Trying to Rank the Best Playoff Teams in History

[VanWest82]

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

Outside of 2015 with all the injuries, "carry job" is too strong imo. You go down the rosters and those Cavs teams had a ton of talent. What they didn't have were back up creators, and so they sucked anytime Lebron wasn't on the floor. Kyrie wasn't good enough at that point to be an offense onto himself like we've seen at times with Boston, Nets, and Mavs; he was more of secondary creator with Cavs. Even one more decent creator off the bench would've done wonders for that team, but they chose to go with pieces that fit around Lebron instead, and it's hard to quibble with the results.

You're forgetting the defensive side of the ball here. Frankly I don't buy into the WOWY side of things fully(i think average offense, bad defense makes more sense in my head at least), but kyrie and kevin love were bad defenders and the other "good" defenders here have little evidence of being good outside of when Lebron was orchestrating them.

I'm not going to go round 15 with you on this, but suffice to say we disagree. Tristan, Shump, Delly, Mozgov (for a short time), even RJ...all looked like good defenders to me. Giving Lebron all (edit: some/most) the credit for their success as the puppet master just doesn't feel right. Like, Lebron's QBing didn't get Tristan drafted 5th overall due to his defensive upside. It didn't make Mozgov 7'1 with a ridiculous wingspan. It didn't get Shump a couple of DPOY points in his rookie season with the Knicks. It didn't make Delly go FVV on Curry in the Finals. RJ didn't finally learn how to play defense at the ripe age of 35 because Lebron taught him so. I'd suggest these guys just happened to have defensive primes which overlapped with this time period, and RJ was a vet with a great body that aged well who bought into a role like we've seen with so many other great players later in their careers.

[OhayoKD]

Outside of 2015 with all the injuries, "carry job" is too strong imo. You go down the rosters and those Cavs teams had a ton of talent. What they didn't have were back up creators, and so they sucked anytime Lebron wasn't on the floor. Kyrie wasn't good enough at that point to be an offense onto himself like we've seen at times with Boston, Nets, and Mavs; he was more of secondary creator with Cavs. Even one more decent creator off the bench would've done wonders for that team, but they chose to go with pieces that fit around Lebron instead, and it's hard to quibble with the results.

You're forgetting the defensive side of the ball here. Frankly I don't buy into the WOWY side of things fully(i think average offense, bad defense makes more sense in my head at least), but kyrie and kevin love were bad defenders and the other "good" defenders here have little evidence of being good outside of when Lebron was orchestrating them.

I'm not going to go round 15 with you on this, but suffice to say we disagree. Tristan, Shump, Delly, Mozgov (for a short time), even RJ...all looked like good defenders to me. Giving Lebron all the credit for their success as the puppet master just doesn't feel right. Like, Lebron's QBing didn't get Tristan drafted 5th overall due to his defensive upside. It didn't make Mozgov 7'1 with a ridiculous wingspan. It didn't get Shump a couple of DPOY points in his rookie season with the Knicks. It didn't make Delly go FVV on Curry in the Finals. I'd suggest these guys just happened to have defensive primes which overlapped with this time period.

"All the credit" was never my position, but whatever, let's just agree to disagree.

[VanWest82]

You're forgetting the defensive side of the ball here. Frankly I don't buy into the WOWY side of things fully(i think average offense, bad defense makes more sense in my head at least), but kyrie and kevin love were bad defenders and the other "good" defenders here have little evidence of being good outside of when Lebron was orchestrating them.

I'm not going to go round 15 with you on this, but suffice to say we disagree. Tristan, Shump, Delly, Mozgov (for a short time), even RJ...all looked like good defenders to me. Giving Lebron all the credit for their success as the puppet master just doesn't feel right. Like, Lebron's QBing didn't get Tristan drafted 5th overall due to his defensive upside. It didn't make Mozgov 7'1 with a ridiculous wingspan. It didn't get Shump a couple of DPOY points in his rookie season with the Knicks. It didn't make Delly go FVV on Curry in the Finals. I'd suggest these guys just happened to have defensive primes which overlapped with this time period.

"All the credit" was never my position, but whatever, let's just agree to disagree.

