Best 5 Across All Eras

[MyUniBroDavis]

This slips into topics that are derailing for this thread. But I’ve grown to really appreciate West, never undersell that guy. His game moves into the modern era better than James’ into the distant past IMO.

Well ur opinion is heinous lmao that’s a crazy take

West in this era is better than his own era. The game has moved towards him.

Rules wise, sure, if the rules changed the gap between him and his peers would be larger if the rules favored perimeter players.


Unfortunately people got better at basketball in 70 years

[70sFan]

Shaq
KG
Pippen
Mj
Magic

I don’t see how Shaq game, as it was, translates backwards to the early eras. His main moves are fouls. Could he dominate, of course. He’d also foul out in 5 minutes. He’d have to adapt to a more Wilt like offensive approach, could he do that? Maybe/probably but it’s not what we saw.

Shaq arguably has the most transferable game in the history of the nba...6 foot window, that's it, which when played in the earlier era as a true big man's game, would be even more dominant based on how the game favoured the bigs play. Why would he need to have a Wilt approach? When Wilt watched Orlando Shaq he even marvelled at how O'Neal played the game and on live tv stated, 'maybe I should have played the power game more like him'.

There is nothing confusing about bball and Shaq showed that he could be paired with another 1B Alpha male and still thrive, regardless of personal attacks. People need to watch more earlier Shaq, and not 'system' Shaq. He was far more agile, explosive, and athletic then must give him credit for. He was just caught in the era of the last big man and everyone wanting to be like Mike.

Because the game was officiated differently back then and Shaq wouldn't be able to play his usual style. This is not some kind of fringe hypothesis, all you need to do is to watch a few 1960s and 1970s games. Someone like Artis Gilmore was called for a lot of offensive fouls that would never be called on Shaq in the 1990s and Artis was less physical with his approach than Shaq.

[MacGill]

I don’t see how Shaq game, as it was, translates backwards to the early eras. His main moves are fouls. Could he dominate, of course. He’d also foul out in 5 minutes. He’d have to adapt to a more Wilt like offensive approach, could he do that? Maybe/probably but it’s not what we saw.

Shaq arguably has the most transferable game in the history of the nba...6 foot window, that's it, which when played in the earlier era as a true big man's game, would be even more dominant based on how the game favoured the bigs play. Why would he need to have a Wilt approach? When Wilt watched Orlando Shaq he even marvelled at how O'Neal played the game and on live tv stated, 'maybe I should have played the power game more like him'.

There is nothing confusing about bball and Shaq showed that he could be paired with another 1B Alpha male and still thrive, regardless of personal attacks. People need to watch more earlier Shaq, and not 'system' Shaq. He was far more agile, explosive, and athletic then must give him credit for. He was just caught in the era of the last big man and everyone wanting to be like Mike.

Because the game was officiated differently back then and Shaq wouldn't be able to play his usual style. This is not some kind of fringe hypothesis, all you need to do is to watch a few 1960s and 1970s games. Someone like Artis Gilmore was called for a lot of offensive fouls that would never be called on Shaq in the 1990s and Artis was less physical with his approach than Shaq.

I've watched any and all available footage made available from that or any nba time period. While I will agree that there were aspects of the game officiated differently, and it needed to evolve, you also needed the players to introduce that style for the evolution to happen. Even in the 90's, no league offical ever dealt with a player of Shaq's magnitude, ripping down entire basetball nets etc, they didn't know how to call him. Then the league also 'cries about it' and it puts everyone in a tough spot. Sure, Shaq got away with a lot, but he used every advantage he could to his own advantage. He also got punished more than any other center in the history of the game because of that and his style of play.

His type of play simply wasn't introduced earlier on, the same as players finishing at the rim and dunking took time for the refs and league to evolve around. Who was playing like Curry prior? Did the league or coaches know what to do exactly? It took time...

There are players who come along, call it a basketball life hack, to help evolve the game and provide a style of play that hasn't been tried before. No center prior to O'Neal played his style of consistent back to basket power play, not one. Regardless of what era he would be in, the exact same thing would happen with respect to reffing. The fans would luv it in any era, the league would luv the attention, and the refs would adjust and implement 'said' rule changes etc. and move on.

[MacGill]

I don’t see how Shaq game, as it was, translates backwards to the early eras. His main moves are fouls. Could he dominate, of course. He’d also foul out in 5 minutes. He’d have to adapt to a more Wilt like offensive approach, could he do that? Maybe/probably but it’s not what we saw.

Shaq arguably has the most transferable game in the history of the nba...6 foot window, that's it, which when played in the earlier era as a true big man's game, would be even more dominant based on how the game favoured the bigs play. Why would he need to have a Wilt approach? When Wilt watched Orlando Shaq he even marvelled at how O'Neal played the game and on live tv stated, 'maybe I should have played the power game more like him'.

There is nothing confusing about bball and Shaq showed that he could be paired with another 1B Alpha male and still thrive, regardless of personal attacks. People need to watch more earlier Shaq, and not 'system' Shaq. He was far more agile, explosive, and athletic then must give him credit for. He was just caught in the era of the last big man and everyone wanting to be like Mike.

Not my understanding of Wilt’s view.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/pm692e/how_nba_rules_prevented_wilt_from_playing_like/?rdt=34583

No difference than Pierce stating that he was even more LBJ-esque come playoff time etc. Most extrovert star players become philosphers post retirement but why don't you pull up the 'real time' in-game commentary of Wilt when Orlando played New York to hear what he said then. There is also limited full game footage of him, instead of just highlight reels, and you can draw your own conclusions.

[70sFan]

Shaq arguably has the most transferable game in the history of the nba...6 foot window, that's it, which when played in the earlier era as a true big man's game, would be even more dominant based on how the game favoured the bigs play. Why would he need to have a Wilt approach? When Wilt watched Orlando Shaq he even marvelled at how O'Neal played the game and on live tv stated, 'maybe I should have played the power game more like him'.

There is nothing confusing about bball and Shaq showed that he could be paired with another 1B Alpha male and still thrive, regardless of personal attacks. People need to watch more earlier Shaq, and not 'system' Shaq. He was far more agile, explosive, and athletic then must give him credit for. He was just caught in the era of the last big man and everyone wanting to be like Mike.

Because the game was officiated differently back then and Shaq wouldn't be able to play his usual style. This is not some kind of fringe hypothesis, all you need to do is to watch a few 1960s and 1970s games. Someone like Artis Gilmore was called for a lot of offensive fouls that would never be called on Shaq in the 1990s and Artis was less physical with his approach than Shaq.

I've watched any and all available footage made available from that or any nba time period. While I will agree that there were aspects of the game officiated differently, and it needed to evolve, you also needed the players to introduce that style for the evolution to happen. Even in the 90's, no league offical ever dealt with a player of Shaq's magnitude, ripping down entire basetball nets etc, they didn't know how to call him. Then the league also 'cries about it' and it puts everyone in a tough spot. Sure, Shaq got away with a lot, but he used every advantage he could to his own advantage. He also got punished more than any other center in the history of the game because of that and his style of play.

His type of play simply wasn't introduced earlier on, the same as players finishing at the rim and dunking took time for the refs and league to evolve around. Who was playing like Curry prior? Did the league or coaches know what to do exactly? It took time...

There are players who come along, call it a basketball life hack, to help evolve the game and provide a style of play that hasn't been tried before. No center prior to O'Neal played his style of consistent back to basket power play, not one. Regardless of what era he would be in, the exact same thing would happen with respect to reffing. The fans would luv it in any era, the league would luv the attention, and the refs would adjust and implement 'said' rule changes etc. and move on.

Your assumption is that basketball was destined to be played the way it is now, but it's far from the truth. Basketball looks now they way it does because the league wanted it to look that way - not because it was a natural process.

Wilt had all the tools to force the adjustment, but the league didn't want it back in the 1960s. You can argue that Wilt was the first, so it was expected but then we got another physical and dominant player in Gilmore, who played in a more experimental league and yet refs, fans and the league didn't allow him to play Shaq way. You may say that they didn't take it to the same extreme, but it's easier to say than done when you are called for 3 offensive fouls in one half - then you naturally stop playing that way.

I don't think we can simply assume that Shaq would play his style in the 1960s and fans would love it, because fans were different back then.

[MacGill]

Because the game was officiated differently back then and Shaq wouldn't be able to play his usual style. This is not some kind of fringe hypothesis, all you need to do is to watch a few 1960s and 1970s games. Someone like Artis Gilmore was called for a lot of offensive fouls that would never be called on Shaq in the 1990s and Artis was less physical with his approach than Shaq.

I've watched any and all available footage made available from that or any nba time period. While I will agree that there were aspects of the game officiated differently, and it needed to evolve, you also needed the players to introduce that style for the evolution to happen. Even in the 90's, no league offical ever dealt with a player of Shaq's magnitude, ripping down entire basetball nets etc, they didn't know how to call him. Then the league also 'cries about it' and it puts everyone in a tough spot. Sure, Shaq got away with a lot, but he used every advantage he could to his own advantage. He also got punished more than any other center in the history of the game because of that and his style of play.

His type of play simply wasn't introduced earlier on, the same as players finishing at the rim and dunking took time for the refs and league to evolve around. Who was playing like Curry prior? Did the league or coaches know what to do exactly? It took time...

