Rank the dynasties

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Domination of your era seems more significant to me but being good for a very long time is also impressive.

My rank:
1960s Celtics.
All those championships in a row.
But 1960s Celtics won a lot of game 7s. They just squeaked by every year without being as dominant as you would guess they were if you just looked at all those championships in a row.

2 1990s Bulls.

3 Milan 1950s Min Lakers

4 probably the recent Warriors but the Spurs dynasty was so long lasting. Spurs won every year that did not have another great team.

5 Spurs

6 1980s Lakers
Lakers won more in a decade than the Spurs.
But the Lakers did not dominate the 1980s Celtics and 76ers.

7 Kobe Shaq Lakers
8 1980s Celtics

Below, Are these Dynastied
9 LeBron Cavs part 2
The Cavs kept getting to the finals but only won it 1 time.
10 LeBron Heat.
11 1970s Celtics
12 1970s Knicks
13 Early 1970s Lakers
14 1990s Rockets
15 late 1970s Sonics
16 late 1970s Bullets

No rings,
17 1990s Jazz
18 1980s Bucks
Bucks were the 4th best team year after year.

[One_and_Done]

Ngl, I genuinely wondered if Jokic's Nuggets were going to be on someone's list.

1. 60s Celtics
2. 90s Bulls

The next 3 are debatable between the Duncan Spurs, Steph Warriors & Showtime Lakers. Spurs never achieved quite as much success as the other 2, on the other hand the Spurs win percentage over Duncan's 19 seasons is equivalent to over 58 wins a season on average. Over 19 years

Given the Spurs have the same number of titles as Showtime, and 1 more than the Warriors, I'd lean to them.

[eminence]

I'd probably go this order:
1. Russell Celtics (11/13)
2. MJ Bulls (6/8)
3. Mikan Lakers (6/7)
4. Showtime Lakers (5/9)
5. Curry/Dray Warriors (4/8)
6. Duncan Spurs (4/9) - I can't really count the '14 title as part of the same run. 6 other champs in between wins is just too much for me even though the core was there.
7. Shaq/Kobe Lakers (3/3)
8. Bird Celtics (3/6)
9. ABA Pacers (3/4)

And that's all the squads with 3+ titles in one coherent run. Anything else underwhelms me in terms of being a dynasty. I think one could reasonably include LeBron as a 1 man-dynasty with 4 titles from '12-'20 (4/9).

[70sFan]

I'd probably go this order:
1. Russell Celtics (11/13)
2. MJ Bulls (6/8)
3. Mikan Lakers (6/7)
4. Showtime Lakers (5/9)
5. Curry/Dray Warriors (4/8)
6. Duncan Spurs (4/9) - I can't really count the '14 title as part of the same run. 6 other champs in between wins is just too much for me even though the core was there.
7. Shaq/Kobe Lakers (3/3)
8. Bird Celtics (3/6)
9. ABA Pacers (3/4)

And that's all the squads with 3+ titles in one coherent run. Anything else underwhelms me in terms of being a dynasty. I think one could reasonably include LeBron as a 1 man-dynasty with 4 titles from '12-'20 (4/9).

Great mention of the ABA Pacers!

I think we should include Lakers finals run in 2004 as well, that was the end of their dynasty.

The next one would probably be 2011-14 Heat, which I agree is too underwhelming to be considered a dynasty.

[lessthanjake]

I think the MJ Bulls were more consistently well above their peers than anyone else. Which may sound crazy when the Russell Celtics won 11 out of 13 titles, but the Celtics were not actually as dominant IMO. They almost always were taken to 7 games in a playoff series (in an era where there were only two playoff rounds, so a huge percent of their series’ went to 7 games), their SRS wasn’t as high, and their regular season records weren’t typically unbelievably good. Of course, some of that has to do with there being fewer teams—that means fewer bad teams to beat up on. But, of course, fewer teams is also a big element to being able to win so much—there’s also fewer teams vying with you for the title and fewer playoff rounds to slip up in. I think the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were probably comparably above their peers as the MJ Bulls, but they didn’t sustain it as long. The Warriors were similarly dominant for a time too, but mainly just in the Durant years—which were short lived.

The Duncan Spurs were outrageously consistent over a super long period, so there’s definitely a sense in which they were the best. But I don’t think their peak level reaches the peak level of most of these other dynasties.

The Showtime Lakers didn’t have the Bulls’ dominance (or the Russell Celtics dominance for that matter) or the Spurs’ longevity, but had a lot of both. And tbh I’m not sure how to rank the Mikan Lakers at all.