You said he was orchestrating them which makes it seem like they didn't have agency, and that to whatever degree there was a gameplan it was actually Lebron's plan as appose to Lue's. Whether you mean some of the credit or most of the credit as appose to all, I still disagree. That doesn't mean Lebron wasn't a really good defender in his own right which included being a good defensive communicator. But I give those other guys the vast majority of the credit for the things they did. They had agency imo and they weren't being orchestrated.

[Owly]

Ok I've broken down the Jazz run series by series.

1996 Jazz

1st Round vs. Blazers: +13.9 rNet (+9.9 rORtg, -4.0 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +20.6 rNet (+10.6 rORtg, -10.0 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Sonics: +11.2 rNet (+2.8 rORtg, -8.4 rDRtg)

Postseason: +15.0 rNet (+6.7 rORtg, -8.3 rDRtg)

1997 Jazz

1st Round vs. Clippers: +12.2 rNet (+14.1 rORtg, +1.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Lakers: +8.7 rNet (+7.3 rORtg, -1.4 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Rockets: +7.5 rNet (+8.8 rORtg, +1.3 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: +11.2 rNet (+1.4 rORtg, -9.8 rDRtg)

Postseason: +9.6 rNet (+6.5 rORtg, -3.1 rDRtg)

1998 Jazz

1st Round vs. Rockets: +6.8 rNet (-4.9 rORtg, -11.7 rDRtg)
WCSF vs. Spurs: +4.7 rNet (+2.4 rORtg, -2.3 rDRtg)
WCF vs. Lakers: +23.3 rNet (+12.4 rORtg, -10.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Bulls: -1.5 rNet (-3.7 rORtg, -2.2 rDRtg)

Postseason: +7.3 rNet (+0.1 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg)

And my take on it:

The 1996 Jazz had an absolutely absurd +15 rNet. They lost in 7 games to the Sonics in the WCF while outscoring them by 18 points. They were also extremely dominant through the entire playoffs and look very much like a championship capable team.

The 1997 Jazz went 41-6 to finish the regular season then had a +9.6 rNet in the playoffs which is really really good. In fact only 6 losing teams in the Finals had a better rNet in the postseason. They lost to the juggernaut 1997 Bulls in 6 games by only 4 points and had a very strong +11.2 rNet showing in the Finals. I think it was colts18 who posted in another thread that the 1997 Jazz had the best 5-man lineup since PBP started. I think the 1997 Jazz had they faced an easier opponent and won a title would be like a standard level title team. Not an insane juggernaut but not a weak champion.

The 1998 Jazz were much weaker with +7.3 rNet which is around average for a post-merger Finals losing team. In fact, they struggled in the playoffs outside of the WCF where they totally demolished the Lakers. If they had won the title, they would have been a weak champion.

By this I assume you mean if they had won the title with their present rNet. Because if they had won the title they probably don't have the same rNet as they actually did (that negative finals probably changes). Part of it is that G3 54-96 (42 point!) loss so as I've noted they could with alternate (better) calls be 3-3 (and still have that demolition and still have a weak rNet for the series). But even then that requires giving them 5 point swing on their actual raw total points dif and then if they won the final game another victory over the Bulls which probably helps.

In any case the breakdown/splits is helpful, so thanks.

[OhayoKD]

I'm not going to go round 15 with you on this, but suffice to say we disagree. Tristan, Shump, Delly, Mozgov (for a short time), even RJ...all looked like good defenders to me. Giving Lebron all the credit for their success as the puppet master just doesn't feel right. Like, Lebron's QBing didn't get Tristan drafted 5th overall due to his defensive upside. It didn't make Mozgov 7'1 with a ridiculous wingspan. It didn't get Shump a couple of DPOY points in his rookie season with the Knicks. It didn't make Delly go FVV on Curry in the Finals. I'd suggest these guys just happened to have defensive primes which overlapped with this time period.

"All the credit" was never my position, but whatever, let's just agree to disagree.

