Ranking the most dominant team championship runs since 86

[rebirthoftheM]

Lots of good points made above, many which I agree with and will get to below. Need to stress that my list is based on the given team’s playoff play, and not their RS play. RS play only factors when I’m considering opponents i.e. their ORTG/DRTG and SRS. Should also note that the list I posted above is not my own personal list. The above list makes no adjustments for injuries, dead line trades and signings, certain teams reg. season SRS not accurately capturing their worth as a team, SRS being inherently problematic measurement of team dominance etc. It’s just numbers based relative to a given year. There are also narrative factors that aren’t accounted for- the 95 rockets and 11 Mavericks for example accomplished something special that I don’t think many teams did. It is these factors that IMO start giving color to number based lists.

The formula I used was as below, and will try and justify why I went along these lines)

rORTG+rDRTG+[Winning Percentage*10]+ [oppSRS*2] +MOV – STDEV.P (SRS)

Rortg & Rdrtg: Pretty straight forward. This accounts for how dominant a given championship team was on offense and defense relative to how good the offense and defense of their opponents were. Since a given teams PS ORTG and DRTG is calculated on a game-by-game basis, and not a series basis, I weighted how many games a given championship team played against a certain team to calculate the average opp ORTG and DRTG.

Winning Percentage*10: Straight forward again. I timed it by 10 to give it value in this calculation, otherwise it’d become irrelevant as far as separating teams.

oppSRS*2: This is based on reg. season SRS and weighted on a game-by-game basis. Now this is a particular value judgement on my side, but I timed it by two also. While SRS is not a perfect measurement, it nevertheless attempts to quantify a team’s strength in a given year. Since I included MOV which ignores team strength consideration altogether, there was a danger of strength of competition being swamped by other parts of this equation. We know for example that it I generally easier to dominate lesser teams than it is stronger teams, meaning Rortg and Rdrtg can themselves be deceiving. When combined with MOV, teams that dominated lesser competition would get too much of a boost IMO. Multiplying SRS by 2 provided some balance here.

MOV: See above. We still need to credit teams for how well/not so well they dominated their opponents, irrespective of the quality of competition. Certain veteran teams for example might take their foot of the gas against a team they know they’ll beat anyways, but still destroy them nevertheless (but not far and beyond their opponent’s average ORTG and DRTG). Also, need to give credit to teams like the 16 Cavs that handled their business in the EC, even if the competition was not so great. This provides balance to this calculation IMO.

STDEV.P (SRS): Now this one is particularly contentious. I am not a stats guy, so I am not 100% sure if standard deviation of a population is the correct thing to do here. Nevertheless, it only slightly modifies the position of the teams, mostly within tiers, and therefore is not a massive factor like the other parts of the formula.

I included this again as a value judgement on my side. Looking through the last 32 champions, there were certain teams that faced porous competition for 1, 2 and sometimes 3 rounds (see late 80s Lakers for an example) through the playoffs, and then faced a juggernaut in the finals. This inconsistent competition IMO provided these teams with advantages other teams did not have. These advantages included the ability to rest up, tinker around with line-ups to see what would work, build team chemistry and confidence etc, all leading to the finals. Other contending teams simply did not have that luxury. Each round was a battle, and this all accumulated to extra stresses on their side. I consider the latter to be more impressive the former, and therefore attempt to reward teams that faced consistent competition all through the playoffs.

This doesn’t work out perfectly though. For example, if a team faced 2 8 SRS teams, and then 2 3 SRS teams, the STDEV.P would be 2.5, which per my ranking, would put them in the bottom 10 as per consistency of competition. Logically though, this would be unfair to punish them at all. However, in the case of the champions since 86, most of the team punished because of inconsistent strength of competition were teams that really faced some bad/inferior competition earlier on in the playoffs. The 13 Heat are a good example of this- they faced two negative SRS teams in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs.

And again, even if this semi-attempt at quantifying consistency of competition is excluded, there wouldn’t be massive movement for the most part. For example, the 01 Lakers would still be #1 in its own tier, Warriors #2 and 96 Bulls #3, and the 88 Lakers still last, in its own awful tier. However, the rankings within tiers would change. The 16 Cavs would jump a position to 5th for example. The bottom 10 would remain the same, just in different orders. The 87 Lakers would jump into the top 10 just above the 98 Bulls which would be a massive change to be honest. And to be honest, seeing the 87 Lakers jump that high gives me confidence that some adjustment for consistency of competition is required.

