Spoiler:
Overall SRS: My combo-SRS from the regular season and playoffs as discussed in the master thread
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.
When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).
So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.
I also list the playoff players (20+ MPG) in order of OLoad (which is usage that integrates assists) and it has everyone's per game average for minutes, points, rebounds, assists and stocks (steals plus blocks), but all of those (including minutes) are adjusted for pace.
I then cover the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.
I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.
Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.
I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).
In later entries I also add the Offensive and Defensive Ratings for each playoff series. This is just how well the team did, adjusted by the opponent's regular season average (if you play a team with an average Defensive Rating of 102, and you play them with an offensive rating of 106, you get credited with a +4). Pace for teams below 1973 or so is estimated based on regular season numbers, so it could easily be wrong by some.
In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.
I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's basically me weighting each statistical characteristic and feeding each player's stats into the BackPicks database and choosing the best-rated comp from the list. I might list something like this:
PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)
What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).
Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.
When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).
So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.
I also list the playoff players (20+ MPG) in order of OLoad (which is usage that integrates assists) and it has everyone's per game average for minutes, points, rebounds, assists and stocks (steals plus blocks), but all of those (including minutes) are adjusted for pace.
I then cover the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.
I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.
Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.
I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).
In later entries I also add the Offensive and Defensive Ratings for each playoff series. This is just how well the team did, adjusted by the opponent's regular season average (if you play a team with an average Defensive Rating of 102, and you play them with an offensive rating of 106, you get credited with a +4). Pace for teams below 1973 or so is estimated based on regular season numbers, so it could easily be wrong by some.
In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.
I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's basically me weighting each statistical characteristic and feeding each player's stats into the BackPicks database and choosing the best-rated comp from the list. I might list something like this:
PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)
What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).
Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!
#10. The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers
Spoiler:
Overall SRS: +11.36, Standard Deviations: +2.52, Won NBA Finals (Preseason Tied-1st)
PG: Magic Johnson, +6.7 / +6.6
SG: Byron Scott, +0.9 / +1.4
SF: James Worthy, +1.6 / +3.5
PF: Kurt Rambis, +0.0 / +1.2
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, +5.1 / +5.4
6th: Michael Cooper, +1.5 / +3.4
7th: Bob McAdoo, -2.1 / -4.5
Regular Season Metrics:
Regular Season Record: 62-20, Regular Season SRS: +6.48 (55th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +6.2 (15th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -0.9 (91st)
Shooting Advantage: +6.2%, Possession Advantage: -4.8 shooting possessions per game
Magic Johnson (PG, 25): 35 MPPG, 25% OLoad, 18 / 6 / 12 / 2 on +9.4%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C, 37): 32 MPPG, 23% OLoad, 21 / 8 / 3 / 3 on +8.5%
Bob McAdoo (PF, 33): 18 MPPG, 21% OLoad, 10 / 4 / 1 / 1 on +1.6%
Byron Scott (SG, 23): 28 MPPG, 21% OLoad, 16 / 3 / 3 / 1 on +4.4%
James Worthy (SF, 23): 33 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 17 / 6 / 2 / 2 on +5.8%
Michael Cooper (SG, 28): 26 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 8 / 3 / 5 / 2 on -0.4%
Kurt Rambis (PF, 26): 19 MPPG, 11% OLoad, 5 / 6 / 1 / 2 on +3.4%
Scoring/100: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (30.7 / +8.5%), Byron Scott (26.1 / +4.4%), Bob McAdoo (25.6 / +1.6%)
Assists/100: Magic Johnson (16.2), Michael Cooper (9.1), Byron Scott (4.9)
Heliocentrism: 35.7% (41st of 84 teams) - Magic
Wingmen: 42.7% (20th) - Kareem & Worthy
Depth: 21.6% (58th)
Playoff Metrics:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +9.83 (10th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -2.74 (79th)
Playoff SRS: +14.36 (11th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +4.88 (8th)
Shooting Advantage: +6.5%, Possession Advantage: -3.4 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.44 (46th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -0.73 (78th)
Magic Johnson (PG, 25): 35 MPPG, 26% OLoad, 17 / 7 / 15 / 2 on +5.6%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C, 37): 31 MPPG, 24% OLoad, 21 / 8 / 4 / 3 on +5.9%
Bob McAdoo (PF, 33): 20 MPPG, 22% OLoad, 11 / 4 / 1 / 2 on -3.5%
Byron Scott (SG, 23): 30 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 16 / 3 / 3 / 2 on +1.7%
James Worthy (SF, 23): 32 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 21 / 5 / 2 / 2 on +10.3%
Michael Cooper (SG, 28): 26 MPPG, 16% OLoad, 10 / 4 / 5 / 2 on +12.2%
Kurt Rambis (PF, 26): 19 MPPG, 11% OLoad, 6 / 7 / 1 / 1 on +7.3%
Scoring/100: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (30.3 / +5.9%), James Worthy (29.0 / +10.3%), Byron Scott (24.4 / +1.7%)
Assists/100: Magic Johnson (18.7), Michael Cooper (8.3), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (5.5)
Playoff Heliocentrism: 31.9% (56th of 84 teams) - Magic
