal analysis after this.

Magic and Bird not making it in this low is really, really shocking though. Something is definitely up.

[Doctor MJ]

It's kinda became a standard here for players who aren't involved in discussions as much as some to end up being selected.

we should've gone with nominees system

It's entirely possible, but not the end of the world. In the end these projects are experiments, and we know that the end rankings aren't life & death. The pattern I spoke to happened in other projects too, and I spoke to them there as well.

Also, what PTB is saying that the trend I mentioned existed before this trend, which as I said, I saw the trend similarly. In case it's clear why I speak up now, it is first and foremost because we see the pattern over multiple threads. However, I'll admit to Duncan making my eyebrows go up more than Kareem. I am voting for LeBron here, but I expected LeBron to be controversial. Wouldn't have shocked me at all if he wasn't in the Top 10. Duncan beating him is not crazy at all. Erving's my #2 pick, and again, I won't be concerned at all if Duncan beats him out.

What disturbs me is Duncan leapfrogging Bird & Magic. Not because I can't believe someone would think that, but because that's never been a majority opinion and I haven't see people's minds changed here. I frankly don't know how anyone could believer that and not rank Duncan ahead of Bird & Magic on a GOAT career list "easily", and that's never happened before. So yeah, it's a pretty clear indicator that a player might be leaping up multiple spots simply to drive an "evil" down one more spot. That's wack. It means people are actually driving down their top choices by their strategic thinking.

Frankly, it makes me seriously consider not voting for LeBron for a while simply to help people get back on track, but I don't have much faith that that would do more good than harm as then I'd be doing what I'm warning people to be careful about.

[bastillon]

I could stand LeBron 12 getting selected but 09 ? it was the same guy that got exposed in the 2 following years basically. same player, same skillset. really comes down to this: it's hard for me to vote for a player who I know got exposed with the same skillset while playing at the same level. people suddenly believe LeBron was better in 09 than in 10 or that he lost his athleticism by '11. to me it just sounds like a very poor narrative trying to explain his blatantly obvious weaknesses. the way I see it, he was the same player and 10-11 data is sort of an extension of the limited sample for 09. his numbers were obviously much more impressive in 09 than in 10-11 but that's not because he was any better. just a great set of circumstances.

first two rounds were played against terrible teams. Pistons were skeletons at the end of that season, chemistry was terrible, they just couldn't compete at playoff level. then there were the Hawks... with like 3 or 4 starters out or playing through injuries. first time they met a real playoff team they got extremely exposed. a big part of why LeBron 09 gets his votes is because how strong Cavs were as a team, but they weren't all that good and playoffs verified their strength. LeBron put up huge numbers because Magic decided to let LeBron get his and stop the shooters. on top of that LeBron was mostly being guarded by Hedo Turkoglu, yet he gets praised as the one who destroyed #1 defense. well, certainly Orlando didn't play like #1 defense in that series. it wasn't because Cavs were such a great offensive team. Celtics exposed the same exact LeBron year later. LeIso era LeBron was definitely overrated playoff performer offensively.

still, his series vs Orlando was big (though #1 defense crap really got out of hand) but he didn't win and yes, he could've done more. his defense was very poor in that series, IMO he was the main reason why they collapsed so much. I have no idea why LeBron doesn't get any blame for Cavs defensive collapse. BIG argument in his favor seems to be that his defense is what seperates him from other top perimeter players. but that was obviously not the case in the playoff year we're discussing. his defense very well might have been THE reason why they lost. he was specifically guarding the worst opposing player to help on Dwight... yet Dwight had the best series of his career. how is this not partly on LeBron ? I feel like you people are acting like LeBron 09 was some kind of a demi-god who couldn't have done more. I can't even imagine Hakeem-Varejao-Moon-Parker-Williams losing that series to Orlando, for example. that Orlando team was like really bad outside of Dwight. at the time of watching that series, I doubted whether LeBron outplayed Dwight, let alone talk about him as GOAT close to 91 Jordan.

12 LeBron, that's a different story. much improved player who learned a lot from his mistakes. finally put it all together. truly great defensive player (unlike runner-up DPOY-imposter LeBron 09 who made no defensive impact when it counted). a lot harder to stop offensively. delivered time after time when the pressure demanded that he did. ElGee said it well, there are several reasons why I would put LeBron 12 over LeBron 09 and for the same reasons I'm voting for other players.

[ardee]

It's kinda became a standard here for players who aren't involved in discussions as much as some to end up being selected.

we should've gone with nominees system

It's entirely possible, but not the end of the world. In the end these projects are experiments, and we know that the end rankings aren't life & death. The pattern I spoke to happened in other projects too, and I spoke to them there as well.

Also, what PTB is saying that the trend I mentioned existed before this trend, which as I said, I saw the trend similarly. In case it's clear why I speak up now, it is first and foremost because we see the pattern over multiple threads. However, I'll admit to Duncan making my eyebrows go up more than Kareem. I am voting for LeBron here, but I expected LeBron to be controversial. Wouldn't have shocked me at all if he wasn't in the Top 10. Duncan beating him is not crazy at all. Erving's my #2 pick, and again, I won't be concerned at all if Duncan beats him out.