You said he was orchestrating them which makes it seem like they didn't have agency, and that to whatever degree there was a gameplan it was actually Lebron's plan as appose to Lue's. Whether you mean some of the credit or most of the credit as appose to all, I still disagree. That doesn't mean Lebron wasn't a really good defender in his own right which included being a good defensive communicator. But I give those other guys the vast majority of the credit for the things they did. They had agency imo and they weren't being orchestrated.

Orchestrate does not indicate "no agency" nor does it specify an amount of credit. Just like when I link you a clip of Durant specifically noting he was telling teammates where to go to limit him specifically in the 4th quarter, "Lebron can magically turn anyone good" is not a reasonable interpretation.

If you are going to hyperbolize whatever to make yourself an easier target to attack, not actually look at the sort of evidence you ask for, before launching a "this is absurd" appeal to a position you are unwilling to offer positive evidence against, there is not much point continuing this discussion.

[homecourtloss]

2. I am surprised the 84-86 Celtics are all the way down at #18, and that the 80-82 Celtics are higher at #13. The former is Bird's peak and the 86 Celtics are so celebrated, so I would have thought 84-86 would be higher.

3. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised the 12-14 Spurs rank higher than the 03-05 Spurs; the former probably is a deeper team, but the latter represents peak Duncan.

It’s a calculation using rNRtg, so a few series can change things. The ‘85 Celtics played a series in which they won a series vs. the Cavs 3-1, but didn’t outscore the Cavs. The 1986 Celtics didn’t destroy a relatively weak NRtg finalist in the Rockets.

As for the Spurs, no surprise there as the 2003 team didn’t have a really dominant blowout series win and that obviously affects NRtg. It doesn’t help that you had the 2005 Spurs get outscored by the Pistons in the Finals. Meanwhile the 2012 Spurs obliterated their first two round opponents and were only stopped by an all time talented albeit younger OKC team.

Just some notes on that, I think now even more, underrated 2012 OKC side:

-> Had managed multiple 50-win seasons taking the eventual champions to 6 the previous 2 years
-> Posted a higher PSRS than either the 97 or 98 Jazz featured in the above list
-> Posted a +9 SRS(almost unheard of in periods of non-expansion) the next year despite losing James Harden
-> Took one of the best playoff teams ever in the Spurs to 6 without Ibaka when Westbrook was next available
-> Obviously nearly knocked off two 67+win teams in 2016(though injury played a big factor in that second series tbf

A sneaky all-time non-champion even with westbrook and durant not really their best selves. Almost spurs/pistons esque(minus the ring )

They had the misfortune of running into the heatles the one series their big 3 was healthy post 2011 with Wade getting his knees filled after the conference finals(and this did hurt their playoff rating a bit), but they should probably be higher regarded

2012 Thunder would have beaten quite a few teams and have to one of the most talented. That 4 straight run vs. the +7 SRS, top 2 NRtg Spurs left Pop seeking answers And full of praise for Westbrook and KD.

[homecourtloss]

Sansterre did a little version of his own three year stretches including the regular season.

HCL asked me about this and I thought it would be a fun project for a day off. I cranked out an original list but got some opportunities pointed out. So for the updated version I accepted any years that played 2 series or more with a PSRS above zero. That didn't save all teams but it saved most.

1) I'm taking *distinct* three year stretches. The same year can't be used twice.
2) I'm using my PSRS calculations that update through the playoffs (with all the ups and downs of that formula)
3) I'm using the PSRS + STD formula that I use for my individual team/season rankings
4) I required a minimum +0 PSRS year to be included, and the team must have been in at least two series.

To recap, this is formula-driven, mostly through my updating SRS formula. I am not making judgment calls of any kind here (except in the design of the formula itself).

This is *only* playoffs. If you were +10 SRS in the regular season, this list isn't concerned with that.