Playoff Wingmen: 44.7% (23rd) - Kareem & Worthy
Playoff Depth: 23.4% (48th)
Round 1: Phoenix Suns (-2.3), won 3-0, by +20.3 points per game (+18.0 SRS eq)
Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (+3.2), won 4-1, by +11.0 points per game (+14.2 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+5.4), won 4-1, by +12.2 points per game (+17.6 SRS eq)
Round 4: Boston Celtics (+7.4), won 4-2, by +2.6 points per game (+10.0 SRS eq)
Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:
Phoenix Suns: +17.8 / +1.2
Portland Trail Blazers: +10.7 / -2.7
Denver Nuggets: +9.0 / -4.1
Boston Celtics: +6.0 / -3.1
Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per game (unadjusted):
Phoenix Suns: +7.3% / +2.5
Portland Trail Blazers: +7.4% / -5.0
Denver Nuggets: +9.1% / -7.5
Boston Celtics: +2.2% / -2.0
Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:
Magic Johnson: -0.5% / -3.1%
Byron Scott: -1.2% / -2.0%
James Worthy: +0.6% / +5.2%
Kurt Rambis: -0.1% / +4.6%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +0.9% / -1.9%
Michael Cooper: -0.6% / +13.3%
Bob McAdoo: +0.9% / -4.4%
Magic Johnson led seven teams in my Top 100. To be clear, he was on eight; Kareem is considered (by box score metrics) to have been the best player only on the 1980 team. Only LeBron and Russell led more (8 and 9 respectively). From Magic’s entry into the league in 1980 to his departure from the league as a result of his HIV diagnosis in 1991, the Lakers were a fixture in the NBA Finals. In those 12 years they won 5 championships and won the West 9 times. This team, the 1985 Lakers, occurred in the middle of that run. And yet, if indeed this was the best of those teams (which it may or may not be), I feel as though we owe ourselves a serious walkthrough of their achievements.
First, their offense. The Lakers’ offense with Magic was consistently outstanding. From 1980 to 1991 (not counting ‘81), the Lakers *averaged* a +5.2 offensive rating in the regular season. If that were a team on this list, that would be in the top 30 in RS offensive rating. But that was just the *average* for the Magic Johnson Lakers. And in the playoffs they jump, averaging a +7.8 offensive rating in the series for which we have that stat (adjusted against the regular season defensive rating of opponents). If that was a team on my list it would be #20, and again, that was the *average* Lakers playoff offense. Their offensive rating jumped every single year from the regular season to the playoffs except 1983, and even that is suspect (because we’re missing the stats on one of those series). Here’s the full table of Regular Season / Playoff Adjusted Offensive Ratings:
1980: +4.2 / +5.1
1982: +3.3 / +8.2
1983: +5.8 / +2.8
1984: +3.3 / +7.5
1985: +6.2 / +10.9
1986: +6.1 / +8.0
1987: +7.3 / +10.9
1988: +5.1 / +7.5
1989: +6.0 / +9.8
1990: +5.9 / +8.7
1991: +4.2 / +6.0
So their offenses were historically excellent. Note that their worst regular season offense was at +3.3, and (aside from their clunker in ‘83) their playoff offenses were excellent. Is this evidence of offensive inelasticity? Sort of.
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings worse than average: +8.8 Adjusted Offensive Rating
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings between -3 and average: +8.6 Adjusted Offensive Rating
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings better than -3: +6.8 Adjusted Offensive Rating
So there is evidence that against good defenses they were slowed slightly. But let the record show that even this ‘slowed down’ mark is better than their regular season average. The Lakers in this era always hit another gear in the playoffs (and against playoff defenses), but better defenses were more resistant to that effect than others. This level of offensive consistency is remarkable and notable for its duration; it’s hard not to credit Magic for much of it.
But many have observed (including myself) that the Lakers had unusually easy playoffs. Just how true is that? Well, I can say that of the eight Lakers teams in my Top 100, most of them show as below average in average opponent quality in the playoffs, but the pattern is pretty weird:
1980 Lakers: 57th
1982 Lakers: 55th
1984 Lakers: 88th
1985 Lakers: 75th
1986 Lakers: 96th
1987 Lakers: 95th
1989 Lakers: 35th
1991 Lakers: 12th
Interesting pattern, no? First off, the late 89s/early 90s Lakers played quite tough schedules. By that point the KJ Suns and Drexler/Porter Blazers had emerged in the West, and the Pistons/Bulls made for outstanding foes in the Finals. And their schedules in the beginning of the decade were middle of the pack. But what happened in ‘84? Simple, the playoffs expanded to be 16 teams instead of 12. For those first years, the Lakers got byes. But in ‘84 they started playing first round games. And at that point, 8 of the 13 teams in the West made the playoffs. Which meant that some unusually bad teams started showing up in those first round games. This doesn’t change that the mid-80s West had zero legitimate challengers to the Lakers. But the addition of that first round makes their SoS look weaker than it was. Let’s take a tour of the Lakers’ success against every OSRS tier:
Against Teams Below +3 OSRS: 15-1
Against Teams Between +3 and +6: 10-0
Against Teams Between +6 and +8: 5-2
Against Teams Between +8 and +10: 1-3
Against Teams Above +10: 1-1
Those first two lines are where the Magic Johnson Lakers were most remarkable. Against teams below +6 OSRS the Lakers were 25-1 over those 12 seasons (the one loss was the ‘81 Rockets). They didn’t lose to bad teams, they didn’t lose to good teams, they didn’t even lose to very good teams. Against teams above +6? They were 7-6. Which is nothing to brag about, but then, if over 12 years you’re drawing even against teams that are +6 or above . . . that means your teams were consistently pretty excellent. The Lakers of this era shouldn’t get credit for being unstoppable, and they surely benefited from a lot of easier matchups before ‘88, but they were clockwork against non-great teams. And that itself is pretty remarkable.