[rebirthoftheM]

Some team notes

16 Cavs: I have no problem with them being rated very highly. They annihilated their EC competition, which means they handled their business. They then took down a high quality team. I am not one of those that would adjust their ranking because of Curry's injury. IMO, they Cavs defense v the Warriors was very admirable and majorly contributed to Curry's offensive problems. Playing with Injuries is part and parcel of basketball, and Curry in the preceding 9 games leading into the finals was playing pretty damn well.

I do appreciate the arguments though that take aim at the weakness of the Eastern Conference. And if one wants to rank them lower because of this, feel free. But then by the same token, the late 80s Lakers should also get docked massively.

04 Pistons: To be honest, I would have them higher. Per the ranking, their defense was in a completely different tier to any other team in the post season since 86. I am one of those that believe that even with Karl Malone in for the Lakers, the series would have ended in 5. And they showed some great perseverance in the grind-out Eastern Conference.

01 Lakers vs 17 Warriors: I agree with the 01 Lakers being in a higher tier than the 17 Warriors. Their rORTG/rDRTG + SRSfaced was too hard to overcome. I also cannot ignore on a subjective level that the Warriors played teams with major injuries (though this did not inform the calculations). Meanwhile IIRC, the major injury for Lakers opponents was Derek Anderson, who to say the least was not a major game-changer. And the consistency of competition for the 01 Lakers run was excellent.

96 Bulls vs 17 Warriors: To make it clear, the Warriors do have a clear, but close-ish margin with the 96 Bulls, which is why I put them together. Accounting for injuries though, to me the are pretty even. Some Warriors fans might disagree, but we can't just ignore Kawhi Leonard going down in game 1 or what happened with the Blazers.

98 Bulls: They were 6th in rDRTG which is too hard to overlook, and unlike the 04 Pistons they still did well in several other categories. I mean, subjectively speaking, I think they were weaker than 93 Bulls for example, but per what they did in the PS, their defense pushes them. I do recognize though that post-expansion teams entering the NBA, the SRS of teams faced might have been inflated. Hard to account for that using numbers though.

89 Pistons: Way too high IMO. I cannot ignore how they barely beat the Chicago Bulls nor the fact that B-Scott was out, and Magic was playing with one leg (and I don't think Magic's health problems were at all comparable to Curry's in 16).

11 Mavericks and 95 Rockets: As I've repeated before, I would bump these two teams up. Hella Impressive runs when considering nobody really rated them, and played multiple series without HCA.

My own takeaway from this, with focus on how a particular team did against their competition in their championship run, is that Michael Jordan's 90s Bulls were amazingly dominant. Many decry the weakness of the 90s, and perhaps their dominance adds more fuel to the fire. But I was surprised by this. MJ's Bulls account for 4 out of the top 8 championship runs since 86, with the 93 Bulls sneaking in at #13, right there with the 11th ranked 15 Warriors.

[Lost92Bricks]

'93 Bulls and '02 Lakers are underrated.

Bulls swept the first round, swept the Cavs (6+ SRS), went down 0-2 against 60 win Knicks then won 4 straight. Then in the finals against a 62 win Suns team they win in 6 without homecourt.

At one point they went on a 6 game win streak against two 60+ win teams.

Lakers went a ridiculous 8-4 against the Spurs and Kings after sweeping the first round and then eventually swept the finals. That is remarkable.

[Jonny Blaze]

The warriors are a tier up from the bulls. The bulls are insanely good as they were,

The bulls lost 3 games in the playoffs including two in the finals. Meanwhile the warriors cruised and lost of the defending champions. I'm fine wtih the 01 lakers as the best playoff run, but the warriors are much closer to the 01 lakers than the 96 bulls.

93 bulls seems a bit underrated. 14 spurs seem high. I struggle with the 04 pistons so high and the 05 spurs so far behind them (ok neither was high) but just a gut feeling, you did the research.

I feel the west due to being the better conference the last 20+ years isn't getting a fair shake here, but all and all it's a good list and clearly you put some time into this.