There are players who come along, call it a basketball life hack, to help evolve the game and provide a style of play that hasn't been tried before. No center prior to O'Neal played his style of consistent back to basket power play, not one. Regardless of what era he would be in, the exact same thing would happen with respect to reffing. The fans would luv it in any era, the league would luv the attention, and the refs would adjust and implement 'said' rule changes etc. and move on.

Your assumption is that basketball was destined to be played the way it is now, but it's far from the truth. Basketball looks now they way it does because the league wanted it to look that way - not because it was a natural process.

Wilt had all the tools to force the adjustment, but the league didn't want it back in the 1960s. You can argue that Wilt was the first, so it was expected but then we got another physical and dominant player in Gilmore, who played in a more experimental league and yet refs, fans and the league didn't allow him to play Shaq way. You may say that they didn't take it to the same extreme, but it's easier to say than done when you are called for 3 offensive fouls in one half - then you naturally stop playing that way.

I don't think we can simply assume that Shaq would play his style in the 1960s and fans would love it, because fans were different back then.

Respectfully, you're overvaluing human evolution in emotion. Roman times vs UFC? Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds? Gordie Howe vs Sid etc.

Technology changes, concepts change, but the game's own longevity allows new athletes to come into the sport and do what others couldn't, Wilt included. Remember when basketball was actually played in straw buckets and the ball needed to be hit out of the goal to play again? That's because across any generation humans have always been fascinated with individuals of great(er) abilities across every industry or sport.

Example - the league never stopped Russell from winning 11/13 championships or 8 in a row, a feat most likely never to be seen again and that's because people are gluttons and always have and always will love winning above all else. Most prefer a home run fest versus a pitching no hitter etc.

Wilt himself was the circus act trying to grow the game back in the day, hence why he was given the opportunity to put up all the records that he did. O is sexier than D to the more common fan but not neccessarily to the geeks like us, although we are a much, much smaller percentage overall.

Back to Russell, who is my 1B GOAT after MJ, no one told him that defense wins championships? He easily could have scored more, or passed more, but he was one of those 'basketball hacks' who would do something of similar nature in any era because he showed us he already had that Einstein IQ. We pretty much get these players about once a decade and Shaq 100% was wired to play his way even if he lived in a cave and had a square rock as a basketball.

Give the people what they want and they very quickly get behind you and rally. After Kobe demanded a trade and they were booing him to cheering him by the 4th quarter. We now have centers shooting 3's and moving away from the 60's type of big man style. Leagues issues aside, the same emotion on the quality of game exists today. I hate the 3 ball take over, I think it has diluted the current game but globally the game is more popular than ever.

[70sFan]

I've watched any and all available footage made available from that or any nba time period. While I will agree that there were aspects of the game officiated differently, and it needed to evolve, you also needed the players to introduce that style for the evolution to happen. Even in the 90's, no league offical ever dealt with a player of Shaq's magnitude, ripping down entire basetball nets etc, they didn't know how to call him. Then the league also 'cries about it' and it puts everyone in a tough spot. Sure, Shaq got away with a lot, but he used every advantage he could to his own advantage. He also got punished more than any other center in the history of the game because of that and his style of play.

His type of play simply wasn't introduced earlier on, the same as players finishing at the rim and dunking took time for the refs and league to evolve around. Who was playing like Curry prior? Did the league or coaches know what to do exactly? It took time...

There are players who come along, call it a basketball life hack, to help evolve the game and provide a style of play that hasn't been tried before. No center prior to O'Neal played his style of consistent back to basket power play, not one. Regardless of what era he would be in, the exact same thing would happen with respect to reffing. The fans would luv it in any era, the league would luv the attention, and the refs would adjust and implement 'said' rule changes etc. and move on.

Your assumption is that basketball was destined to be played the way it is now, but it's far from the truth. Basketball looks now they way it does because the league wanted it to look that way - not because it was a natural process.

Wilt had all the tools to force the adjustment, but the league didn't want it back in the 1960s. You can argue that Wilt was the first, so it was expected but then we got another physical and dominant player in Gilmore, who played in a more experimental league and yet refs, fans and the league didn't allow him to play Shaq way. You may say that they didn't take it to the same extreme, but it's easier to say than done when you are called for 3 offensive fouls in one half - then you naturally stop playing that way.

I don't think we can simply assume that Shaq would play his style in the 1960s and fans would love it, because fans were different back then.

Respectfully, you're overvaluing human evolution in emotion. Roman times vs UFC? Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds? Gordie Howe vs Sid etc.

Technology changes, concepts change, but the game's own longevity allows new athletes to come into the sport and do what others couldn't, Wilt included. Remember when basketball was actually played in straw buckets and the ball needed to be hit out of the goal to play again? That's because across any generation humans have always been fascinated with individuals of great(er) abilities across every industry or sport.

Example - the league never stopped Russell from winning 11/13 championships or 8 in a row, a feat most likely never to be seen again and that's because people are gluttons and always have and always will love winning above all else. Most prefer a home run fest versus a pitching no hitter etc.

Wilt himself was the circus act trying to grow the game back in the day, hence why he was given the opportunity to put up all the records that he did. O is sexier than D to the more common fan but not neccessarily to the geeks like us, although we are a much, much smaller percentage overall.

Back to Russell, who is my 1B GOAT after MJ, no one told him that defense wins championships? He easily could have scored more, or passed more, but he was one of those 'basketball hacks' who would do something of similar nature in any era because he showed us he already had that Einstein IQ. We pretty much get these players about once a decade and Shaq 100% was wired to play his way even if he lived in a cave and had a square rock as a basketball.

Give the people what they want and they very quickly get behind you and rally. After Kobe demanded a trade and they were booing him to cheering him by the 4th quarter. We now have centers shooting 3's and moving away from the 60's type of big man style. Leagues issues aside, the same emotion on the quality of game exists today. I hate the 3 ball take over, I think it has diluted the current game but globally the game is more popular than ever.

So your conclusion is that Shaq would be able to play his style no problem in the 1960s?

[DraymondGold]

Spoiler:

“All the best playoff offences in league history have been helio offences” is a pretty clear exaggeration. The idea that we can only build our dream team around heliocentric offenses if we want GOAT level offense seems pretty indefensible.

Here are the top 15 Rankings in Regular Season Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute), and Postseason Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute). I’ve done a quick read through and added comments for teams that are, off the top of my head, pretty clearly not heliocentric in the traditional sense. We can absolutely nitpick individual cases either way, but this is just to show a general trend.

Top 15 Regular Season Relative Offensive Ratings:
2004 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2005 Suns
2016 Warriors -> Motion offense
2002 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2010 Suns
1997 Bulls -> triangle offense
1998 Jazz -> not a heliocentric offense. Pick and roll two man heavy, shooting offense.
2007 Suns
1996 Bulls -> triangle offense
2004 Kings -> not a heliocentric offense.
1982 Nuggets -> not a heliocentric offense.
1988 Celtics -> Not a heliocentric offense. Pass heavy, shooting offense.
1992 Bulls -> triangle offense
1987 Lakers
2003 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism

Top 15 Regular Season Offensive Ratinsg:
2023 Kings -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Blazers
2023 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2021 Jazz
2021 Clippers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2021 Phoenix -> not heliocentric.
2021 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2023 Mavs
2023 Hawks
2022 Hawks

Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings:
1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1993 Pacers -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1990 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating:
2020 Jazz [7 games only in a losing series]
2021 Blazers [6 games only in a losing series]
2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
1990 Celtics -> not heliocentric. [5 games only in a losing series]
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
2010 Suns
2022 Pelicans -> not heliocentric. [6 games only in a losing series]
1992 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [4 games only in a losing series]
[1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric]

So… all the best offenses ever in the league history are pretty clearly not heliocentric. Unless you’re really only hyper-focused on absolute offensive rating rather than relative offensive rating (when relative offensive rating would make more sense for an exercise like this, when we might not be playing in a modern ruleset), only on the playoffs while discounting the regular season entirely, only focusing on a small sample of teams (top 6 ever or less), two of whom played less than 10 games in only 1 series which they lost, one of whom had abnormally high shooting luck on open 3s. Then you could say all the best playoff offenses in league history are heliocentric.

But that’s not the only way to measure playoff offenses. What about common-opponent Offensive Rating? This is a ranking that calculates ‘relative’ offensive rating, where the relative is based only off the playoffs (rather than calibrating using opponents’ *regular season* defense).
Top 15 
Postseason Common Opponent Offensive Rating (post-1984):
2016 Cavs
2017 Cavs
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2021 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2006 Suns
1996 Magic -> not heliocentric.
1986 Mavs -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2012 Heat
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2003 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
So going by co Offensive Rating, the top offensive are even less heliocentric-only.

Now, team offense is a *very* broad measure to try to estimate player offensive contributions by. There’s so much context that’s important, which saying ~“heliocentric team offense = only GOAT offense” misses. We can get slightly more granular by looking at team offenses when a player is on the court. Here’s a sample of the top 15 offenses when each of the following stars was on the court: Curry, Nash, Paul, Durant, Dirk, Kawhi, LeBron, Shaq, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Trae Young, Kobe, Giannis, Wade, McGrady, Duncan, Garnett:

Top 15 Superstar on-court Relative Offensive Rating
2018 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2005 Nash
2017 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2015 Paul
2016 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2007 Nash
2017 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2023 Jokic* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2018 Paul
2004 Dirk -> not heliocentric.
2015 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Kawhi
2019 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2004 Nash
Source: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=101069389#p101069389

So again, heliocentrism is not the be-all end all for offenses.