Overall, I think I’d rank them like this:

1. MJ Bulls
2. Russell Celtics
3. Showtime Lakers
4. Curry Warriors
5. Duncan Spurs
6. Shaq/Kobe Lakers

They’re all great, though, and if you told me that any two of those dynasties somehow played each other, I’d believe any result that might happen (i.e. I think any of these teams could beat the others—leaving aside differences in rules and modern fitness and whatnot).

[70sFan]

I think the MJ Bulls were more consistently well above their peers than anyone else. Which may sound crazy when the Russell Celtics won 11 out of 13 titles, but the Celtics were not actually as dominant IMO. They almost always were taken to 7 games in a playoff series (in an era where there were only two playoff rounds, so a huge percent of their series’ went to 7 games),

They were taken to 7 games in 10 out of 29 series (25 of which were the finals or conference finals). 10 out of 29 is 34%, I wouldn't call it "almost always".

I don't know how you can argue that 11 rings in 13, years can be less dominant than 6 rings in 9 (or 10) years.

[lessthanjake]

I think the MJ Bulls were more consistently well above their peers than anyone else. Which may sound crazy when the Russell Celtics won 11 out of 13 titles, but the Celtics were not actually as dominant IMO. They almost always were taken to 7 games in a playoff series (in an era where there were only two playoff rounds, so a huge percent of their series’ went to 7 games),

They were taken to 7 games in 10 out of 29 series (25 of which were the finals or conference finals). 10 out of 29 is 34%, I wouldn't call it "almost always".

I don't know how you can argue that 11 rings in 13, years can be less dominant than 6 rings in 9 (or 10) years.

What I meant was that almost every season had at least one 7 game series. So they were almost always played close by *someone.*

[MyUniBroDavis]

I think the MJ Bulls were more consistently well above their peers than anyone else. Which may sound crazy when the Russell Celtics won 11 out of 13 titles, but the Celtics were not actually as dominant IMO. They almost always were taken to 7 games in a playoff series (in an era where there were only two playoff rounds, so a huge percent of their series’ went to 7 games),

They were taken to 7 games in 10 out of 29 series (25 of which were the finals or conference finals). 10 out of 29 is 34%, I wouldn't call it "almost always".

I don't know how you can argue that 11 rings in 13, years can be less dominant than 6 rings in 9 (or 10) years.

What I meant was that almost every season had at least one 7 game series. So they were almost always played close by *someone.*

It’s not about how you get there it’s about getting there

[lessthanjake]

They were taken to 7 games in 10 out of 29 series (25 of which were the finals or conference finals). 10 out of 29 is 34%, I wouldn't call it "almost always".

I don't know how you can argue that 11 rings in 13, years can be less dominant than 6 rings in 9 (or 10) years.

What I meant was that almost every season had at least one 7 game series. So they were almost always played close by *someone.*

It’s not about how you get there it’s about getting there

If we’re ranking dynasties, they all got there quite a lot, so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to differentiate them in part by how they got there. If you want to ignore that and instead simply differentiate based on how often they got there, then that’s fine too. You won’t come to the same conclusion as I do, but that’s fine.

[MyUniBroDavis]

What I meant was that almost every season had at least one 7 game series. So they were almost always played close by *someone.*

It’s not about how you get there it’s about getting there

If we’re ranking dynasties, they all got there quite a lot, so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to differentiate them in part by how they got there. If you want to ignore that and instead simply differentiate based on how often they got there, then that’s fine too. You won’t come to the same conclusion as I do, but that’s fine.

Bro winning 6 and winning 11 are not the same lol

[lessthanjake]

One other minor thing I’d note is that I wouldn’t really conceptualize those Celtics’ playoff series’ as including “conference finals” in the same way we think of it now. The difficulty of a conference finals now and then is conceptually very different. Now, that round includes the top 4 teams in a league of 30 teams. So it is the top 13% of teams. The semifinals in the Russell Celtics era were the top 4 out of 8-14 teams (and it was towards the lower end of that for most of the time period). So that’s the top 29-50% of teams, depending on the year, and for most of the time period it was the top 44-50% of teams. So that round was much more conceptually equivalent to the first round or the conference semifinals nowadays (which include the top 53% and top 27% of teams respectively). And honestly, even the finals in that era is arguably not really quite the same, for similar reasons. I think the way to conceptualize those two-round playoff years is that the semifinals was roughly equivalent to a first round or conference semifinals series now, and the finals was roughly equivalent to a finals or conference finals. That aligns with where opponents would land in terms of percentile in the league.