Only 57 teams met the criteria in the shot clock era:

#57. 1999-01 Philadelphia 76ers
#56. 1979-81 Phoenix Suns
#55. 2012-14 Indiana Pacers
#54. 1986-88 Atlanta Hawks
#53. 2001-03 Dallas Mavericks
#52. 1997-99 Los Angeles Lakers
#51. 1978-80 Seattle SuperSonics
#50. 1961-63 Los Angeles Lakers
#49. 1998-00 New York Knicks
#48. 1976-78 Washington Bullets
#47. 1957-59 St. Louis Hawks
#46. 2002-04 New Jersey Nets
#45. 1993-95 Phoenix Suns
#44. 1996-98 Seattle SuperSonics
#43. 1992-94 New York Knicks
#42. 1982-84 Milwaukee Bucks
#41. 1967-69 Boston Celtics
#40. 2004-06 Miami Heat
#39. 1990-92 Portland Trail Blazers
#38. 1968-70 Los Angeles Lakers
#37. 2002-04 Sacramento Kings
#36. 1975-77 Golden State Warriors
#35. 1973-75 Boston Celtics
#34. 2018-20 Boston Celtics
#33. 2010-12 Boston Celtics
#32. 1998-00 Indiana Pacers
#31. 1995-97 New York Knicks
#30. 2017-19 Houston Rockets
#29. 2011-13 Oklahoma City Thunder
#28. 1971-73 Los Angeles Lakers
#27. 1978-80 Philadelphia 76ers
#26. 1993-95 Houston Rockets
#25. 2006-08 San Antonio Spurs
#24. 1989-91 Los Angeles Lakers
#23. 2007-09 Cleveland Cavaliers
#22. 2008-10 Orlando Magic
#21. 2004-06 Detroit Pistons
#20. 1981-83 Philadelphia 76ers
#19. 2005-07 Phoenix Suns
#18. 1982-84 Los Angeles Lakers
#17. 2003-05 San Antonio Spurs
#16. 1964-66 Boston Celtics
#15. 1996-98 Utah Jazz
#14. 1987-89 Detroit Pistons
#13. 2011-13 Miami Heat
#12. 1980-82 Boston Celtics
#11. 1984-86 Boston Celtics
#10. 2008-10 Los Angeles Lakers
#9. 1959-61 Boston Celtics
#8. 1970-72 Milwaukee Bucks
#7. 1991-93 Chicago Bulls
#6. 2015-17 Cleveland Cavaliers
#5. 2012-14 San Antonio Spurs
#4. 1985-87 Los Angeles Lakers
#3. 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers
#2. 1996-98 Chicago Bulls
#1. 2016-18 Golden State Warriors

[AEnigma]

Interesting point of contrast, although sansterre’s has some abnormalities of its own (tough for me to buy a total absence of the 1969-73 Knicks). The repeated emphasis of the 1987 Pistons over the 1990 Pistons seems like a substantial error in methodology too; perhaps some late round weighing would correct those issues.

[VanWest82]

"All the credit" was never my position, but whatever, let's just agree to disagree.

You said he was orchestrating them which makes it seem like they didn't have agency, and that to whatever degree there was a gameplan it was actually Lebron's plan as appose to Lue's. Whether you mean some of the credit or most of the credit as appose to all, I still disagree. That doesn't mean Lebron wasn't a really good defender in his own right which included being a good defensive communicator. But I give those other guys the vast majority of the credit for the things they did. They had agency imo and they weren't being orchestrated.

Orchestrate does not indicate "no agency" nor does it specify an amount of credit. Just like when I link you a clip of Durant specifically noting he was telling teammates where to go to limit him specifically in the 4th quarter, "Lebron can magically turn anyone good" is not a reasonable interpretation.

If you are going to hyperbolize whatever to make yourself an easier target to attack, not actually look at the sort of evidence you ask for, before launching a "this is absurd" appeal to a position you are unwilling to offer positive evidence against, there is not much point continuing this discussion.

I just provided a counter in one of the posts you quoted. Lebron didn't make these guys defensive prospects. Lebron didn't get Shump DPOY points in his rookie season. Lebron didn't get Tristan drafted 5th overall because of his defensive potential. Lebron wasn't the one chasing Curry all over the court or telling him how to chase in real time - that's ridiculous. Lebron didn't give Mozgov a 7'5 wingspan 9'+ standing reach. Durant saying Lebron was telling teammates how to guard him in one of their match ups is not proof that he was orchestrating Cavs defense from 15-17.