In fact, when looking at the best *overall* teams, it seems almost the opposite is the trend. The best teams tend to be two-way teams, which get value from having both defensive and offensive players, and who make the most of their offense through more egalitarian, motion/triangle/pass-heavy styles.

Best Overall Teams by Overall SRS:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. 2 man game.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy, shooting heavy offense.
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1985 Lakers
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1987 Lakers
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle
1967 76ers -> not heliocentric. Spoke and wheel, off hall motion around a facilitating big man.
[2016 Cavs]

Best Overall Teams by ELO:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
2016 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1998 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1989 Pistons -> not heliocentric.
1983 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2013 Heat
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.

There's a pretty clear precedent for wanting to not have heliocentric offense on your Dream team. Of course, heliocentric offenses can be great. LeBron can lead a pretty great offense, and if you want to build your Dream Team around him, by all means, I'm sure you'd make a pretty great team. But it's also not ridiculous to prefer other offensive schemes or even other players. And I think claims suggesting that only heliocentric offenses can reach all-time status in the playoffs are pretty clearly off-base.

Just following this up to adjust for first round exits in the playoff-only samples.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is. Plenty of two man action.
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2010 Suns
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1985 Lakers* more egalitarian than traditional heliocentric, see below
2021 Nuggets * not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
[2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.]

So a majority of the top 15 teams in playoff absolute offensive rating are *not* heliocentric. Note the 2017 Cavaliers benefited from some of the best shooting luck on open 3s from their players in this century. Their role players made more open 3s than you would expect in larger samples, based off their regular season shooting. This would boost their ranking slightly. This list is also categorizing the 2021 Clippers as heliocentric, when they ran plenty of two man action. And this is categorizing the 1985 Lakers as heliocentric when their scoring load was very egalitarian across their top 4 players (Magic was 3rd), and both Kareem/Worth shared half-court load far more than you'd expect for a traditional heliocentric star's costars.

What about relative offensive rating? This may do a better job of getting teams throughout history:
Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
1987 Lakers
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric
2014 Clippers
2021 Jazz
2003 Dallas* really more of a two-man game than traditional heliocentrism

So again, a *majority* of the top 15 teams are not heliocentric. You really have to be hyper-obsessed with a small sample of teams, playoffs only, who cares about context, to argue you can only use heliocentrism if you want the best offenses. Is the best argument that you *must* have LeBron run heliocentric ball on your all-time team really dependent on the raw offensive rating of the 2021 Jazz? If the Jazz were slightly more egalitarian, would that really put an actual dent in the value of LeBron? Seems a little silly to me.

Since this prompt is asking teams to be able to play in any era, what are the Best Relative Playoff offense by decade?

Spoiler:

1950s:
-1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1955 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
-1959 76ers -> not heliocentric.
1960s:
-1963 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
-1966 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1970s:
-1976 76ers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1975 Rockets -> not heliocentric.
-1973 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
1980s:
-1987 Lakers
-1982 Nuggets -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1985 Lakers* could be argued to not be heliocentric, see above
[In RS, 1988 Celtics, not heliocentric, were 2nd after the Nuggets but were injured for the postseason]
1990s:
-1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
-1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000s:
-2005 Suns
-2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric. [7 games only in a losing series]
-2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2010s
-2017 Cavs
-2010 Suns
[In RS, 2016 Warriors, not heliocentric, were 1st but were injured for the postseason]

So throughout most of history, non-heliocentric teams have generally had the best offenses. And in the two decades where a heliocentric team had the best offenses (1980s, 2010s), it’s worth noting that the best regular season offense of the decade had key player(s) injured in the postseason.

Looking at raw playoff offensive rating, it seems like the far bigger trend (bigger than Heliocentrism) is the rise of modern teams. In absolute playoff ORTG, 6/15 of the top teams ever were from the past *3* years, only 4 teams were before the year 2000, and none were before 1980. Is heliocentrism really the biggest change that's happened in the past few years? What changed around 1980, then started increasing in the mid 2000s, then really exploded in the past few years? It's not heliocentism.... It seems like a far bigger change is the 3 point revolution, with changes like the rise in pace and space, or spread pick and roll, or 3 and D players, or heliocentric stars, being far more minor to the larger increase in distance shooting.

If so, then it seems like it would be important for a team to prioritize having shooting to have the best raw offensive rating (at least under the modern ruleset, we can debate others)... which would provide clear justification for choosing players like Bird over LeBron on their team. Not to say that you can't pick LeBron -- you absolutely can, and I might anyway -- but there's clear reasoning for why someone might want Bird, and they're not crazy for making that choice.

Could these best heliocentric offenses just be more offense-focused, at the cost of defense? Mike D'Antoni has said the Nash Suns really committed to prioritizing offensive players and play over defensive ones, because they thought that was the best way for their team to win. And it might have been!

But what if we actually look at teams that actually were the most dominant? I looked at Overall SRS last time. What if we look at the Top 15 playoff-only SRS teams in NBA history?

Top 15 Postseason-Only SRS:

Spoiler:

2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy offense.
2016 Cavaliers
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
1985 Lakers* arguably more egalitarian than traditional heliocentrism
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1972 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.

Wowza! That’s very little heliocentrism at the top. SO if we’re really going to make an argument that ‘Oh the Top X teams at Y Skill played like Z so you have to design your team like that’… then it seems like the stronger argument would be, if you want an Overall good team, get two-way players who use scalable and non-heliocentric skills to boost the offense.

As SNPA has been saying, everyone's free to build teams how they want. There's a clear precedent that heliocentric team can produce good offensive results, and it doesn't seem crazy to imagine that adding better defenders (that are still heliocentric-friendly) could produce even better results. But insisting that ~"all the best playoff offences in league history have been hello offences" and that the best non-helio offenses are only reasonable "if we want a first round elimination" is such a biased take that it's honestly laughable.

...

Aaanyway, shifting back to the topic on hand, what critiques to people have for my teams? At the moment I have:
My Team for the pre-Modern Ruleset:
PG: Jerry West
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Phil Jackson

My Team for the Modern Ruleset
PG: Steph Curry
SG: young Kawhi Leonard
SF: Kevin Durant
PF: LeBron James
C: Kevin Garnett
Coach: Greg Popovich

Attempt at making a hybrid across all rulesets:
PG: Steph Curry
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: young Kawhi Leonard
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Greg Popovich.
I fear this team wouldn't have the synergy of either of the other two (I mentioned before there's sacrifices you'd have to make for cross-era flexibility). There's still plenty of shooting/passing/defense, but I do feel the loss of Pippen/James as point forward ball handlers and facilitators, and I would love to have slightly more defensive versatility. But I'm not sure I like Pippen over Kawhi/Bird for his lack of shooting, and I'm not sure I like James' play style alongside Jordan/Wilt if I'm focusing on fit first. Presumably to make up for this, I would have Wilt and Bird in more of a playmaking role to either start the fast break or in the half court, with Curry/Jordan also boosting their on-ball passing load slightly. Certainly would be pretty great, but I'm open to suggestions for how to improve!

[MacGill]

Your assumption is that basketball was destined to be played the way it is now, but it's far from the truth. Basketball looks now they way it does because the league wanted it to look that way - not because it was a natural process.

Wilt had all the tools to force the adjustment, but the league didn't want it back in the 1960s. You can argue that Wilt was the first, so it was expected but then we got another physical and dominant player in Gilmore, who played in a more experimental league and yet refs, fans and the league didn't allow him to play Shaq way. You may say that they didn't take it to the same extreme, but it's easier to say than done when you are called for 3 offensive fouls in one half - then you naturally stop playing that way.

I don't think we can simply assume that Shaq would play his style in the 1960s and fans would love it, because fans were different back then.

Respectfully, you're overvaluing human evolution in emotion. Roman times vs UFC? Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds? Gordie Howe vs Sid etc.

Technology changes, concepts change, but the game's own longevity allows new athletes to come into the sport and do what others couldn't, Wilt included. Remember when basketball was actually played in straw buckets and the ball needed to be hit out of the goal to play again? That's because across any generation humans have always been fascinated with individuals of great(er) abilities across every industry or sport.

Example - the league never stopped Russell from winning 11/13 championships or 8 in a row, a feat most likely never to be seen again and that's because people are gluttons and always have and always will love winning above all else. Most prefer a home run fest versus a pitching no hitter etc.

Wilt himself was the circus act trying to grow the game back in the day, hence why he was given the opportunity to put up all the records that he did. O is sexier than D to the more common fan but not neccessarily to the geeks like us, although we are a much, much smaller percentage overall.

Back to Russell, who is my 1B GOAT after MJ, no one told him that defense wins championships? He easily could have scored more, or passed more, but he was one of those 'basketball hacks' who would do something of similar nature in any era because he showed us he already had that Einstein IQ. We pretty much get these players about once a decade and Shaq 100% was wired to play his way even if he lived in a cave and had a square rock as a basketball.

Give the people what they want and they very quickly get behind you and rally. After Kobe demanded a trade and they were booing him to cheering him by the 4th quarter. We now have centers shooting 3's and moving away from the 60's type of big man style. Leagues issues aside, the same emotion on the quality of game exists today. I hate the 3 ball take over, I think it has diluted the current game but globally the game is more popular than ever.