[lessthanjake]

It’s not about how you get there it’s about getting there

If we’re ranking dynasties, they all got there quite a lot, so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to differentiate them in part by how they got there. If you want to ignore that and instead simply differentiate based on how often they got there, then that’s fine too. You won’t come to the same conclusion as I do, but that’s fine.

Bro winning 6 and winning 11 are not the same lol

Okay sure, but it’s also not the same to almost always have someone take you to 7 games in your title wins, as opposed to usually winning without anyone even getting you to 7 games. Nor is it the same for one team to generally have higher win totals and higher SRS. There’s more factors at play here than just number of titles won. If there wasn’t then there’d be no point in this topic, since we could all just rank the dynasties by counting.

I’d also note that even the title wins aren’t really the same. It’s not as difficult to be the best team out of 8 or 9 teams (it went up to 14 eventually, but was 8 or 9 most of the time) than it is to be the best team out of 27 or 29 teams. Relatedly, nor is it as difficult to win when you typically only need to win 2 playoff rounds, rather than 4 playoff rounds. That’s a pretty big difference. Leaving all the other stuff aside, I still think 11 titles in a much smaller league is more impressive, but the gap isn’t as big as just saying 11>6, because those 11 were in a context where there were significantly fewer hurdles. And then when you add on that the team that won 6 typically did so in more convincing fashion (both in terms of easily winning their playoffs series and in terms of regular season dominance), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to come to a conclusion that the 6-title team should be ranked higher.

[Dooley]

1) 90s Bulls
2) 60s Celtics
3) 80s Lakers
4) 10s Warriors

Pretty comfortable with those as the top 4 in that order. After that it's a lot closer, I think probably 80s Celtics, then 00s Spurs.

By my count, the Russell Celtics from '57 to '69 won 27 playoff series and lost 2; the Jordan Bulls from 90-93 and 95-98 (so excluding 1994 because no Jordan) did exactly the same, 27 playoff series wins and 2 series losses in 90 and 95.

[lessthanjake]

1) 90s Bulls
2) 60s Celtics
3) 80s Lakers
4) 10s Warriors

Pretty comfortable with those as the top 4 in that order. After that it's a lot closer, I think probably 80s Celtics, then 00s Spurs.

By my count, the Russell Celtics from '57 to '69 won 27 playoff series and lost 2; the Jordan Bulls from 90-93 and 95-98 (so excluding 1994 because no Jordan) did exactly the same, 27 playoff series wins and 2 series losses in 90 and 95.

That’s a great point about the 27-2 playoff series win-loss record! And within those relevant 29 playoff series’ that each team had a 27-2 series record in, the Bulls lost a total of 37 games, while the Celtics lost 59 games.

And I’d also add that, during that same time period, the Bulls won 74.7% of their regular season games, with an average SRS of 7.70. The Celtics in the relevant time period won 72.5% of their regular season games, with an average SRS of 6.00.

Of course, the Celtics’ success came over a longer time period, which is really impressive in terms of sustaining it. And regardless of the identical 27-2 series record, it obviously resulted in more titles. I don’t have any problem with someone choosing the Russell Celtics as the best NBA dynasty—obviously they are a team that has a really good case for it. But I don’t think it’s ridiculous to go for the Bulls, nor do I think it’s ridiculous to think the Bulls were more dominant.

[MyUniBroDavis]

If we’re ranking dynasties, they all got there quite a lot, so I think it’s perfectly reasonable to differentiate them in part by how they got there. If you want to ignore that and instead simply differentiate based on how often they got there, then that’s fine too. You won’t come to the same conclusion as I do, but that’s fine.

Bro winning 6 and winning 11 are not the same lol

Okay sure, but it’s also not the same to almost always have someone take you to 7 games in your title wins, as opposed to usually winning without anyone even getting you to 7 games. Nor is it the same for one team to generally have higher win totals and higher SRS. There’s more factors at play here than just number of titles won. If there wasn’t then there’d be no point in this topic, since we could all just rank the dynasties by counting.

I’d also note that even the title wins aren’t really the same. It’s not as difficult to be the best team out of 8 or 9 teams (it went up to 14 eventually, but was 8 or 9 most of the time) than it is to be the best team out of 27 or 29 teams. Relatedly, nor is it as difficult to win when you typically only need to win 2 playoff rounds, rather than 4 playoff rounds. That’s a pretty big difference. Leaving all the other stuff aside, I still think 11 titles in a much smaller league is more impressive, but the gap isn’t as big as just saying 11>6, because those 11 were in a context where there were significantly fewer hurdles. And then when you add on that the team that won 6 typically did so in more convincing fashion (both in terms of easily winning their playoffs series and in terms of regular season dominance), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to come to a conclusion that the 6-title team should be ranked higher.