14 Spurs' tier was alright. They DESTROYED the super-team Heat, made them look like a bunch of scrubs alongside LeBron.

The 2014 Heat went 54-28. That is not the mark of a super team.

For some reason the 2014 Spurs get all this credit for destroying a 54-28 team in the Finals and not for getting taken to 7 games by an 8 seed in the first round.

[Jonny Blaze]

The 2011 Mavs ended the seasons of LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant (Former MVP), Russell Westbrook(Former MVP), Kevin Durant(Former MVP), James Harden, Dwayne Wade(Former NBA Finals MVP), Chris Bosh and Lebron James(Former MVP).

Russell Westbrook wasn't a former MVP in 2011.

As a matter of fact, he isn't a former MVP now. He's the current MVP.

Durant wasn't a former MVP in 2011 either.

Although it's common practice on the internet, you can't retroactively credit players with things they hadn't done yet at the point in time being discussed.

My point remains the same. The 2011 Mavs ran through some very, very, very good players.

I constantly challenge people on this website to name me an NBA champion that defeated more superstars than the 2011 Mavs and I rarely get a rebuttal.

If the OP is talking about strictly post season than the 2011 Mavs are higher than tier 6.
-16-5 overall.
-12-3 against three teams that could be considered "super teams" (Los Angeles, Miami, OKC)
-7-3 post season road record
- defeated LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Russell Westrbook, James Harden, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James and Chris Bosh.

[rebirthoftheM]

The 2011 Mavs ended the seasons of LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant (Former MVP), Russell Westbrook(Former MVP), Kevin Durant(Former MVP), James Harden, Dwayne Wade(Former NBA Finals MVP), Chris Bosh and Lebron James(Former MVP).

Russell Westbrook wasn't a former MVP in 2011.

As a matter of fact, he isn't a former MVP now. He's the current MVP.

Durant wasn't a former MVP in 2011 either.

Although it's common practice on the internet, you can't retroactively credit players with things they hadn't done yet at the point in time being discussed.

My point remains the same. The 2011 Mavs ran through some very, very, very good players.

I constantly challenge people on this website to name me an NBA champion that defeated more superstars than the 2011 Mavs and I rarely get a rebuttal.

If the OP is talking about strictly post season than the 2011 Mavs are higher than tier 6.
-16-5 overall.
-12-3 against three teams that could be considered "super teams" (Los Angeles, Miami, OKC)
-7-3 post season road record
- defeated LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Russell Westrbook, James Harden, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James and Chris Bosh.

The narrative factor is with them for sure. But that is not captured in the numbers. The numbers dont even rate the 11 Mavs as having faced the most difficult of competition.

I do agree with you though that the 11 Mavs are underrated in a historical sense. Like I said, that list would not be my personal one (i.e. when i factor in my own subjective thoughts) and one of the teams id bump up majorly would be the 11 Mavericks. But I still cant put them over the 01 Lakers/96 Bulls/17 Warriors/91 Bulls etc.

[Jonny Blaze]

Russell Westbrook wasn't a former MVP in 2011.

As a matter of fact, he isn't a former MVP now. He's the current MVP.

Durant wasn't a former MVP in 2011 either.

Although it's common practice on the internet, you can't retroactively credit players with things they hadn't done yet at the point in time being discussed.

My point remains the same. The 2011 Mavs ran through some very, very, very good players.

I constantly challenge people on this website to name me an NBA champion that defeated more superstars than the 2011 Mavs and I rarely get a rebuttal.

If the OP is talking about strictly post season than the 2011 Mavs are higher than tier 6.
-16-5 overall.
-12-3 against three teams that could be considered "super teams" (Los Angeles, Miami, OKC)
-7-3 post season road record
- defeated LaMarcus Aldridge, Pau Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Russell Westrbook, James Harden, Dwayne Wade, Lebron James and Chris Bosh.

The narrative factor is with them for sure. But that is not captured in the numbers. The numbers dont even rate the 11 Mavs as having faced the most difficult of competition.

I do agree with you though that the 11 Mavs are underrated in a historical sense. Like I said, that list would not be my personal one (i.e. when i factor in my own subjective thoughts) and one of the teams id bump up majorly would be the 11 Mavericks. But I still cant put them over the 01 Lakers/96 Bulls/17 Warriors/91 Bulls etc.