So your conclusion is that Shaq would be able to play his style no problem in the 1960s?

My conclusion is that Shaq's game would be dominant in any era that we've seen as I am sure you'd agree the same with Wilt's?

In fact, he was the last dominant center, playing in a league where guard play became popular, a'la Curry today, that you could say where a center was a traditional center.

+/- on his physicality, and whether he needs to put on the amount of size that he needed based on how teams had to play him but he'd be able to adjust to whatever was thrown at him. #1) he didn't care, #2) like Wilt, he'd be light years ahead of everyone and they would utilize him more than he ever was in the 90's/00's.

You must remember, there is no other top 10 talent who had to play and share with another top 10 (for argument sake) with overlapping peak/primes, without bowing down, talent like Shaq had to. Not Russell, Wilt, Artis, KAJ, Magic, Hakeem, MJ, LBJ etc.

[70sFan]

Respectfully, you're overvaluing human evolution in emotion. Roman times vs UFC? Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds? Gordie Howe vs Sid etc.

Technology changes, concepts change, but the game's own longevity allows new athletes to come into the sport and do what others couldn't, Wilt included. Remember when basketball was actually played in straw buckets and the ball needed to be hit out of the goal to play again? That's because across any generation humans have always been fascinated with individuals of great(er) abilities across every industry or sport.

Example - the league never stopped Russell from winning 11/13 championships or 8 in a row, a feat most likely never to be seen again and that's because people are gluttons and always have and always will love winning above all else. Most prefer a home run fest versus a pitching no hitter etc.

Wilt himself was the circus act trying to grow the game back in the day, hence why he was given the opportunity to put up all the records that he did. O is sexier than D to the more common fan but not neccessarily to the geeks like us, although we are a much, much smaller percentage overall.

Back to Russell, who is my 1B GOAT after MJ, no one told him that defense wins championships? He easily could have scored more, or passed more, but he was one of those 'basketball hacks' who would do something of similar nature in any era because he showed us he already had that Einstein IQ. We pretty much get these players about once a decade and Shaq 100% was wired to play his way even if he lived in a cave and had a square rock as a basketball.

Give the people what they want and they very quickly get behind you and rally. After Kobe demanded a trade and they were booing him to cheering him by the 4th quarter. We now have centers shooting 3's and moving away from the 60's type of big man style. Leagues issues aside, the same emotion on the quality of game exists today. I hate the 3 ball take over, I think it has diluted the current game but globally the game is more popular than ever.

So your conclusion is that Shaq would be able to play his style no problem in the 1960s?

My conclusion is that Shaq's game would be dominant in any era that we've seen as I am sure you'd agree the same with Wilt's?

In fact, he was the last dominant center, playing in a league where guard play became popular, a'la Curry today, that you could say where a center was a traditional center.

+/- on his physicality, and whether he needs to put on the amount of size that he needed based on how teams had to play him but he'd be able to adjust to whatever was thrown at him. #1) he didn't care, #2) like Wilt, he'd be light years ahead of everyone and they would utilize him more than he ever was in the 90's/00's.

You must remember, there is no other top 10 talent who had to play and share with another top 10 (for argument sake) with overlapping peak/primes, without bowing down, talent like Shaq had to. Not Russell, Wilt, Artis, KAJ, Magic, Hakeem, MJ, LBJ etc.

Yeah, he would adapt and remain dominant. I never denied that. My disagreement is that I think Shaq would have to adjust to the league, league wouldn't adjust to him.

One minor disagreement is that I doubt Shaq would be utilized more in the 1960s than in the 1990s. Maybe in terms of raw numbers, but teams optimized their offensive systems for post players way better in the 1990s than in the 1960s and Shaq got way more post touches than someone like Wilt or even Kareem in terms of percentages.

[DSMok1]

When thinking of a team best across eras, I want to maximize flexibility and additive/synergistic skillsets. In other words, I'm looking at defense, passing, shooting, etc. I don't want to pick a team full of players that need the ball on offense to maximize their value, even if my top 5 all time might be full of such players.

My team:
Steph Curry (or Jerry West--i don't have a great handle on his skillset)
Michael Jordan
Magic Johnson
Kevin Garnett
Bill Russell

[MacGill]

So your conclusion is that Shaq would be able to play his style no problem in the 1960s?

My conclusion is that Shaq's game would be dominant in any era that we've seen as I am sure you'd agree the same with Wilt's?

In fact, he was the last dominant center, playing in a league where guard play became popular, a'la Curry today, that you could say where a center was a traditional center.

+/- on his physicality, and whether he needs to put on the amount of size that he needed based on how teams had to play him but he'd be able to adjust to whatever was thrown at him. #1) he didn't care, #2) like Wilt, he'd be light years ahead of everyone and they would utilize him more than he ever was in the 90's/00's.

You must remember, there is no other top 10 talent who had to play and share with another top 10 (for argument sake) with overlapping peak/primes, without bowing down, talent like Shaq had to. Not Russell, Wilt, Artis, KAJ, Magic, Hakeem, MJ, LBJ etc.

Yeah, he would adapt and remain dominant. I never denied that. My disagreement is that I think Shaq would have to adjust to the league, league wouldn't adjust to him.

One minor disagreement is that I doubt Shaq would be utilized more in the 1960s than in the 1990s. Maybe in terms of raw numbers, but teams optimized their offensive systems for post players way better in the 1990s than in the 1960s and Shaq got way more post touches than someone like Wilt or even Kareem in terms of percentages.

Understood - and we have no true way of confirming this. What I will say though is in terms of 'not giving a damn' I have Shaq closer to Russell/KAJ mentally then Wilt's. So while Russell, to me, had the mental grit to have done this in his time if he was an actual O anchor, I think we could have seen it with him or if KAJ was drafted in a decade earlier. I believe these two centers would have gone against the grain and the fans would have quickly jumped on the bandwagon even if upset at first.

Sure, but that's the beauty of Shaq. Sometimes it's the player that creates or forces the system versus the coaching staff. Hell, earlier on we know that X&O's were more simplistic but image what a coaching team was to do once they saw the skyhook?

I certainly don't have all the answers and this is all speculation but however it worked I am confident that a more 90's style of play would have been introduced into the 60's whether they knew what they were doing or not.

[SNPA]

I think the importance of television is the missing component. It’s TV contracts (and corresponding exposure) that has been the driving force in the league for at least 40 years. Why did AI get away with dribbling like that? I think we know.

For the purposes of this thread though you can not assume Shaq can go delicate. His game, as it was at his peak…that doesn’t translate to the early eras. Sure he had some touch and could use it but the bullyball stuff didn’t work then. Power players get hurt in this exercise. So do guys that rely on exaggerated dribbling techniques. Those don’t translate back to early eras either.

[MacGill]

I think the importance of television is the missing component. It’s TV contracts (and corresponding exposure) that has been the driving force in the league for at least 40 years. Why did AI get away with dribbling like that? I think we know.

For the purposes of this thread though you can not assume Shaq can go delicate. His game, as it was at his peak…that doesn’t translate to the early eras. Sure he had some touch and could use it but the bullyball stuff didn’t work then. Power players get hurt in this exercise. So do guys that rely on exaggerated dribbling techniques. Those don’t translate back to early eras either.

I think you really need to go back and rewatch, study Shaq. Shaq played the power game because all through HS & LSU no one could really stop him. He 100% played to his strength. This shouldn't be confused with the fact that HS O'Neal was a great ball handler, that Orlando & LA Shaq could still run the break from end to end and you have actual video footage of him playng 1-1 versus guards/forwards where he not only has great dribbling, but also range. Hell, there is post retirement video of Shaq hitting 3's for crying out loud.

It amazes me why someone would think that Shaq was 'limited' to a power game only when he showed so much more than that througout his career. Was that his bread & butter? Sure. But he was the 'system' and the entire league shuffled to try and stop him. But if you honestly think that Shaq's max output was catch and dunk then you need to go back and watch him more carefully.

[70sFan]

I think the importance of television is the missing component. It’s TV contracts (and corresponding exposure) that has been the driving force in the league for at least 40 years. Why did AI get away with dribbling like that? I think we know.

For the purposes of this thread though you can not assume Shaq can go delicate. His game, as it was at his peak…that doesn’t translate to the early eras. Sure he had some touch and could use it but the bullyball stuff didn’t work then. Power players get hurt in this exercise. So do guys that rely on exaggerated dribbling techniques. Those don’t translate back to early eras either.

I think you really need to go back and rewatch, study Shaq. Shaq played the power game because all through HS & LSU no one could really stop him. He 100% played to his strength. This shouldn't be confused with the fact that HS O'Neal was a great ball handler, that Orlando & LA Shaq could still run the break from end to end and you have actual video footage of him playng 1-1 versus guards/forwards where he not only has great dribbling, but also range. Hell, there is post retirement video of Shaq hitting 3's for crying out loud.

It amazes me why someone would think that Shaq was 'limited' to a power game only when he showed so much more than that througout his career. Was that his bread & butter? Sure. But he was the 'system' and the entire league shuffled to try and stop him. But if you honestly think that Shaq's max output was catch and dunk then you need to go back and watch him more carefully.

I actually 100% agree with the bolded part. People who think this way usually never watched Shaq outside of highlight reels. Shaq's game was significantly more refined than people give him credit for.