Not that much of a reason to say the bulls went 6/8 as much as they went 6/11

Not a single person after a title run thinks “damn we got taken to 7 though”

winning 11 and winning 6 are not the same tier, come on. Sustained dominance matters. Ur talking a difference of five titles.

[lessthanjake]

Bro winning 6 and winning 11 are not the same lol

Okay sure, but it’s also not the same to almost always have someone take you to 7 games in your title wins, as opposed to usually winning without anyone even getting you to 7 games. Nor is it the same for one team to generally have higher win totals and higher SRS. There’s more factors at play here than just number of titles won. If there wasn’t then there’d be no point in this topic, since we could all just rank the dynasties by counting.

I’d also note that even the title wins aren’t really the same. It’s not as difficult to be the best team out of 8 or 9 teams (it went up to 14 eventually, but was 8 or 9 most of the time) than it is to be the best team out of 27 or 29 teams. Relatedly, nor is it as difficult to win when you typically only need to win 2 playoff rounds, rather than 4 playoff rounds. That’s a pretty big difference. Leaving all the other stuff aside, I still think 11 titles in a much smaller league is more impressive, but the gap isn’t as big as just saying 11>6, because those 11 were in a context where there were significantly fewer hurdles. And then when you add on that the team that won 6 typically did so in more convincing fashion (both in terms of easily winning their playoffs series and in terms of regular season dominance), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to come to a conclusion that the 6-title team should be ranked higher.

Not that much of a reason to say the bulls went 6/8 as much as they went 6/11

Not a single person after a title run thinks “damn we got taken to 7 though”

winning 11 and winning 6 are not the same tier, come on. Sustained dominance matters. Ur talking a difference of five titles.

But we aren’t people who won a title (or titles) and are just happy to have won. We are evaluating how good the teams were. So yes, it does matter how easily they won, because that is one indicator of how good they were.

[penbeast0]

...
9 LeBron Cavs part 2
The Cavs kept getting to the finals but only won it 1 time....

No rings,
17 1990s Jazz
18 1980s Bucks
Bucks were the 4th best team year after year.

Mentioning also rans without mentioning the 60s Lakers seems an omission. Jazz only made it twice, Bucks never. Meanwhile the West/Baylor Lakers made it 7 times but kept running into the Celtics.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Okay sure, but it’s also not the same to almost always have someone take you to 7 games in your title wins, as opposed to usually winning without anyone even getting you to 7 games. Nor is it the same for one team to generally have higher win totals and higher SRS. There’s more factors at play here than just number of titles won. If there wasn’t then there’d be no point in this topic, since we could all just rank the dynasties by counting.

I’d also note that even the title wins aren’t really the same. It’s not as difficult to be the best team out of 8 or 9 teams (it went up to 14 eventually, but was 8 or 9 most of the time) than it is to be the best team out of 27 or 29 teams. Relatedly, nor is it as difficult to win when you typically only need to win 2 playoff rounds, rather than 4 playoff rounds. That’s a pretty big difference. Leaving all the other stuff aside, I still think 11 titles in a much smaller league is more impressive, but the gap isn’t as big as just saying 11>6, because those 11 were in a context where there were significantly fewer hurdles. And then when you add on that the team that won 6 typically did so in more convincing fashion (both in terms of easily winning their playoffs series and in terms of regular season dominance), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to come to a conclusion that the 6-title team should be ranked higher.

Not that much of a reason to say the bulls went 6/8 as much as they went 6/11

Not a single person after a title run thinks “damn we got taken to 7 though”

winning 11 and winning 6 are not the same tier, come on. Sustained dominance matters. Ur talking a difference of five titles.

But we aren’t people who won a title (or titles) and are just happy to have won. We are evaluating how good the teams were. So yes, it does matter how easily they won, because that is one indicator of how good they were.

We’re ranking dynasties, one won damn near double the titles the other did lol

The bulls dynasty being more dominant than the Celtics dynasty isn’t a serious conversation

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

...
9 LeBron Cavs part 2
The Cavs kept getting to the finals but only won it 1 time....

No rings,
17 1990s Jazz
18 1980s Bucks
Bucks were the 4th best team year after year.

Mentioning also rans without mentioning the 60s Lakers seems an omission. Jazz only made it twice, Bucks never. Meanwhile the West/Baylor Lakers made it 7 times but kept running into the Celtics.

Yes.
I forgot the 1960s Lakers because they were before my time where as my 1980s Celtics had to beat the Bucks.