And are we sure that their opponents were thaaaat weak? Let’s compare these numbers to those of Bird’s Celtics through ‘88:
Teams Worse than +3 OSRS: Magic 41%, Bird 32%
Teams Between +3 and +6: Magic 26%, Bird 32%
Teams Between +6 and +8: Magic 18%, Bird 25%
Teams Between +8 and +10: Magic 10%, Bird 4%
Teams Better than +10 OSRS: Magic 5%, Bird 7%
Did Magic have the easier schedule? Yeah, by some. His average opponent was 0.4 OSRS worse than Bird’s. And that does count, though it’s a pretty small difference. How about their records against those teams?
Teams Worse than +3 OSRS: Magic 15-1, Bird 9-0
Teams Between +3 and +6: Magic 10-0, Bird 7-2
Teams Between +6 and +8: Magic 5-2, Bird 6-1
Teams Between +8 and +10: Magic 1-3, Bird 0-1
Teams Better than +10 OSRS: Magic 1-1, Bird 0-2
So let’s assume that below +6, these teams have a fairly guaranteed win. Where was the first time that these teams run into teams at that level or higher each year?
For the Lakers:
In the Finals: 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988 (50%)
Conference Finals: 1986, 1989, 1991 (25%)
Semi-Finals: 1990 (8%)
Knocked out by sub-6: 1981 (8%)
Never Played One: 1987 (8%)
For the Celtics:
In the Finals: 1984 (11%)
Conference Finals: 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 (67%)
Knocked out by sub-6: 1980, 1983 (22%)
It’s here that I think the difference becomes most apparent.
Advantage Lakers: They were only eliminated once by a sub-6 team in 12 seasons, compared with twice in 9 seasons for the Celtics
Advantage Celtics: They sure as heck never had the advantage of never running into a 6+ team in a postseason.
Advantage Lakers: They ran into a 6+ in the Semis in 1990, something the Celtics never had to deal with.
Massive Advantage Celtics: 50% of the time the Lakers didn’t run into a 6+ team until the Finals; 67% of the time the Celtics ran into theirs in the Conference Finals.
I think the argument can be made that by ‘89-91, the Lakers’ postseason schedule was as tough as anything the Celtics ever had to deal with. But it’s pretty clear that before ‘89, the West was simply devoid of legitimate challengers (in fact, the only pre-’89 “challenger” was the Rockets coming out of nowhere in ‘86). And the Celtics *always* had a strong team in their conference except for one year.
But that 25-1 against sub +6 teams though. That’s really unusual historically. I cast about for some other comparisons. Russell’s 13 years had them as 25-1 against sub-6 teams (for whatever my OSRS numbers are worth for that era). The Bulls from ‘87 to ‘98 were 20-1 against sub-6 teams. The Spurs from 2005-2016 were 15-2 against sub-6 teams (best 12 year span for that sort of thing for them). This is a long way of saying that, when it came to taking care of business against non-contenders, these Lakers were about as good as it got historically. So they got a break by getting eight years of a really weak conference. But they were better than pretty much every team ever over Magic’s career at taking care of business when it came to weaker teams.
Can we take their five championships at face value? Probably not. They truly did have one of the weaker eight-year stretches of conference competition. That said, they drew very few weak Finals opponents, so it wasn’t exactly a cakewalk. But as far as sustained excellence, the Lakers’ 12 year run is about as good as we’ve seen (the three major rivals here are Russell who won way more rings, but in a league 40% as big, the Bulls who had six crazy years and six less so, and the Spurs who had more like eighteen years against far greater competition, but perhaps still never having as good a twelve year run).
Anyhow. The Showtime Lakers. For better or for worse. But how did we come to be here?
In 1972 the Lakers went 69-13, posting one of the best regular seasons ever and winning the NBA championship. It was the culmination of two great careers, those of Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West. In 1973 they ran it back and fell to the Knicks 4-1 in the Finals. In ‘74 Chamberlain left the team and West missed much of the season with an injury. The Lakers won 47 games and were quickly eliminated from the playoffs in the first round. In ‘75 West retired and the Lakers became adrift, winning 30 games. Desperate to shake things up, the Lakers traded most of their best young players to the Bucks for a frustrated Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The Lakers improved to 40 wins, carried almost completely by Abdul-Jabbar. In ‘77 the team improved to 53 wins, making the second round before losing to Bill Walton’s Blazers. In ‘78 Kareem missed some time and the team dropped to 45 wins and a first round exit. In ‘79 the Lakers won 47 games and made the Semis. By this time they already had many of the pieces for their future runs: 31 year-old Kareem, 25 year-old Jamaal Wilkes, 23 year-old Norm Nixon and 22 year-old Michael Cooper. But the team took a massive jump forward in 1980:
Their SRS went from +2.95 to +5.40
Their offensive rating went from +2.3 to +4.2 (best in the league)
Their defensive rating went from -0.6 to -1.4
Their eFG% jumped from 51.7% to 53.0%
Their ORB% jumped from 27.6% to 32.6%
And all of those improvements were *with* trading away a young Adrian Dantley (who, in fairness, wasn’t exactly setting the league on fire at that point in his career).