[SNPA]

I think the importance of television is the missing component. It’s TV contracts (and corresponding exposure) that has been the driving force in the league for at least 40 years. Why did AI get away with dribbling like that? I think we know.

For the purposes of this thread though you can not assume Shaq can go delicate. His game, as it was at his peak…that doesn’t translate to the early eras. Sure he had some touch and could use it but the bullyball stuff didn’t work then. Power players get hurt in this exercise. So do guys that rely on exaggerated dribbling techniques. Those don’t translate back to early eras either.

I think you really need to go back and rewatch, study Shaq. Shaq played the power game because all through HS & LSU no one could really stop him. He 100% played to his strength. This shouldn't be confused with the fact that HS O'Neal was a great ball handler, that Orlando & LA Shaq could still run the break from end to end and you have actual video footage of him playng 1-1 versus guards/forwards where he not only has great dribbling, but also range. Hell, there is post retirement video of Shaq hitting 3's for crying out loud.

It amazes me why someone would think that Shaq was 'limited' to a power game only when he showed so much more than that througout his career. Was that his bread & butter? Sure. But he was the 'system' and the entire league shuffled to try and stop him. But if you honestly think that Shaq's max output was catch and dunk then you need to go back and watch him more carefully.

I actually 100% agree with the bolded part. People who think this way usually never watched Shaq outside of highlight reels. Shaq's game was significantly more refined than people give him credit for.

I’m a Kings fan. I know about Shaq.

To repeat, for the purposes of this exercise it’s the player at his peak. At his peak Shaq used a lot of bully ball. Not all. But a lot. That doesn’t translate backwards. Thus, it hurts him some. How much is debatable.

[SNPA]

Spoiler:

“All the best playoff offences in league history have been helio offences” is a pretty clear exaggeration. The idea that we can only build our dream team around heliocentric offenses if we want GOAT level offense seems pretty indefensible.

Here are the top 15 Rankings in Regular Season Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute), and Postseason Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute). I’ve done a quick read through and added comments for teams that are, off the top of my head, pretty clearly not heliocentric in the traditional sense. We can absolutely nitpick individual cases either way, but this is just to show a general trend.

Top 15 Regular Season Relative Offensive Ratings:
2004 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2005 Suns
2016 Warriors -> Motion offense
2002 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2010 Suns
1997 Bulls -> triangle offense
1998 Jazz -> not a heliocentric offense. Pick and roll two man heavy, shooting offense.
2007 Suns
1996 Bulls -> triangle offense
2004 Kings -> not a heliocentric offense.
1982 Nuggets -> not a heliocentric offense.
1988 Celtics -> Not a heliocentric offense. Pass heavy, shooting offense.
1992 Bulls -> triangle offense
1987 Lakers
2003 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism

Top 15 Regular Season Offensive Ratinsg:
2023 Kings -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Blazers
2023 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2021 Jazz
2021 Clippers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2021 Phoenix -> not heliocentric.
2021 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2023 Mavs
2023 Hawks
2022 Hawks

Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings:
1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1993 Pacers -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1990 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating:
2020 Jazz [7 games only in a losing series]
2021 Blazers [6 games only in a losing series]
2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
1990 Celtics -> not heliocentric. [5 games only in a losing series]
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
2010 Suns
2022 Pelicans -> not heliocentric. [6 games only in a losing series]
1992 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [4 games only in a losing series]
[1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric]

So… all the best offenses ever in the league history are pretty clearly not heliocentric. Unless you’re really only hyper-focused on absolute offensive rating rather than relative offensive rating (when relative offensive rating would make more sense for an exercise like this, when we might not be playing in a modern ruleset), only on the playoffs while discounting the regular season entirely, only focusing on a small sample of teams (top 6 ever or less), two of whom played less than 10 games in only 1 series which they lost, one of whom had abnormally high shooting luck on open 3s. Then you could say all the best playoff offenses in league history are heliocentric.

But that’s not the only way to measure playoff offenses. What about common-opponent Offensive Rating? This is a ranking that calculates ‘relative’ offensive rating, where the relative is based only off the playoffs (rather than calibrating using opponents’ *regular season* defense).
Top 15 
Postseason Common Opponent Offensive Rating (post-1984):
2016 Cavs
2017 Cavs
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2021 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2006 Suns
1996 Magic -> not heliocentric.
1986 Mavs -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2012 Heat
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2003 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
So going by co Offensive Rating, the top offensive are even less heliocentric-only.

Now, team offense is a *very* broad measure to try to estimate player offensive contributions by. There’s so much context that’s important, which saying ~“heliocentric team offense = only GOAT offense” misses. We can get slightly more granular by looking at team offenses when a player is on the court. Here’s a sample of the top 15 offenses when each of the following stars was on the court: Curry, Nash, Paul, Durant, Dirk, Kawhi, LeBron, Shaq, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Trae Young, Kobe, Giannis, Wade, McGrady, Duncan, Garnett:

Top 15 Superstar on-court Relative Offensive Rating
2018 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2005 Nash
2017 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2015 Paul
2016 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2007 Nash
2017 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2023 Jokic* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2018 Paul
2004 Dirk -> not heliocentric.
2015 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Kawhi
2019 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2004 Nash
Source: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=101069389#p101069389

So again, heliocentrism is not the be-all end all for offenses.

In fact, when looking at the best *overall* teams, it seems almost the opposite is the trend. The best teams tend to be two-way teams, which get value from having both defensive and offensive players, and who make the most of their offense through more egalitarian, motion/triangle/pass-heavy styles.

Best Overall Teams by Overall SRS:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. 2 man game.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy, shooting heavy offense.
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1985 Lakers
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1987 Lakers
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle
1967 76ers -> not heliocentric. Spoke and wheel, off hall motion around a facilitating big man.
[2016 Cavs]

Best Overall Teams by ELO:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
2016 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1998 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1989 Pistons -> not heliocentric.
1983 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2013 Heat
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.

There's a pretty clear precedent for wanting to not have heliocentric offense on your Dream team. Of course, heliocentric offenses can be great. LeBron can lead a pretty great offense, and if you want to build your Dream Team around him, by all means, I'm sure you'd make a pretty great team. But it's also not ridiculous to prefer other offensive schemes or even other players. And I think claims suggesting that only heliocentric offenses can reach all-time status in the playoffs are pretty clearly off-base.

Just following this up to adjust for first round exits in the playoff-only samples.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is. Plenty of two man action.
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2010 Suns
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1985 Lakers* more egalitarian than traditional heliocentric, see below
2021 Nuggets * not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
[2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.]

So a majority of the top 15 teams in playoff absolute offensive rating are *not* heliocentric. Note the 2017 Cavaliers benefited from some of the best shooting luck on open 3s from their players in this century. Their role players made more open 3s than you would expect in larger samples, based off their regular season shooting. This would boost their ranking slightly. This list is also categorizing the 2021 Clippers as heliocentric, when they ran plenty of two man action. And this is categorizing the 1985 Lakers as heliocentric when their scoring load was very egalitarian across their top 4 players (Magic was 3rd), and both Kareem/Worth shared half-court load far more than you'd expect for a traditional heliocentric star's costars.

What about relative offensive rating? This may do a better job of getting teams throughout history:
Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
1987 Lakers
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric
2014 Clippers
2021 Jazz
2003 Dallas* really more of a two-man game than traditional heliocentrism

So again, a *majority* of the top 15 teams are not heliocentric. You really have to be hyper-obsessed with a small sample of teams, playoffs only, who cares about context, to argue you can only use heliocentrism if you want the best offenses. Is the best argument that you *must* have LeBron run heliocentric ball on your all-time team really dependent on the raw offensive rating of the 2021 Jazz? If the Jazz were slightly more egalitarian, would that really put an actual dent in the value of LeBron? Seems a little silly to me.

Since this prompt is asking teams to be able to play in any era, what are the Best Relative Playoff offense by decade?

Spoiler:

1950s:
-1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1955 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
-1959 76ers -> not heliocentric.
1960s:
-1963 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
-1966 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1970s:
-1976 76ers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1975 Rockets -> not heliocentric.
-1973 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
1980s:
-1987 Lakers
-1982 Nuggets -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1985 Lakers* could be argued to not be heliocentric, see above
[In RS, 1988 Celtics, not heliocentric, were 2nd after the Nuggets but were injured for the postseason]
1990s:
-1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
-1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000s:
-2005 Suns
-2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric. [7 games only in a losing series]
-2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2010s
-2017 Cavs
-2010 Suns
[In RS, 2016 Warriors, not heliocentric, were 1st but were injured for the postseason]

So throughout most of history, non-heliocentric teams have generally had the best offenses. And in the two decades where a heliocentric team had the best offenses (1980s, 2010s), it’s worth noting that the best regular season offense of the decade had key player(s) injured in the postseason.

Looking at raw playoff offensive rating, it seems like the far bigger trend (bigger than Heliocentrism) is the rise of modern teams. In absolute playoff ORTG, 6/15 of the top teams ever were from the past *3* years, only 4 teams were before the year 2000, and none were before 1980. Is heliocentrism really the biggest change that's happened in the past few years? What changed around 1980, then started increasing in the mid 2000s, then really exploded in the past few years? It's not heliocentism.... It seems like a far bigger change is the 3 point revolution, with changes like the rise in pace and space, or spread pick and roll, or 3 and D players, or heliocentric stars, being far more minor to the larger increase in distance shooting.