We are not that far apart on this subject.
There are teams that are a cut above everyone else (Warriors, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Bulls).

The 2011 Mavs stack up to any other title team outside of these squads.

There is this narrative that the Mavs lucked out, or got hot at the right time which is based on the media constantly calling this team old choke artist. Things that were based on the 2007 and 2010 Mavs. Teams that were totally different than what the Mavs put on the court in 2011.

I'll see people on this website rank the Mavs as the worst title team ever, and its baffling.

This youtube video perfectly illustrates my thoughts on the 2011 Mavs title run.

Watch on YouTube

[oldschooled]

14 Spurs maybe getting overrated here and the early 90's Bulls getting underrated. Bring down 16 Cavs 2 spots and you're good to go. They won the chip with Curry clearly injured and Bron complaining to commissioner to suspend Draymond. Warriors win that series in 5 if not for the suspension.

[dhsilv2]

14 Spurs maybe getting overrated here and the early 90's Bulls getting underrated. Bring down 16 Cavs 2 spots and you're good to go. They won the chip with Curry clearly injured and Bron complaining to commissioner to suspend Draymond. Warriors win that series in 5 if not for the suspension.

I feel tiers are areas of concern but 2 spots? If that's a complaint, DAMN these are good

[andrewww]

Off the back of the dominant run of the 17 Warriors, what are the best and worst championship runs since 86? Emphasis here is not how great a particular team was absolutely, but how they did in their given championship run. Also has nothing to do with how they would compete against one another nor does it involve narrative factors (i.e. a team being teams against all odds like the 95 Rockets).

My own formula, which takes into account how well a team scored and defended relative to their competition, the strength of their competition (SRS*- though SRS is relative to the given year only), absolute scoring margin, winning record and the consistency of competition, I got, tiering teams together (and noted some thing that might have inflated/deflated certain team results)

Tier #1

1. 01 Lakers

Tier #2

2. 17 Warriors* (Kawhi Leonard missed WCF)
3. 96 Bulls

Tier #3

4. 91 Bulls
5. 14 Spurs
6. 16 Cavs
7. 89 Pistons* (Magic and Scott injured in the finals)

Tier #4

8. 97 Bulls
9. 98 Bulls
10. 86 Celtics

Tier #5

11. 15 Warriors* (Kyrie & Love MIA)
12. 09 Lakers
13. 93 Bulls
14. 87 Lakers

Tier #6

15. 11 Mavericks
16. 12 Heat
17. 99 Spurs* (Patrick Ewing absent in Finals)
18. 02 Lakers

Tier #7

19. 92 Bulls
20. 04 Pistons
21. 90 Pistons
22. 03 Spurs
23. 95 Rockets

Tier #8

24. 10 Lakers
25. 13 Heat
26. 07 Spurs
27. 94 Rockets
28. 05 Spurs

Tier #9

29. 00 Lakers
30. 06 Heat
31. 08 Celtics* (Played Lakers and Cavs, whose reg. season numbers were highly misleading because of late season trades)

Tier #10

32. 88 Lakers

Thoughts? Where would you rank the above teams?

I don't think the 16 Cavs deserve to be mentioned on the same tier as the 14 Spurs. The 16 Cavs were a very good isolation offense but the 14 Spurs would have picked apart that defense, and with Kawhi and Duncan walling off the paint I would have put the 14 Spurs at perhaps the 3rd of 4th best run on this list.

[Jonny Blaze]

Off the back of the dominant run of the 17 Warriors, what are the best and worst championship runs since 86? Emphasis here is not how great a particular team was absolutely, but how they did in their given championship run. Also has nothing to do with how they would compete against one another nor does it involve narrative factors (i.e. a team being teams against all odds like the 95 Rockets).