So they trade away a skilled young scorer, yet their team jumps from good to contender-level (in 1980, +5 was pretty strong). They improve on both sides of the ball, score better and dominate the glass more? How did they get so much better? It’s almost like it was . . . Magic
The Lakers went into a very curious off-and-on pattern of winning titles. They won in 1980, only to fall in the first round of the ‘81 playoffs. They won in ‘82, but fell to the Sixers hard in ‘83 and barely lost to the Celtics in a tight seven-game Finals.
By 1985 the roster that would, more or less, dominate the West for the next several years was basically intact.
Modern Comps:
PG: 2002 John Stockton (way better on offense)
SG: 2008 Leandro Barbosa
SF: 2006 Shareef Abdur-Rahim
PF: 2005 Joel Przybilla
C: 2013 Blake Griffin (much better scorer, worse rebounder)
6th: 2008 Anthony Carter
7th: 2012 Luis Scola
Magic was a freak. His passing was at a level that has, perhaps, never been seen since. But he also took a fair amount of shots and made them at McHale levels of efficiency. So to sell him purely as a passer is unfair; his scoring is excellent (if not in high volume). Stockton is a weak comp, but the list of players that are ATG passers, incredibly efficient scorers (but on only average volume) and with a strong (for a PG) defensive presence is pretty damned thin. They had a solid scoring two (Barbosa/Scott), a solid scoring three (Worthy/Abdur-Rahim), a defense/rebounding big (Rambis/Przybilla) and off the bench a defensive point guard (Cooper/Carter) and a low-value high-usage big (McAdoo/Scola). The Griffin comparison is garbage, but at this point Kareem was still a strong scorer and solid passer/defender but an unusually light rebounder.
So. The Lakers are fairly set, Kareem is still excellent (if now past his peak), Cooper had developed and Byron Scott and James Worthy were now solid contributors. The Lakers had lost two straight Finals, and they were out for payback. The Lakers won 62 games (ten more than anyone else in the West) and posted a +6.48 RSRS (3.68 points higher than anyone else in the West. The only other team in the league comparable? The Celtics, with 63 wins and a +6.47 RSRS. Basically, play every montage from Rocky IV and that’s what you were looking at (IS IT EAST VERSUS WEST? OR MAN AGAINST MAN!? CAN ANY CONFERENCE STAAAND ALLOOOOOONE!?) It was a two-team league; a rematch of the ‘84 Finals seemed assured.
In the first round they played the weak Phoenix Suns (-2.3) and obliterated them in a clean sweep by 20.3 points per game. None of this is a surprise; we know that the Lakers were uniquely good at obliterating any team below low-contender level (unless that team had an ATG center capable of banging hard with Kareem - looking at you Moses). Nevertheless, it was a good series. The leading scorer for the Lakers was Mike McGee; Kareem and Worthy played less than 25 minutes a game . . . because they really weren’t necessary.
In the second round they played the decent +3.2 Portland Trail Blazers. And to their credit, the Blazers did win a game. But the Lakers rolled over them hard, by 11 points per contest. They outshot the Blazers by 7.4% (an insane margin) as Magic averaged a 22/8/17 on +12.3% (hole-ee crap is that a ridiculous stat line). They stuffed the Blazers’ shooters and moved on to the Conference Finals without breaking stride.
In the Conference Finals were the +5.4 Denver Nuggets. Not a tough opponent historically, but decent enough. And you’ll never guess it, but the Lakers blew them apart in five games by 12.2 points a game. Magic averaged 16 assists a game, while Worthy and Scott both shot at +16% or higher. Three series, and the Lakers had lost only two games, and won every season by 11+ points a game. Not close.
But of course, in the Finals, were the Boston Celtics. The Celtics had been comparable in the regular season, but had had a less dominant playoffs. But anyone predicting a cakewalk for the Lakers would have been disappointed; the Celtics opened the series by blowing out the Lakers in Boston, by 34 points. But the remaining games all went Lakers, where they went 4-1 by 10 points a game. The Lakers’ offense actually . . . well, they didn’t struggle, but were less stratospheric. Kareem dominated with a 27/9/5 on +8.6% and Magic kicked in an 18/7/14 on +2.6% with 2.2 steals a game. Bird struggled (24/9/5 on -1.7%), playing less like an ATG stud and more like he’d been in a barfight. It wasn’t a dominant win for the Lakers, but it still counted.
11 | Lakers
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 | Celtics
6 |
5 | 76ers
4 | Nuggets
3 | Bucks
2 | Pistons
1 | Mavericks, Blazers
0 | Bullets, Rockets
-0 | Bulls, Cavs, Jazz
-1 | Nets, Hawks
-2 | Spurs, Kings
-3 |
-4 | Suns, Knicks, Clippers
-5 | Pacers, Sonics
-6 |
-7 | Warriors
-8 |
-9 |
-10|
The ‘85 Lakers are a little aberrant. Everybody remembers the ‘87 Lakers (who were definitely better in the regular season. But look at that league; the ‘85 season was fairly competitive. Yes, the ‘85 Lakers’ regular season wasn’t great by the standards of this list. But their playoffs were bonkers. They played a weak-ish set of conference opponents (though clearly much tougher than they played in ‘87) and they blew them, the crap, out. Those are four straight series with +10 SRS eqs, and while that itself isn’t everything, it’s pretty impressive.