If so, then it seems like it would be important for a team to prioritize having shooting to have the best raw offensive rating (at least under the modern ruleset, we can debate others)... which would provide clear justification for choosing players like Bird over LeBron on their team. Not to say that you can't pick LeBron -- you absolutely can, and I might anyway -- but there's clear reasoning for why someone might want Bird, and they're not crazy for making that choice.

Could these best heliocentric offenses just be more offense-focused, at the cost of defense? Mike D'Antoni has said the Nash Suns really committed to prioritizing offensive players and play over defensive ones, because they thought that was the best way for their team to win. And it might have been!

But what if we actually look at teams that actually were the most dominant? I looked at Overall SRS last time. What if we look at the Top 15 playoff-only SRS teams in NBA history?

Top 15 Postseason-Only SRS:

Spoiler:

2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy offense.
2016 Cavaliers
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
1985 Lakers* arguably more egalitarian than traditional heliocentrism
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1972 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.

Wowza! That’s very little heliocentrism at the top. SO if we’re really going to make an argument that ‘Oh the Top X teams at Y Skill played like Z so you have to design your team like that’… then it seems like the stronger argument would be, if you want an Overall good team, get two-way players who use scalable and non-heliocentric skills to boost the offense.

As SNPA has been saying, everyone's free to build teams how they want. There's a clear precedent that heliocentric team can produce good offensive results, and it doesn't seem crazy to imagine that adding better defenders (that are still heliocentric-friendly) could produce even better results. But insisting that ~"all the best playoff offences in league history have been hello offences" and that the best non-helio offenses are only reasonable "if we want a first round elimination" is such a biased take that it's honestly laughable.

...

Aaanyway, shifting back to the topic on hand, what critiques to people have for my teams? At the moment I have:
My Team for the pre-Modern Ruleset:
PG: Jerry West
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Phil Jackson

My Team for the Modern Ruleset
PG: Steph Curry
SG: young Kawhi Leonard
SF: Kevin Durant
PF: LeBron James
C: Kevin Garnett
Coach: Greg Popovich

Attempt at making a hybrid across all rulesets:
PG: Steph Curry
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: young Kawhi Leonard
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Greg Popovich.
I fear this team wouldn't have the synergy of either of the other two (I mentioned before there's sacrifices you'd have to make for cross-era flexibility). There's still plenty of shooting/passing/defense, but I do feel the loss of Pippen/James as point forward ball handlers and facilitators, and I would love to have slightly more defensive versatility. But I'm not sure I like Pippen over Kawhi/Bird for his lack of shooting, and I'm not sure I like James' play style alongside Jordan/Wilt if I'm focusing on fit first. Presumably to make up for this, I would have Wilt and Bird in more of a playmaking role to either start the fast break or in the half court, with Curry/Jordan also boosting their on-ball passing load slightly. Certainly would be pretty great, but I'm open to suggestions for how to improve!

These have been good posts.

I think the PG options favor: West/Curry/Magic/James with HM to Oscar/Kid/Nash.

The SG seems set with MJ.

The SF options get tricky: James/Durant/KL/Pippen/Bird with HM to Barry/J/2-3 others we could debate.

At PF it’s: Bird/KG/James HM is debatable.

At Center: it’s a pick your favorite from the top ten to fit the rest of your squad. (Plus Jokic apparently)

I started out thinking I’d take Curry but over the thread I’ve switched to West. I think you get more in some eras.

For me it’s: West/MJ/Pippen/Bird/Russell.

Shooting, check. Scoring, check. Defense, check. Rebounding, check. Passing, check. Killers in the clutch…got the two best and the ball moves. I think it could work from a personality standpoint too but that’s where I have the most questions with Jordan. Pippin is the bubble guy for me. It’s a really balanced team that can scale to any rules IMO.

[DraymondGold]

Spoiler:

“All the best playoff offences in league history have been helio offences” is a pretty clear exaggeration. The idea that we can only build our dream team around heliocentric offenses if we want GOAT level offense seems pretty indefensible.

Here are the top 15 Rankings in Regular Season Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute), and Postseason Offensive Rating (both relative to league and absolute). I’ve done a quick read through and added comments for teams that are, off the top of my head, pretty clearly not heliocentric in the traditional sense. We can absolutely nitpick individual cases either way, but this is just to show a general trend.

Top 15 Regular Season Relative Offensive Ratings:
2004 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2005 Suns
2016 Warriors -> Motion offense
2002 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism
2010 Suns
1997 Bulls -> triangle offense
1998 Jazz -> not a heliocentric offense. Pick and roll two man heavy, shooting offense.
2007 Suns
1996 Bulls -> triangle offense
2004 Kings -> not a heliocentric offense.
1982 Nuggets -> not a heliocentric offense.
1988 Celtics -> Not a heliocentric offense. Pass heavy, shooting offense.
1992 Bulls -> triangle offense
1987 Lakers
2003 Mavs* really more of a two-man game than traditional perimeter heliocentrism

Top 15 Regular Season Offensive Ratinsg:
2023 Kings -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Blazers
2023 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2021 Jazz
2021 Clippers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2021 Phoenix -> not heliocentric.
2021 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
2021 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2023 Mavs
2023 Hawks
2022 Hawks

Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings:
1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1993 Pacers -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1990 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating:
2020 Jazz [7 games only in a losing series]
2021 Blazers [6 games only in a losing series]
2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
1990 Celtics -> not heliocentric. [5 games only in a losing series]
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
1994 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
2010 Suns
2022 Pelicans -> not heliocentric. [6 games only in a losing series]
1992 Warriors -> not heliocentric. [4 games only in a losing series]
[1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric]

So… all the best offenses ever in the league history are pretty clearly not heliocentric. Unless you’re really only hyper-focused on absolute offensive rating rather than relative offensive rating (when relative offensive rating would make more sense for an exercise like this, when we might not be playing in a modern ruleset), only on the playoffs while discounting the regular season entirely, only focusing on a small sample of teams (top 6 ever or less), two of whom played less than 10 games in only 1 series which they lost, one of whom had abnormally high shooting luck on open 3s. Then you could say all the best playoff offenses in league history are heliocentric.

But that’s not the only way to measure playoff offenses. What about common-opponent Offensive Rating? This is a ranking that calculates ‘relative’ offensive rating, where the relative is based only off the playoffs (rather than calibrating using opponents’ *regular season* defense).
Top 15 
Postseason Common Opponent Offensive Rating (post-1984):
2016 Cavs
2017 Cavs
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2021 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2006 Suns
1996 Magic -> not heliocentric.
1986 Mavs -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.
2010 Suns
2012 Heat
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2003 Bucks -> not heliocentric.
So going by co Offensive Rating, the top offensive are even less heliocentric-only.

Now, team offense is a *very* broad measure to try to estimate player offensive contributions by. There’s so much context that’s important, which saying ~“heliocentric team offense = only GOAT offense” misses. We can get slightly more granular by looking at team offenses when a player is on the court. Here’s a sample of the top 15 offenses when each of the following stars was on the court: Curry, Nash, Paul, Durant, Dirk, Kawhi, LeBron, Shaq, Harden, Jokic, Luka, Trae Young, Kobe, Giannis, Wade, McGrady, Duncan, Garnett:

Top 15 Superstar on-court Relative Offensive Rating
2018 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2005 Nash
2017 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2015 Paul
2016 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2007 Nash
2017 Durant -> not heliocentric.
2023 Jokic* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2018 Paul
2004 Dirk -> not heliocentric.
2015 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2021 Kawhi
2019 Curry -> not heliocentric.
2004 Nash
Source: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=101069389#p101069389

So again, heliocentrism is not the be-all end all for offenses.

In fact, when looking at the best *overall* teams, it seems almost the opposite is the trend. The best teams tend to be two-way teams, which get value from having both defensive and offensive players, and who make the most of their offense through more egalitarian, motion/triangle/pass-heavy styles.

Best Overall Teams by Overall SRS:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. 2 man game.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy, shooting heavy offense.
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1985 Lakers
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1987 Lakers
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. triangle
1967 76ers -> not heliocentric. Spoke and wheel, off hall motion around a facilitating big man.
[2016 Cavs]

Best Overall Teams by ELO:
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1997 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2015 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion
2016 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1992 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1998 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1989 Pistons -> not heliocentric.
1983 76ers -> not heliocentric.
2013 Heat
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.

There's a pretty clear precedent for wanting to not have heliocentric offense on your Dream team. Of course, heliocentric offenses can be great. LeBron can lead a pretty great offense, and if you want to build your Dream Team around him, by all means, I'm sure you'd make a pretty great team. But it's also not ridiculous to prefer other offensive schemes or even other players. And I think claims suggesting that only heliocentric offenses can reach all-time status in the playoffs are pretty clearly off-base.

Just following this up to adjust for first round exits in the playoff-only samples.

Top 15 Postseason Offensive Rating (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2021 Jazz
2017 Cavs
2021 Clippers
1987 Lakers
2023 Nuggets* not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is. Plenty of two man action.
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2005 Suns
2010 Suns
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
2023 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
2023 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1985 Lakers* more egalitarian than traditional heliocentric, see below
2021 Nuggets * not heliocentric in the usage-heavy way traditional perimeter heliocentrism traditionally is.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
[2021 Nets -> not heliocentric.]