When you say, "little evidence of being good outside of when Lebron was orchestrating them," that sure sounds like you're suggesting these players were not good defenders and that Lebron essentially made them good defenders. You can tell me I'm hyperbolizing, which I do sometimes, but I'd suggest you're the one hyperbolizing here. You're taking a consensus opinion - that Lebron is a really good defensive communicator and high bball IQ player - and extrapolating that to suggest he's turning defenders that aren't good into defenders that are good. You've said this in many other places, and you keep saying it.How else are we supposed to read this?

[VanWest82]

Anyways, I refuse to let this further derail another of Djoker's threads so I'm going to leave it at that.

12-14 Spurs were definitely one of the more underrated great teams ever. I'm not sure Clippers truly get their due for knocking those guys off the mountain in 2015. We all know why they don't but that was one hell of a series. Those Spurs teams were involved in a bunch of truly great playoff match ups. That might be the part I remember the most about them.

[Lost92Bricks]

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

No it's a testament to the eastern conference being terrible. There were no superstars in the east outside of Lebron.

The other top players were Derozan, Lowry, Horford, etc.

It was so pathetic back then.

[Djoker]

Here is a list using cNet from Thinking Basketball which is relative to opponent's playoff performance instead of regular season. It's more noisy and only since 1985 but maybe still informative.

Postseason cNet: Top 15 Unique 3-Year Stretches
*minimum two Finals or three Conference Finals; since 1985

2016-2018 Warriors: +15.4
1996-1998 Bulls: +15.2
1991-1993 Bulls: +13.9
1985-1987 Lakers: +13.9
2012-2014 Spurs: +13.5
2015-2017 Cavaliers: +13.5
2011-2013 Heat: +12.6
2000-2002 Lakers: +12.2
1996-1998 Jazz: +11.9
2008-2010 Lakers: +11.1
2004-2006 Pistons: +10.8
1988-1990 Pistons: +10.5
1984-1986 Celtics: +10.3
2003-2005 Spurs: +10.1
1993-1995 Rockets: +9.4

[SK21209]

Anyways, I refuse to let this further derail another of Djoker's threads so I'm going to leave it at that.

12-14 Spurs were definitely one of the more underrated great teams ever. I'm not sure Clippers truly get their due for knocking those guys off the mountain in 2015. We all know why they don't but that was one hell of a series. Those Spurs teams were involved in a bunch of truly great playoff match ups. That might be the part I remember the most about them.

Those Spurs teams were a machine. The 2012 WCF doesn't get a ton of recognition as an all-time playoff series but its some of the best basketball I've seen in the 20+ years I've been following the league.

I'm not sure anyone remembers this, but in 2015 the Spurs would have been the 2 seed if they won their last regular season game against the Pelicans. They would have gotten the Mavs in the first round (who completely imploded, that was the year Rondo was beefing with Carlisle), the Clippers in the 2nd round (this time with home court), and the Warriors in the WCF (who were still a little green and the Spurs were the only team to beat them twice that regular season). I honestly think that if they win that last game against the Pelicans they repeat in 2015. I think that's the origin of my supreme frustration with teams throwing away regular season games and not caring about seeding.

[carlquincy]

Hell yeah!!

Nice to see 08 - 10 Lakers so high up on all the lists!

[NbaAllDay]

5. The 15-17 Cavs being that high is probably a real testament to LeBron because, honestly, I never, ever thought of that Cavs core as being an ATG team on the level of Jordan's Bulls, Steph's Warriors, Showtime, Bird's Celtics, Russell's Celtics, the Bad Boys, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan's Spurs, etc. They never struck me as being on that level outside of LeBron. However, I have always thought the 2015 and 2016 Finals were the best LeBron ever played. I feel like all of those Cavs runs were LeBron carry jobs to varying degrees.

No it's a testament to the eastern conference being terrible. There were no superstars in the east outside of Lebron.

The other top players were Derozan, Lowry, Horford, etc.

It was so pathetic back then.

It was weaker than normal but it gets very overblown. No one was saying that Raptors Hawks and especially Boston teams were overly 'weak' back then and for those that did the Spurs, Houston and OKC teams all had strong peak years at the time that slanted how poor the East looked.

There were some weaker early rounders (but this also means little to elite teams anyhow)