For my money, this is the most dominant playoffs the Showtime Lakers had and one of the most dominant playoffs ever. In a metric that weights the playoffs less heavily (and v1 is very playoff-centered) they’d drop. As it is, I think Top 10 is too high for them. But I think their playoffs were ATG dominant, and I’m not sad that they’re this high, even though v2 will guaranteed drop them. This is the best playoffs of one of the greatest dynasties ever. No shame in that game.
PG: Magic Johnson, +6.7 / +6.6
SG: Byron Scott, +0.9 / +1.4
SF: James Worthy, +1.6 / +3.5
PF: Kurt Rambis, +0.0 / +1.2
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, +5.1 / +5.4
6th: Michael Cooper, +1.5 / +3.4
7th: Bob McAdoo, -2.1 / -4.5
Regular Season Metrics:
Regular Season Record: 62-20, Regular Season SRS: +6.48 (55th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +6.2 (15th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -0.9 (91st)
Shooting Advantage: +6.2%, Possession Advantage: -4.8 shooting possessions per game
Magic Johnson (PG, 25): 35 MPPG, 25% OLoad, 18 / 6 / 12 / 2 on +9.4%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C, 37): 32 MPPG, 23% OLoad, 21 / 8 / 3 / 3 on +8.5%
Bob McAdoo (PF, 33): 18 MPPG, 21% OLoad, 10 / 4 / 1 / 1 on +1.6%
Byron Scott (SG, 23): 28 MPPG, 21% OLoad, 16 / 3 / 3 / 1 on +4.4%
James Worthy (SF, 23): 33 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 17 / 6 / 2 / 2 on +5.8%
Michael Cooper (SG, 28): 26 MPPG, 17% OLoad, 8 / 3 / 5 / 2 on -0.4%
Kurt Rambis (PF, 26): 19 MPPG, 11% OLoad, 5 / 6 / 1 / 2 on +3.4%
Scoring/100: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (30.7 / +8.5%), Byron Scott (26.1 / +4.4%), Bob McAdoo (25.6 / +1.6%)
Assists/100: Magic Johnson (16.2), Michael Cooper (9.1), Byron Scott (4.9)
Heliocentrism: 35.7% (41st of 84 teams) - Magic
Wingmen: 42.7% (20th) - Kareem & Worthy
Depth: 21.6% (58th)
Playoff Metrics:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +9.83 (10th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -2.74 (79th)
Playoff SRS: +14.36 (11th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +4.88 (8th)
Shooting Advantage: +6.5%, Possession Advantage: -3.4 shooting possessions per game
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.44 (46th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -0.73 (78th)
Magic Johnson (PG, 25): 35 MPPG, 26% OLoad, 17 / 7 / 15 / 2 on +5.6%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (C, 37): 31 MPPG, 24% OLoad, 21 / 8 / 4 / 3 on +5.9%
Bob McAdoo (PF, 33): 20 MPPG, 22% OLoad, 11 / 4 / 1 / 2 on -3.5%
Byron Scott (SG, 23): 30 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 16 / 3 / 3 / 2 on +1.7%
James Worthy (SF, 23): 32 MPPG, 19% OLoad, 21 / 5 / 2 / 2 on +10.3%
Michael Cooper (SG, 28): 26 MPPG, 16% OLoad, 10 / 4 / 5 / 2 on +12.2%
Kurt Rambis (PF, 26): 19 MPPG, 11% OLoad, 6 / 7 / 1 / 1 on +7.3%
Scoring/100: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (30.3 / +5.9%), James Worthy (29.0 / +10.3%), Byron Scott (24.4 / +1.7%)
Assists/100: Magic Johnson (18.7), Michael Cooper (8.3), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (5.5)
Playoff Heliocentrism: 31.9% (56th of 84 teams) - Magic
Playoff Wingmen: 44.7% (23rd) - Kareem & Worthy
Playoff Depth: 23.4% (48th)
Round 1: Phoenix Suns (-2.3), won 3-0, by +20.3 points per game (+18.0 SRS eq)
Round 2: Portland Trail Blazers (+3.2), won 4-1, by +11.0 points per game (+14.2 SRS eq)
Round 3: Denver Nuggets (+5.4), won 4-1, by +12.2 points per game (+17.6 SRS eq)
Round 4: Boston Celtics (+7.4), won 4-2, by +2.6 points per game (+10.0 SRS eq)
Offensive / Defensive Ratings from Opposition Regular Season Average:
Phoenix Suns: +17.8 / +1.2
Portland Trail Blazers: +10.7 / -2.7
Denver Nuggets: +9.0 / -4.1
Boston Celtics: +6.0 / -3.1
Shooting Advantage / Possession Advantage per game (unadjusted):
Phoenix Suns: +7.3% / +2.5
Portland Trail Blazers: +7.4% / -5.0
Denver Nuggets: +9.1% / -7.5
Boston Celtics: +2.2% / -2.0
Postseason Usage/Efficiency Change adjusted for Opposition:
Magic Johnson: -0.5% / -3.1%
Byron Scott: -1.2% / -2.0%
James Worthy: +0.6% / +5.2%
Kurt Rambis: -0.1% / +4.6%
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +0.9% / -1.9%
Michael Cooper: -0.6% / +13.3%
Bob McAdoo: +0.9% / -4.4%
Magic Johnson led seven teams in my Top 100. To be clear, he was on eight; Kareem is considered (by box score metrics) to have been the best player only on the 1980 team. Only LeBron and Russell led more (8 and 9 respectively). From Magic’s entry into the league in 1980 to his departure from the league as a result of his HIV diagnosis in 1991, the Lakers were a fixture in the NBA Finals. In those 12 years they won 5 championships and won the West 9 times. This team, the 1985 Lakers, occurred in the middle of that run. And yet, if indeed this was the best of those teams (which it may or may not be), I feel as though we owe ourselves a serious walkthrough of their achievements.