So a majority of the top 15 teams in playoff absolute offensive rating are *not* heliocentric. Note the 2017 Cavaliers benefited from some of the best shooting luck on open 3s from their players in this century. Their role players made more open 3s than you would expect in larger samples, based off their regular season shooting. This would boost their ranking slightly. This list is also categorizing the 2021 Clippers as heliocentric, when they ran plenty of two man action. And this is categorizing the 1985 Lakers as heliocentric when their scoring load was very egalitarian across their top 4 players (Magic was 3rd), and both Kareem/Worth shared half-court load far more than you'd expect for a traditional heliocentric star's costars.

What about relative offensive rating? This may do a better job of getting teams throughout history:
Top 15 Postseason Relative Offensive Ratings (filtering out 1st round exits):

Spoiler:

2005 Suns
2017 Cavs
2010 Suns
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2016 Cavs
2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric.
1955 Boston -> not heliocentric.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric.
1987 Lakers
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric
2014 Clippers
2021 Jazz
2003 Dallas* really more of a two-man game than traditional heliocentrism

So again, a *majority* of the top 15 teams are not heliocentric. You really have to be hyper-obsessed with a small sample of teams, playoffs only, who cares about context, to argue you can only use heliocentrism if you want the best offenses. Is the best argument that you *must* have LeBron run heliocentric ball on your all-time team really dependent on the raw offensive rating of the 2021 Jazz? If the Jazz were slightly more egalitarian, would that really put an actual dent in the value of LeBron? Seems a little silly to me.

Since this prompt is asking teams to be able to play in any era, what are the Best Relative Playoff offense by decade?

Spoiler:

1950s:
-1956 Lakers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1955 Celtics -> not heliocentric.
-1959 76ers -> not heliocentric.
1960s:
-1963 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
-1966 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
1970s:
-1976 76ers -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1975 Rockets -> not heliocentric.
-1973 Knicks -> not heliocentric.
1980s:
-1987 Lakers
-1982 Nuggets -> not heliocentric. [3 games only in a losing series]
-1985 Lakers* could be argued to not be heliocentric, see above
[In RS, 1988 Celtics, not heliocentric, were 2nd after the Nuggets but were injured for the postseason]
1990s:
-1992 Suns -> not heliocentric.
-1995 Suns -> not heliocentric.
2000s:
-2005 Suns
-2003 Blazers -> not heliocentric. [7 games only in a losing series]
-2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric.
2010s
-2017 Cavs
-2010 Suns
[In RS, 2016 Warriors, not heliocentric, were 1st but were injured for the postseason]

So throughout most of history, non-heliocentric teams have generally had the best offenses. And in the two decades where a heliocentric team had the best offenses (1980s, 2010s), it’s worth noting that the best regular season offense of the decade had key player(s) injured in the postseason.

Looking at raw playoff offensive rating, it seems like the far bigger trend (bigger than Heliocentrism) is the rise of modern teams. In absolute playoff ORTG, 6/15 of the top teams ever were from the past *3* years, only 4 teams were before the year 2000, and none were before 1980. Is heliocentrism really the biggest change that's happened in the past few years? What changed around 1980, then started increasing in the mid 2000s, then really exploded in the past few years? It's not heliocentism.... It seems like a far bigger change is the 3 point revolution, with changes like the rise in pace and space, or spread pick and roll, or 3 and D players, or heliocentric stars, being far more minor to the larger increase in distance shooting.

If so, then it seems like it would be important for a team to prioritize having shooting to have the best raw offensive rating (at least under the modern ruleset, we can debate others)... which would provide clear justification for choosing players like Bird over LeBron on their team. Not to say that you can't pick LeBron -- you absolutely can, and I might anyway -- but there's clear reasoning for why someone might want Bird, and they're not crazy for making that choice.

Could these best heliocentric offenses just be more offense-focused, at the cost of defense? Mike D'Antoni has said the Nash Suns really committed to prioritizing offensive players and play over defensive ones, because they thought that was the best way for their team to win. And it might have been!

But what if we actually look at teams that actually were the most dominant? I looked at Overall SRS last time. What if we look at the Top 15 playoff-only SRS teams in NBA history?

Top 15 Postseason-Only SRS:

Spoiler:

2017 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
2001 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1971 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
1996 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1991 Bulls -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
2018 Warriors -> not heliocentric. Motion.
1986 Celtics -> not heliocentric. Pass-heavy offense.
2016 Cavaliers
2014 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
2016 Spurs -> not heliocentric. Pace and space.
1985 Lakers* arguably more egalitarian than traditional heliocentrism
2009 Lakers -> not heliocentric. Triangle.
1972 Bucks -> not heliocentric. Two man.
2009 Nuggets -> not heliocentric.
2016 Thunder -> not heliocentric.

Wowza! That’s very little heliocentrism at the top. SO if we’re really going to make an argument that ‘Oh the Top X teams at Y Skill played like Z so you have to design your team like that’… then it seems like the stronger argument would be, if you want an Overall good team, get two-way players who use scalable and non-heliocentric skills to boost the offense.

As SNPA has been saying, everyone's free to build teams how they want. There's a clear precedent that heliocentric team can produce good offensive results, and it doesn't seem crazy to imagine that adding better defenders (that are still heliocentric-friendly) could produce even better results. But insisting that ~"all the best playoff offences in league history have been hello offences" and that the best non-helio offenses are only reasonable "if we want a first round elimination" is such a biased take that it's honestly laughable.

...

Aaanyway, shifting back to the topic on hand, what critiques to people have for my teams? At the moment I have:
My Team for the pre-Modern Ruleset:
PG: Jerry West
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Phil Jackson

My Team for the Modern Ruleset
PG: Steph Curry
SG: young Kawhi Leonard
SF: Kevin Durant
PF: LeBron James
C: Kevin Garnett
Coach: Greg Popovich

Attempt at making a hybrid across all rulesets:
PG: Steph Curry
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: young Kawhi Leonard
PF: Larry Bird
C: Wilt Chamberlain
Coach: Greg Popovich.
I fear this team wouldn't have the synergy of either of the other two (I mentioned before there's sacrifices you'd have to make for cross-era flexibility). There's still plenty of shooting/passing/defense, but I do feel the loss of Pippen/James as point forward ball handlers and facilitators, and I would love to have slightly more defensive versatility. But I'm not sure I like Pippen over Kawhi/Bird for his lack of shooting, and I'm not sure I like James' play style alongside Jordan/Wilt if I'm focusing on fit first. Presumably to make up for this, I would have Wilt and Bird in more of a playmaking role to either start the fast break or in the half court, with Curry/Jordan also boosting their on-ball passing load slightly. Certainly would be pretty great, but I'm open to suggestions for how to improve!

These have been good posts.

I think the PG options favor: West/Curry/Magic/James with HM to Oscar/Kid/Nash.

The SG seems set with MJ.

The SF options get tricky: James/Durant/KL/Pippen/Bird with HM to Barry/J/2-3 others we could debate.

At PF it’s: Bird/KG/James HM is debatable.

At Center: it’s a pick your favorite from the top ten to fit the rest of your squad. (Plus Jokic apparently)

I started out thinking I’d take Curry but over the thread I’ve switched to West. I think you get more in some eras.

For me it’s: West/MJ/Pippen/Bird/Russell.

Shooting, check. Scoring, check. Defense, check. Rebounding, check. Passing, check. Killers in the clutch…got the two best and the ball moves. I think it could work from a personality standpoint too but that’s where I have the most questions with Jordan. Pippin is the bubble guy for me. It’s a really balanced team that can scale to any rules IMO.

Good list SNPA! I like your positional lists -- that can be a helpful way to start crafting your teams. Since you're giving honorable mentions and going into more detail on some of the other positions, I personally might prefer to add a note to the SG position: I've seen people (me included!) consider having two people who are in your list of PG options (e.g. 2/4 of West/Curry/Magic/James), or go for two SF options (e.g. my modern team has Kawhi at SG), in place of Jordan. It does seem like Jordan is pretty set over traditional SG options like Kobe or Wade or Harden though, at least if you're counting West as a PG.

As for your team compared to mine, I like how you have more defensive versatility with Pippen > Kawhi and Russell > Wilt. I do wonder if you have enough 3 point shooting though. It's really going to have to be carried by Bird and West. In the modern era, having Jordan as your 3rd worst 3 point shooter definitely leaves something on the table, with Pippen and Russell being even worse shooters. The defense might win anyway, but there is immense value in having a great 3 point shooting threat at every position. Illegal defenses might diminish this slightly (and certainly playing before the 3 point line would), but even then, I think there's underrated value in 3 point shooting.

Curry over West does give more shooting and better off-bal action, but you would lose something on defense, and West is absolutely a great shooter and off-ball threat so that might not totally solve the problem. Kawhi over Pippen is something I would definitely consider. You lose Pippen's passing and defensive communication/versatility/rim protection, but Kawhi is a major boost on shooting and overall scoring, is probably better off-ball, and it's not like you're giving up that much on defense. Bird and Russell would absolutely still provide strong defensive communication and rim protection. Plus you have strong passers in all 4 other positions to make up for the loss of Pippen. The other option would be to switch Russell for Garnett. You lose rim protection, Center man defense, and a liitle rebounding, but you still keep GOAT level big man versatility and defensive BBIQ, still have a great off-ball big who's willing to do the dirty work. Plus then you have a better scoring threat who's able to space the floor much more. Just some ideas.

