RealGM

I'm taking 6 teams that are already thought of as goat tier or close to it and making some tweaks. You decide which team would be the goat based on the changes made. How you want to go about deciding it is entirely up to you. For the 86 Celtics you could consider that Walton would start ahead of Chief.

EDIT: added in 71 Bucks which reset the poll

86 Celtics. They get the biggest bump and go from having the best frontcourt of all time to the uncontested greatest frontcourt rotation of all time

ya probably the Celtics for the same reasons above. I don't even think prime Iguodala is a great fit for the Warriors because his greatest asset was being a reliable floor general.

Walton probably the most seamless fit as well.

Walton is a big upgrade over IRL Walton and also offers additional minutes though being a center, (with an already strong frontcourt), in an era of less positional flexibility it's not as simple as a modern wing where shuffling and finding something that works is easier.

That may make Iggy a dark horse candidate or at least get a bump in that if you've got a younger version that you feel confident pushing near 3000 minutes ... "Oh no, now he's taking the minutes at SF, we'll have to move Durant to PF more and Draymond to C more." Whether you want to do that for the RS is up for grabs but that's a really nice high end option to have. And GSW might have the highest baseline (some may argue a greater advantage in absolute terms regarding a generally positive evolutionary trend in the sport, though I would be tending to think in terms of dominance versus peers).

If were a GM of one of those teams in any "realistic" (i.e. not just porting their season back in some way on to a new team, but getting the player from the start of that season) scenario Walton's injury risk hurts.

Interesting that you picked’80 for Kareem

Great season, but That’s not his peak

1993Playoffs wrote:Interesting that you picked’80 for Kareem

Great season, but That’s not his peak

I think pairing 74 or 77 Kareem with Magic is probably too much.

It’s probably either the 1986 Celtics or the 1987 Lakers, since they get the biggest bumps here IMO. It’s worth noting with the 1986 Celtics, though, that the practical result of this would probably dramatically decrease Parish’s minutes. So the benefit of having 1977 Walton is less about the difference between 1977 Walton and 1986 Walton and more about the difference between 1977 Walton and 1986 Parish (though it’s also about having your backup center be 1986 Parish instead of 1986 Walton).

The Bulls scenario should be the 1997 team with a 1981 Robert Parish.

Cool question! I like the idea of taking some of the best teams ever and giving them better versions of the same players.
The team choices are also pretty well balanced (e.g Warriors might be the best originally but improve the least in this hypothetical).

A few other ideas:
-2001 Lakers with 2008 Kobe
-2014 Spurs with 2003 Duncan
-1972 Lakers with... 67 Wilt or 66 West? Maybe young Elgin Baylor? (although he only played a handful of games and his fit wasn't optimal)

lessthanjake wrote:It’s probably either the 1986 Celtics or the 1987 Lakers, since they get the biggest bumps here IMO. It’s worth noting with the 1986 Celtics, though, that the practical result of this would probably dramatically decrease Parish’s minutes. So the benefit of having 1977 Walton is less about the difference between 1977 Walton and 1986 Walton and more about the difference between 1977 Walton and 1986 Parish (though it’s also about having your backup center be 1986 Parish instead of 1986 Walton).

Hey jake! We often agree but I'm actually lower on this version of the 87 Lakers. They're starting as the weakest team by far, of the original four. The other 3 original teams (86 Celtics, 96 Bulls, 17 Warriors) are all...
-Top 7 in playoff SRS (87 Lakers are 23rd)
-Top 6 in overall SRS (87 lakers are 12th)
-Top 6 in overall ELO (87 lakers are 25th)
-Top 7 in RS record (tied 7th–13th) (87 lakers are tied 19th).

The other 3 teams are also more two-way, optimizing both offense and defense, which helps prevent diminishing returns. There's obviously a huge boost going from 87 Kareem to 80 Kareem (definitely bigger than the boost for the Bulls and Warriors). But in my mind, they're coming from enough of a lower place that I wouldn't take them over this improved Celtics, even with the positional concerns for the Celtics.

Now this next point might be a hot take... but I'm also think I'm slightly less 100% sure about these Lakers against the Bulls/Warriors. It seems like basically everyone favors them clearly in this thread. And maybe I also slightly favor them, but these new 96 Bulls and the 17 Warriors would have a massive defensive advantage, and they're very much not offensive slouches either (e.g. Warriors' starting lineup was already in contention for the best offensive lineup ever). Are we sure the Lakers' offense is enough to make up for the defense?

I know people said going from 87 Kareem to 77/74 Kareem would be too big of a jump... I wonder what if we had 1985 Lakers + 77/74 Kareem. I see the 85 Lakers as right there with the 87 Lakers (worse regular season, better playoffs, very similar overall). But 85 Kareem was an up year for him, so going to his actual peak might not be such an astronomical improvement that the answer becomes obvious. If my lower evaluation of 87 Lakers + 80 Kareem is right, then maybe 85 Lakers + 74/77 Kareem would be enough. Or maybe I'm just too low on this optimized Lakers.

As for the new additions, I'm a bit lower on them.
-I'm lower on the 1983 76ers compared to some here, and I don't see the improvement with Peak DJ as large enough to close the gap against these other improved teams.
-Not sure about the 71 Bucks. I have trouble figuring out the exact distribution of value on that team between Kareem, Oscar, depth, and league expansion / context, at least compared to more recent teams where we have more film / granular analysis. The jump from 71 to more prime but non-peak Oscar isn't enough to make up the gap with the 96 Bulls (who start off as the better team, and now have what may be the GOAT season).

17 Warriors without Iggy upgrade would still be the best team

86 Celtics with prime Walton would be comically good. Big Bill starts and Parish comes off the bench. I think his defense and passing makes them even better on both ends so they feel like the best.

The Walton upgrade is by far the biggest though you would have to bench Parish, so you can argue the 87 Lakers are competitive with them.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I'm taking 6 teams that are already thought of as goat tier or close to it and making some tweaks. You decide which team would be the goat based on the changes made. How you want to go about deciding it is entirely up to you. For the 86 Celtics you could consider that Walton would start ahead of Chief.

EDIT: added in 71 Bucks which reset the poll

The bucks pretty handily I think. Lakers might be second if you give them peak kareem instead of 80 Kareem. He's the best player(era-relative) on this list so giving him his peak form is pretty broken. Peak Walton on the 86 Celtics might give them the most talented team, but benching parish puts them down to two I think