First, their offense. The Lakers’ offense with Magic was consistently outstanding. From 1980 to 1991 (not counting ‘81), the Lakers *averaged* a +5.2 offensive rating in the regular season. If that were a team on this list, that would be in the top 30 in RS offensive rating. But that was just the *average* for the Magic Johnson Lakers. And in the playoffs they jump, averaging a +7.8 offensive rating in the series for which we have that stat (adjusted against the regular season defensive rating of opponents). If that was a team on my list it would be #20, and again, that was the *average* Lakers playoff offense. Their offensive rating jumped every single year from the regular season to the playoffs except 1983, and even that is suspect (because we’re missing the stats on one of those series). Here’s the full table of Regular Season / Playoff Adjusted Offensive Ratings:
1980: +4.2 / +5.1
1982: +3.3 / +8.2
1983: +5.8 / +2.8
1984: +3.3 / +7.5
1985: +6.2 / +10.9
1986: +6.1 / +8.0
1987: +7.3 / +10.9
1988: +5.1 / +7.5
1989: +6.0 / +9.8
1990: +5.9 / +8.7
1991: +4.2 / +6.0
So their offenses were historically excellent. Note that their worst regular season offense was at +3.3, and (aside from their clunker in ‘83) their playoff offenses were excellent. Is this evidence of offensive inelasticity? Sort of.
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings worse than average: +8.8 Adjusted Offensive Rating
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings between -3 and average: +8.6 Adjusted Offensive Rating
Against Opponents with Defensive Ratings better than -3: +6.8 Adjusted Offensive Rating
So there is evidence that against good defenses they were slowed slightly. But let the record show that even this ‘slowed down’ mark is better than their regular season average. The Lakers in this era always hit another gear in the playoffs (and against playoff defenses), but better defenses were more resistant to that effect than others. This level of offensive consistency is remarkable and notable for its duration; it’s hard not to credit Magic for much of it.
But many have observed (including myself) that the Lakers had unusually easy playoffs. Just how true is that? Well, I can say that of the eight Lakers teams in my Top 100, most of them show as below average in average opponent quality in the playoffs, but the pattern is pretty weird:
1980 Lakers: 57th
1982 Lakers: 55th
1984 Lakers: 88th
1985 Lakers: 75th
1986 Lakers: 96th
1987 Lakers: 95th
1989 Lakers: 35th
1991 Lakers: 12th
Interesting pattern, no? First off, the late 89s/early 90s Lakers played quite tough schedules. By that point the KJ Suns and Drexler/Porter Blazers had emerged in the West, and the Pistons/Bulls made for outstanding foes in the Finals. And their schedules in the beginning of the decade were middle of the pack. But what happened in ‘84? Simple, the playoffs expanded to be 16 teams instead of 12. For those first years, the Lakers got byes. But in ‘84 they started playing first round games. And at that point, 8 of the 13 teams in the West made the playoffs. Which meant that some unusually bad teams started showing up in those first round games. This doesn’t change that the mid-80s West had zero legitimate challengers to the Lakers. But the addition of that first round makes their SoS look weaker than it was. Let’s take a tour of the Lakers’ success against every OSRS tier:
Against Teams Below +3 OSRS: 15-1
Against Teams Between +3 and +6: 10-0
Against Teams Between +6 and +8: 5-2
Against Teams Between +8 and +10: 1-3
Against Teams Above +10: 1-1
Those first two lines are where the Magic Johnson Lakers were most remarkable. Against teams below +6 OSRS the Lakers were 25-1 over those 12 seasons (the one loss was the ‘81 Rockets). They didn’t lose to bad teams, they didn’t lose to good teams, they didn’t even lose to very good teams. Against teams above +6? They were 7-6. Which is nothing to brag about, but then, if over 12 years you’re drawing even against teams that are +6 or above . . . that means your teams were consistently pretty excellent. The Lakers of this era shouldn’t get credit for being unstoppable, and they surely benefited from a lot of easier matchups before ‘88, but they were clockwork against non-great teams. And that itself is pretty remarkable.
And are we sure that their opponents were thaaaat weak? Let’s compare these numbers to those of Bird’s Celtics through ‘88:
Teams Worse than +3 OSRS: Magic 41%, Bird 32%
Teams Between +3 and +6: Magic 26%, Bird 32%
Teams Between +6 and +8: Magic 18%, Bird 25%
Teams Between +8 and +10: Magic 10%, Bird 4%
Teams Better than +10 OSRS: Magic 5%, Bird 7%
Did Magic have the easier schedule? Yeah, by some. His average opponent was 0.4 OSRS worse than Bird’s. And that does count, though it’s a pretty small difference. How about their records against those teams?