...

Now I think we've already pretty handily beaten the "you must have a heliocentric [LeBron/Nash] offense to have a GOAT offense" argument. I went through the Top 15 Regular Season and Playoff Absolute and Relative Offensive Ratings (filtering out first-round loss playoff teams and not), and found that basically none of these categorizes are dominated by heliocentrism only, and many clearly favor non-heliocentric offenses. I also went through the best relative offenses of each decade, the best teams ever by Overall (RS + PS) SRS, the best teams ever by ELO, and the best teams ever by Playoff-Only SRS, and found that these categories are actively dominated by non-heliocentric teams.

Finally, I went through team offense ratings when top stars are on the court in the Regular Season, and found non-heliocentric stars (Curry especially) have the best offensive rating when they're on the court. But since I was curious, I wanted to really put a cap in this, and check offensive rating when a star's actually on the court in the playoffs only.

Team Playoff Offensive Rating when the star's On the Court:

Spoiler:

Here's my findings for a sampling of recent players. The list of players is not all-encompassing.

Best 1 year average on-court Offensive Rating, in order:
2017 Curry
2021 Harden (injured and missed games vs tougher defense)
2017 Durant
2017 LeBron
2017 Kawhi (injured and missed games vs tougher defense)
2023 Jokic
2010 Nash
2021 Luka

Best 3 year average (non-consecutive years):
Kawhi (injured and missed games vs tougher defense in 2/3 playoffs)
Curry
Durant
LeBron
Jokic
Nash
Harden
Luka

Best 3 year average (consecutive years):
Durant
Curry
Jokic
LeBron
Kawhi
Nash
Harden
Luka

Best 5 year average (non-consecutive years):
Durant
Curry

LeBron
Kawhi
Jokic
Nash
(Luka 3 year)
Harden


Best 5 year average (consecutive years):
Curry
Durant
LeBron
Kawhi
Jokic
Nash
(Luka 3 year)
Harden

...

here's the raw data:
Nash:
2001 103.67
2002 112.39
2003 111.31
2004 101.79
2005 119
2006 115.99
2007 111.9
2008 105.93
2009 N/A
2010 120.6

Best 3 year average: 118.22
Best consecutive 3 year average: 116.09
Best 5 year average: 116.54
Best consecutive 5 year average: 116.31

Curry
2013 109.06
2014 114.92
2015 107.43
2016 112.40
2017 126.73
2018 116.32
2019 118.07
2020 N/A
2021 108.29
2022 118.18
2023 115.79

Best 3 year average: 120.52
Best consecutive 3 year average: 120.26
Best 5 year average: 119.08 (2017–19, 22–23)
Best consecutive 5 year average: 119.34 (2017–19, 21–22)

LeBron
2009 114.77
2010 109.83
2011 107.59
2012 111.55
2013 111.64
2014 112.94
2015 107.97
2016 118.43
2017 124.36
2018 112.25
2019 N/A
2020 118.12
2021 112.44
2022 N/A
2023 114.54

Best 3 year average: 120.28
Best consecutive 3 year average: 118
Best 5 year average: 118.78 (2009, 16–17, 20–21)
Best consecutive 5 year average: 117.68 (2017–19, 20–21)

Durant
2011 108.93
2012 111.26
2013 105.83
2014 109.53
2015 N/A
2016 113.75
2017 125.2
2018 117.37
2019 119.79
2020 N/A
2021 116.79
2022 114.99
2023 119.96

Best 3 year average: 120.4
Best consecutive 3 year average: 120.36
Best 5 year average: 119.65 (2017–19,21,23)
Best consecutive 5 year average: 119.26 (2017–19,21–22)

Kawhi
2014 115.19
2015 105.31
2016 112.5
2017 122.60
2018 N/A
2019 114.41
2020 115.02
2021 121.17
2022 N/A
2023 117.68

Best 3 year average: 121.54
Best consecutive 3 year average: 117.83
Best 5 year average: 117.9 ()
Best consecutive 5 year average: 117.36 ()

Shaq
2001: 110.96
2002: 110.16

Kobe
2001 113.19
2002: 106.22
…
2008 111.45
2009 113.45
2010 114.06

Dirk
2006 111.18
2007 107.49
2008 108.01
2009 114.29
2010 105.62
2011 115.25

Jokic
2019 116.54
2020 115.7
2021 116.18
2022 111.56
2023 121.07

Best 3 year average: 118.6
Best consecutive 3 year average: 118.51
Best 5 year average: 117.33 ()
Best consecutive 5 year average: 117.33 ()

Luka
2020 111.09
2021 119.78
2022 115.91
2023 N/A

3 year average: 115.88

Harden
2015 109.61
2016 93.18
2017 108.88
2018 112.95
2019 114.37
2020 109.55
2021 125.84
2022 114.65
2023 110.30

Best 3 year average: 117.49
Best consecutive 3 year average: 116.07
Best 5 year average: 114.91
Best consecutive 5 year average: 114.72

Other assorted samples:
2020 Donavan Mitchell 124.80 (1st round exit, 264 mins. 1st all time in team playoff Offensive Rating).

2021 Damian Lillard 127.70 (1st round exit, 248 mins. 2021 Blazers are 2nd all time in team playoff Offensive Rating).

2021 Donavan Mitchell 125.76 (2nd round exit, 346 mins. 2021 Jazz are 3rd all time in team Offensive Rating)
Donavan Mitchell’s Jazz is 1st in all time team playoff Offensive Rating in 2020, and 3rd in 2021. Yet he’s behind 2017 Curry in both years in team Offensive Rating when both stars are on the court. So the difference actually comes from the supporting cast when both stars are on the bench. Mitchell’s Jazz also emphasized offense at the cost of defense, only making it to the 2nd round once in the Gobert/Mitchell Jazz era.

Damian Lillard’s Blazers are 2nd all time in playoff Offensive Rating in 2021. Yet in larger samples, he drops significantly behind. His team missed the playoffs in 2022 and 2023, he had an on-court offensive rating of 99(!) the year before in 2020, 112.64 in 2019, and 108.13 in 2018. Any larger sample puts Curry’s team over Lillard’s in on-court Offensive Rating.

And both players also avoided strong defensive oppositions in their better offensive rating years. Mitchell only faced the Nuggets (16th in RS DRTG) in 2020, and Lillard only faced the Nuggets (12th in RS DRTG) in 2021. These Nuggets were… not exactly great defensively, and they were especially vulnerable against perimeter stars (17th in opponent eFG% in 2020, 21st in 2021).

So whether we look at 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years, and whether we take the average of each player's best non-consecutive years or their consecutive years...
-Curry's team's (a motion offense!) on-court offensive rating is always top 2 in this list, always above LeBron, always above Nash.
-Durant (a non-heliocentric offense!) is always top 3, always above LeBron, always above Nash.
So it seems like the 2017 Warriors (a motion offense!) produced better offensive results than the heliocentric offenses of any LeBron or Nash team in absolute Offensive Rating when the stars were on the court. It seems like the claim "All the best playoff offences in league history have been helio offences" (in reference to LeBron's team offenses) were really just supported by LeBron/Nash's *bench* offenses being better than Curry/Durant's *bench* offenses, when none of the stars were on the court.
-LeBron is usually 3rd, which is credit to him. He seems to have led the best heliocentric offenses on average. Note, however, that his teammates had outlier shooting luck (they made an outlier amount of open 3s more than expected based on their shooting percentages) during his breakout offensive year in 2017, which was the only year his on-court offensive rating hit over 119. It's unclear how much to value this, but it's possible that some sort of luck-adjusted offensive rating would have LeBron's team offenses ranked slightly lower.
-Kawhi's ranking varies a fair bit, but is always above Nash, and Kawhi is significantly less heliocentric than Nash. Note that Kawhi's best year, 2017, is the year he was less heliocentric and more off-ball than any of his following years.
-Jokic is consistently middle of the back, but is always above Nash. Note that Jokic is far less heliocentric than Nash (in the heavy on-ball, heavy offensive usage/load, dominating both team playmaking and scoring, sense of the term 'heliocentrism').
-In almost every category, Nash, Luka and Harden are last. These are 3 of the most stereotypically heliocentric players.

All that to say, it seems like the evidence actually supports the idea that non-heliocentric playoff offenses are generally better when the respective stars are on the court, whether we look here, or at team success throughout history. There may be exceptions -- LeBron and Nash specifically -- but their overall team success and offense-only success (whether it's relative or absolute ORTG, when the stars is on the the court) is not so dominant that you can't make clear and compelling arguments for other players or play styles. I think our teams would be just fine having GOAT level offenses around more motion or egalitarian principles.

[Statlanta]

Magic Johnson
Jerry West
LeBron James
Larry Bird
Bill Russell

Outstanding Playmaking IQ and no over reliance on inside dominance or the 3pt shot.

[DraymondGold]

For each of your teams, what are people thinking for your bench? Let's say you could chose 1–3 bench players, who would you pick?

To make this a little more interesting, I'd be especially curious in bench players you think would fit on your team if you aren't just choosing 3 out of the standard top 10 players ever. What sort of player or archetype works best on a Dream Team bench?