My own formula, which takes into account how well a team scored and defended relative to their competition, the strength of their competition (SRS*- though SRS is relative to the given year only), absolute scoring margin, winning record and the consistency of competition, I got, tiering teams together (and noted some thing that might have inflated/deflated certain team results)

Tier #1

1. 01 Lakers

Tier #2

2. 17 Warriors* (Kawhi Leonard missed WCF)
3. 96 Bulls

Tier #3

4. 91 Bulls
5. 14 Spurs
6. 16 Cavs
7. 89 Pistons* (Magic and Scott injured in the finals)

Tier #4

8. 97 Bulls
9. 98 Bulls
10. 86 Celtics

Tier #5

11. 15 Warriors* (Kyrie & Love MIA)
12. 09 Lakers
13. 93 Bulls
14. 87 Lakers

Tier #6

15. 11 Mavericks
16. 12 Heat
17. 99 Spurs* (Patrick Ewing absent in Finals)
18. 02 Lakers

Tier #7

19. 92 Bulls
20. 04 Pistons
21. 90 Pistons
22. 03 Spurs
23. 95 Rockets

Tier #8

24. 10 Lakers
25. 13 Heat
26. 07 Spurs
27. 94 Rockets
28. 05 Spurs

Tier #9

29. 00 Lakers
30. 06 Heat
31. 08 Celtics* (Played Lakers and Cavs, whose reg. season numbers were highly misleading because of late season trades)

Tier #10

32. 88 Lakers

Thoughts? Where would you rank the above teams?

I don't think the 16 Cavs deserve to be mentioned on the same tier as the 14 Spurs. The 16 Cavs were a very good isolation offense but the 14 Spurs would have picked apart that defense, and with Kawhi and Duncan walling off the paint I would have put the 14 Spurs at perhaps the 3rd of 4th best run on this list.

The Spurs were 16-7 overall. Which is kind of normal for a title team. If you look at title teams 16-7 is typically the median record of teams that win it al.

They got taken to 7 game in the first round by an 8 seed Dallas team.
They destroyed a 54-28 Miami Heat team in the Finals.

54 wins is below average for a team in the NBA Finals. Most teams that make the NBA Finals win between 57-62 games a year.

Im not sure why the 2014 Spurs are so elevated on this message board.

[rebirthoftheM]

Off the back of the dominant run of the 17 Warriors, what are the best and worst championship runs since 86? Emphasis here is not how great a particular team was absolutely, but how they did in their given championship run. Also has nothing to do with how they would compete against one another nor does it involve narrative factors (i.e. a team being teams against all odds like the 95 Rockets).

My own formula, which takes into account how well a team scored and defended relative to their competition, the strength of their competition (SRS*- though SRS is relative to the given year only), absolute scoring margin, winning record and the consistency of competition, I got, tiering teams together (and noted some thing that might have inflated/deflated certain team results)

Tier #1

1. 01 Lakers

Tier #2

2. 17 Warriors* (Kawhi Leonard missed WCF)
3. 96 Bulls

Tier #3

4. 91 Bulls
5. 14 Spurs
6. 16 Cavs
7. 89 Pistons* (Magic and Scott injured in the finals)

Tier #4

8. 97 Bulls
9. 98 Bulls
10. 86 Celtics

Tier #5

11. 15 Warriors* (Kyrie & Love MIA)
12. 09 Lakers
13. 93 Bulls
14. 87 Lakers

Tier #6

15. 11 Mavericks
16. 12 Heat
17. 99 Spurs* (Patrick Ewing absent in Finals)
18. 02 Lakers

Tier #7

19. 92 Bulls
20. 04 Pistons
21. 90 Pistons
22. 03 Spurs
23. 95 Rockets

Tier #8

24. 10 Lakers
25. 13 Heat
26. 07 Spurs
27. 94 Rockets
28. 05 Spurs

Tier #9

29. 00 Lakers
30. 06 Heat
31. 08 Celtics* (Played Lakers and Cavs, whose reg. season numbers were highly misleading because of late season trades)

Tier #10

32. 88 Lakers

Thoughts? Where would you rank the above teams?

I don't think the 16 Cavs deserve to be mentioned on the same tier as the 14 Spurs. The 16 Cavs were a very good isolation offense but the 14 Spurs would have picked apart that defense, and with Kawhi and Duncan walling off the paint I would have put the 14 Spurs at perhaps the 3rd of 4th best run on this list.

You're right in the sense that head to head the Cavs would not beat several of the teams below them.

But the list had nothing to do with head to head or the actual talent/structure of the given team. It had to do with number stuff. 16 Cavs get a major boost from beating the 10 plus SRS Warriors and annahiliating the EC. Warps the numbers completely and on a subjective level, I defs could entertain them being lower.