Teams Worse than +3 OSRS: Magic 15-1, Bird 9-0
Teams Between +3 and +6: Magic 10-0, Bird 7-2
Teams Between +6 and +8: Magic 5-2, Bird 6-1
Teams Between +8 and +10: Magic 1-3, Bird 0-1
Teams Better than +10 OSRS: Magic 1-1, Bird 0-2
So let’s assume that below +6, these teams have a fairly guaranteed win. Where was the first time that these teams run into teams at that level or higher each year?
For the Lakers:
In the Finals: 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988 (50%)
Conference Finals: 1986, 1989, 1991 (25%)
Semi-Finals: 1990 (8%)
Knocked out by sub-6: 1981 (8%)
Never Played One: 1987 (8%)
For the Celtics:
In the Finals: 1984 (11%)
Conference Finals: 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 (67%)
Knocked out by sub-6: 1980, 1983 (22%)
It’s here that I think the difference becomes most apparent.
Advantage Lakers: They were only eliminated once by a sub-6 team in 12 seasons, compared with twice in 9 seasons for the Celtics
Advantage Celtics: They sure as heck never had the advantage of never running into a 6+ team in a postseason.
Advantage Lakers: They ran into a 6+ in the Semis in 1990, something the Celtics never had to deal with.
Massive Advantage Celtics: 50% of the time the Lakers didn’t run into a 6+ team until the Finals; 67% of the time the Celtics ran into theirs in the Conference Finals.
I think the argument can be made that by ‘89-91, the Lakers’ postseason schedule was as tough as anything the Celtics ever had to deal with. But it’s pretty clear that before ‘89, the West was simply devoid of legitimate challengers (in fact, the only pre-’89 “challenger” was the Rockets coming out of nowhere in ‘86). And the Celtics *always* had a strong team in their conference except for one year.
But that 25-1 against sub +6 teams though. That’s really unusual historically. I cast about for some other comparisons. Russell’s 13 years had them as 25-1 against sub-6 teams (for whatever my OSRS numbers are worth for that era). The Bulls from ‘87 to ‘98 were 20-1 against sub-6 teams. The Spurs from 2005-2016 were 15-2 against sub-6 teams (best 12 year span for that sort of thing for them). This is a long way of saying that, when it came to taking care of business against non-contenders, these Lakers were about as good as it got historically. So they got a break by getting eight years of a really weak conference. But they were better than pretty much every team ever over Magic’s career at taking care of business when it came to weaker teams.
Can we take their five championships at face value? Probably not. They truly did have one of the weaker eight-year stretches of conference competition. That said, they drew very few weak Finals opponents, so it wasn’t exactly a cakewalk. But as far as sustained excellence, the Lakers’ 12 year run is about as good as we’ve seen (the three major rivals here are Russell who won way more rings, but in a league 40% as big, the Bulls who had six crazy years and six less so, and the Spurs who had more like eighteen years against far greater competition, but perhaps still never having as good a twelve year run).
Anyhow. The Showtime Lakers. For better or for worse. But how did we come to be here?
In 1972 the Lakers went 69-13, posting one of the best regular seasons ever and winning the NBA championship. It was the culmination of two great careers, those of Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West. In 1973 they ran it back and fell to the Knicks 4-1 in the Finals. In ‘74 Chamberlain left the team and West missed much of the season with an injury. The Lakers won 47 games and were quickly eliminated from the playoffs in the first round. In ‘75 West retired and the Lakers became adrift, winning 30 games. Desperate to shake things up, the Lakers traded most of their best young players to the Bucks for a frustrated Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The Lakers improved to 40 wins, carried almost completely by Abdul-Jabbar. In ‘77 the team improved to 53 wins, making the second round before losing to Bill Walton’s Blazers. In ‘78 Kareem missed some time and the team dropped to 45 wins and a first round exit. In ‘79 the Lakers won 47 games and made the Semis. By this time they already had many of the pieces for their future runs: 31 year-old Kareem, 25 year-old Jamaal Wilkes, 23 year-old Norm Nixon and 22 year-old Michael Cooper. But the team took a massive jump forward in 1980:
Their SRS went from +2.95 to +5.40
Their offensive rating went from +2.3 to +4.2 (best in the league)
Their defensive rating went from -0.6 to -1.4
Their eFG% jumped from 51.7% to 53.0%
Their ORB% jumped from 27.6% to 32.6%
And all of those improvements were *with* trading away a young Adrian Dantley (who, in fairness, wasn’t exactly setting the league on fire at that point in his career).
So they trade away a skilled young scorer, yet their team jumps from good to contender-level (in 1980, +5 was pretty strong). They improve on both sides of the ball, score better and dominate the glass more? How did they get so much better? It’s almost like it was . . . Magic
The Lakers went into a very curious off-and-on pattern of winning titles. They won in 1980, only to fall in the first round of the ‘81 playoffs. They won in ‘82, but fell to the Sixers hard in ‘83 and barely lost to the Celtics in a tight seven-game Finals.