What disturbs me is Duncan leapfrogging Bird & Magic. Not because I can't believe someone would think that, but because that's never been a majority opinion and I haven't see people's minds changed here. I frankly don't know how anyone could believer that and not rank Duncan ahead of Bird & Magic on a GOAT career list "easily", and that's never happened before. So yeah, it's a pretty clear indicator that a player might be leaping up multiple spots simply to drive an "evil" down one more spot. That's wack. It means people are actually driving down their top choices by their strategic thinking.

Frankly, it makes me seriously consider not voting for LeBron for a while simply to help people get back on track, but I don't have much faith that that would do more good than harm as then I'd be doing what I'm warning people to be careful about.

Doc, I've sent you a PM.

[MacGill]

12 LeBron, that's a different story. much improved player who learned a lot from his mistakes. finally put it all together. truly great defensive player (unlike runner-up DPOY-imposter LeBron 09 who made no defensive impact when it counted). a lot harder to stop offensively. delivered time after time when the pressure demanded that he did. ElGee said it well, there are several reasons why I would put LeBron 12 over LeBron 09 and for the same reasons I'm voting for other players.

I know that I am I not involved with the project and do not have a vote here but I fully agree with the bolded underlined. To me, 2012 LBJ was his storybook season to date. Maybe not as fully athletic/statistically dominant as he once was but hardly declined to the point where you could truly pinpoint it to say it just doesn't measure up to the prior. I think some people in general see that he's played 9 years and look more for the tell signs of decline than appreciate how he finally mastered his game to what I would call his best season to date. It is scary because of how dominant 09 LBJ was but I never seen the confidence/leadership that I seen last season or that many get after a humbling loss. Lucky for James he is still 'in prime' enough to channel this energy and there would not be any doubt in my mind which season I would roll with here. As Bastillon noted, this was the season where he answered everyone, put it all together and in a fashion that we are accustomed to seeing in an all-time great.

In general, there are so many fantastic seasons that have happened in the nba that as an outsider reading in, I can say that I do feel some earlier seasons are getting overlooked even with poster's presenting great debate's as to why they should be considered. But overall, I am really enjoying the articles, information being shared here

[bastillon]

A 67 win team that can be swept by an 8 seed is a false idol. Simple as that. The team made choices that max'ed out their win total while leaving them an achilles heel, to insist that Dirk should be judged for the good without the bad is simply not something an objective person would do.

Of course, when I say this, I'm not simply speaking to the team results - though those are clearly relevant to your original post - but that fact that Dirk looked absolutely hideous in the series. In fact he was so thoroughly exposed by the Warriors, that he learned quite a bit from it, and eventually became the expert high post hub that led a legit team to the title.

sorry to bring this up, but this is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. funny how Dirk 06 often gets talked about as his best version despite that people realise how he got exposed in 07. you acknowledge this exposure as well and you realise how he improved over the next couple years to become a much better low post player which was key element of that 11 championship run. yet you stay blind with the same set of circumstances with LeBron. LeBron got exposed by Spurs 07, Celtics 08, Celtics 10 and Mavs 11 because he didn't have post game and isolations were easy to stop with the right defensive scheme. yet you believe that somehow LeBron 09 retrospectively learned how to deal with those problems and managed to overcome those obstacles against a typical #1 defensive team. do you honestly believe that it was LeBron being a much better player in 09, not that Orlando played poor defense ? LeBron 07-08 and 10-11 got exposed as fundamentally flawed player. post game is what seperated him from being a truly GOAT-level player. adding post-game and improving the defense were two of the main reasons why Miami won a title this year. what makes this so funny to me, is that you actually acknowledge Dirk's improvement but the very same rule doesn't apply to LeBron. just looks like a huge double standard.

[colts18]

The '86 Rockets weren't a good team? Right, because conference champions are not good teams

Hakeem and Sampson was an INSANE combo. Hakeem averaged 27-12 with 4 blocks per game in those Playoffs. Sampson played off him and went 20-11-4... 4 apg as a 4 when he wasn't even having the offense run through him? That guy was GOOD.

The Rockets had games when Hakeem went 38-16-4 with 6 steals and 5 blocks.

They had games when Hakeem and Sampson sprung for 36-19 and 33-17-10 in the same goddamn game.

They also made the Finals WITHOUT their third best player, John Lucas, who was a 16-8 guy off the bench behind Hakeem and Sampson.

To think that the '03 Spurs competition was better than the '86 Celtics' competition is just laughable.

I'm guessing you think the Nets are also a good team because they were conference champions.

The 86 Bulls were a +0.5 team with MJ and basically averaged that in 85 and 87 with a healthy MJ. The Suns won 44 games with a 1.57 SRS. They were the better team. Advantage Spurs.

The 03 Mavs and 86 Bucks were both 8+ SRS teams. The Mavs had Dirk for 3 games, the Bucks had Moncrief for only 3 games, but Moncrief was injured in that series. So both are equal opponents.


The Hawks are a 2.59 team while the 03 Nets were a +4.42 team. The Nets had a pythagorean 56-26 record. They weren't that bad of a team, just horrible offensively.

Then it comes down to 03 Lakers and 86 Rockets. The 03 Lakers do have the better SRS. They also had a healthy Shaq and Kobe. Maybe the 86 Rockets are better but that doesn't overcome the gap in the other 3 matchups. At best, the playoff slates are equal.