By 1985 the roster that would, more or less, dominate the West for the next several years was basically intact.
Modern Comps:
PG: 2002 John Stockton (way better on offense)
SG: 2008 Leandro Barbosa
SF: 2006 Shareef Abdur-Rahim
PF: 2005 Joel Przybilla
C: 2013 Blake Griffin (much better scorer, worse rebounder)
6th: 2008 Anthony Carter
7th: 2012 Luis Scola
Magic was a freak. His passing was at a level that has, perhaps, never been seen since. But he also took a fair amount of shots and made them at McHale levels of efficiency. So to sell him purely as a passer is unfair; his scoring is excellent (if not in high volume). Stockton is a weak comp, but the list of players that are ATG passers, incredibly efficient scorers (but on only average volume) and with a strong (for a PG) defensive presence is pretty damned thin. They had a solid scoring two (Barbosa/Scott), a solid scoring three (Worthy/Abdur-Rahim), a defense/rebounding big (Rambis/Przybilla) and off the bench a defensive point guard (Cooper/Carter) and a low-value high-usage big (McAdoo/Scola). The Griffin comparison is garbage, but at this point Kareem was still a strong scorer and solid passer/defender but an unusually light rebounder.
So. The Lakers are fairly set, Kareem is still excellent (if now past his peak), Cooper had developed and Byron Scott and James Worthy were now solid contributors. The Lakers had lost two straight Finals, and they were out for payback. The Lakers won 62 games (ten more than anyone else in the West) and posted a +6.48 RSRS (3.68 points higher than anyone else in the West. The only other team in the league comparable? The Celtics, with 63 wins and a +6.47 RSRS. Basically, play every montage from Rocky IV and that’s what you were looking at (IS IT EAST VERSUS WEST? OR MAN AGAINST MAN!? CAN ANY CONFERENCE STAAAND ALLOOOOOONE!?) It was a two-team league; a rematch of the ‘84 Finals seemed assured.
In the first round they played the weak Phoenix Suns (-2.3) and obliterated them in a clean sweep by 20.3 points per game. None of this is a surprise; we know that the Lakers were uniquely good at obliterating any team below low-contender level (unless that team had an ATG center capable of banging hard with Kareem - looking at you Moses). Nevertheless, it was a good series. The leading scorer for the Lakers was Mike McGee; Kareem and Worthy played less than 25 minutes a game . . . because they really weren’t necessary.
In the second round they played the decent +3.2 Portland Trail Blazers. And to their credit, the Blazers did win a game. But the Lakers rolled over them hard, by 11 points per contest. They outshot the Blazers by 7.4% (an insane margin) as Magic averaged a 22/8/17 on +12.3% (hole-ee crap is that a ridiculous stat line). They stuffed the Blazers’ shooters and moved on to the Conference Finals without breaking stride.
In the Conference Finals were the +5.4 Denver Nuggets. Not a tough opponent historically, but decent enough. And you’ll never guess it, but the Lakers blew them apart in five games by 12.2 points a game. Magic averaged 16 assists a game, while Worthy and Scott both shot at +16% or higher. Three series, and the Lakers had lost only two games, and won every season by 11+ points a game. Not close.
But of course, in the Finals, were the Boston Celtics. The Celtics had been comparable in the regular season, but had had a less dominant playoffs. But anyone predicting a cakewalk for the Lakers would have been disappointed; the Celtics opened the series by blowing out the Lakers in Boston, by 34 points. But the remaining games all went Lakers, where they went 4-1 by 10 points a game. The Lakers’ offense actually . . . well, they didn’t struggle, but were less stratospheric. Kareem dominated with a 27/9/5 on +8.6% and Magic kicked in an 18/7/14 on +2.6% with 2.2 steals a game. Bird struggled (24/9/5 on -1.7%), playing less like an ATG stud and more like he’d been in a barfight. It wasn’t a dominant win for the Lakers, but it still counted.
11 | Lakers
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 | Celtics
6 |
5 | 76ers
4 | Nuggets
3 | Bucks
2 | Pistons
1 | Mavericks, Blazers
0 | Bullets, Rockets
-0 | Bulls, Cavs, Jazz
-1 | Nets, Hawks
-2 | Spurs, Kings
-3 |
-4 | Suns, Knicks, Clippers
-5 | Pacers, Sonics
-6 |
-7 | Warriors
-8 |
-9 |
-10|
The ‘85 Lakers are a little aberrant. Everybody remembers the ‘87 Lakers (who were definitely better in the regular season. But look at that league; the ‘85 season was fairly competitive. Yes, the ‘85 Lakers’ regular season wasn’t great by the standards of this list. But their playoffs were bonkers. They played a weak-ish set of conference opponents (though clearly much tougher than they played in ‘87) and they blew them, the crap, out. Those are four straight series with +10 SRS eqs, and while that itself isn’t everything, it’s pretty impressive.
For my money, this is the most dominant playoffs the Showtime Lakers had and one of the most dominant playoffs ever. In a metric that weights the playoffs less heavily (and v1 is very playoff-centered) they’d drop. As it is, I think Top 10 is too high for them. But I think their playoffs were ATG dominant, and I’m not sad that they’re this high, even though v2 will guaranteed drop them. This is the best playoffs of one of the greatest dynasties ever. No shame in that game.
Back to the Main Thread
