GOAT TEAM TOURNAMENT: #3 72 Lakers v. #14 83 Sixers

[penbeast0]

For this tournament, I will seed 16 of the greatest teams in history by their SRS.

Each player will be considered to be as dominant against his opponents as he was the year that he played (ie. if you are just going to say the more modern team wins, don't bother to participate). And EACH MATCHUP WILL FEATURE THE RULES, REFEREES, AND EQUIPMENT OF THE OLDER TEAM. This doesn't mean that Steph Curry will be called for carrying each time he tries to dribble, just assume that his handle is proportionately as good relative to the era as it is relative to his own. So, in 65, if you think he has the best handle in today's league, you can assume he has the best handle of that era; if he's roughly average for starting PGs of today's league in terms of that one aspect, you can assume he is roughly average for starting PGs of that era. This hopefully will eliminate a bit of the recency bias. Health is as it was, if a player was 75% during the playoffs that year, assume he's only 75% now, this is a playoff tournament, not a regular season seeding.

One last thing. VOTES WITHOUT ANALYSIS (or with what in my personal subject opinion is stupid analysis) WONT BE COUNTED.

1972 Los Angeles Lakers with coach Bill Sharman
Wilt Chamberlain
Happy Hairston
Jim McMillan
Gail Goodrich
Jerry West

Pat Riley
LeRoy Ellis

30 something Wilt attempting to be Bill Russell only with better shooting (His playoff scoring was up a bit to 14.7 ppg but his otherworldly fg% dropped to .563). Weapons everywhere though. Jerry West also had a bad playoff run in terms of efficiency; he was still second in the league in Assist % and made both the 1st team All-Pro and 1st team All-Defense. Team efficiency may have been hurt by playing 3 notoriously good defensive teams: The Motta Bulls, Kareem and the Bucks, then the Frazier/Reed Knicks. During the regular season, the Lakers were the top rated offensive team and second rated defensive team in the league.

In addition to Elgin Baylor being injured and missing pretty much the whole season, 6th man Keith Erickson was out for the playoffs and 3rd guard Flynn Robinson missed almost half. Some guy named Pat Riley stepped up and took their minutes but, of course, was never heard from again.

!983 Philadephia 76ers
Moses Malone
(Marc Iavaroni)
Julius Erving
Andrew Toney
Maurice Cheeks

Bobby Jones
Clint Richardson
Clemon Johnson

"Fo, fo, fo!," was Moses's prediction for the playoffs. Actually they did lose one game in the playoffs but this is a team whose regular season performance probably understates both it's talent and it's postseason dominance. Although Iavaroni was the nominal starter, Bobby Jones and Clint Richardson both played more minutes as this team was both very deep and full of HOF players. Adding Moses Malone to a perennial contender was looked on as almost unfair and the Sixers, for this one year, made that look accurate. Bird and the Celtics were taken down by Sidney Moncrief and the Bucks but the Sixers swept the Showtime Lakers with Kareem and Tragic Johnson in the finals. Lack of a 3 point option wont be important, the Sixers scored a total of 1 3 pointer (out of 10 attempts) in their playoff run.

Both teams beat Kareem on the way to this matchup. Who do you have?

[penbeast0]

I don't like Moses in this matchup. He was just a year removed from being the league's scoring leader and expected his touches. But Wilt is a nasty matchup for him, one of the few players in history that Moses couldn't body and Moses was a poor passer. Great guard play on both sides and McMillan was a very solid defender and good enough scorer to make Erving work on both ends. Philly's big advantage is their bench. Bobby Jones was a legit HOF player with both great defense and very good offense, better than either of the Lakers starting forwards (Iavaronni was worse than either though for what it's worth), Clint Richardson was a high energy defensive stopper though not a good shooter, and Clemon Johnson was at least equivalent to LeRoy Ellis and a better fit next to Moses than Ellis next to Wilt. The Laker starters, particularly their guards, are going to be playing 40+ minutes which may wear them down.

I will go with the Sixers here in a hardfought 7.

[trex_8063]

Oh my my my.....

I can't believe the '72 Lakers may be in jeopardy in the 1st round of this project [bad luck in the match-up, I guess], but I may have to side with the Sixers.

Moses Malone was a bull and utterly relentless, and while '72 Wilt is a helluva low-post defender, he was also mindful of his record of never ever fouling out of a game......and he never faced as dominant an offensive rebounder (nor as bullish a player in general, imo) as Moses Malone. I could see Moses being sort of challenging for him [though vice versa may also be true], especially if he gets into foul trouble.
That's the most interesting match-up, at any rate. I'd look forward to the battle. fwiw, in the battle of the back-up C's, I like Clemon Johnson a little better than LeRoy Ellis.

I'm not sure how Billy Cunningham will handle his defensive match-ups in the backcourt. I'd probably put Mo Cheeks on West, because Cheeks was one of the best at hounding the ball-handler as they brought the ball up; he's also one of the best ball thieves, and while West is overly-maligned in this regard, I must admit I DON'T think he was one of the more elite ball-handlers of his generation. He may just do a nice job hindering the Laker offense in this manner.
On the flip-side, I think West would be an outstanding cover on Andrew Toney.

The Sixers win the battle at SF rather easily, obviously, and I definitely like their depth better in general (at least if we're to assume the Lakers suffer the same injury troubles).

It all looks quite close, but I think I'm going to go with the Sixers based on the better depth and the Lakers not having a great foil for Dr. J. Like pen said, their rs SRS really understates just how talented the '83 Sixer team was.

Vote: Sixers (probably in an awesome 7-game series)

[pandrade83]

Impact of rule changes

Virtually none - as mentioned, the '83 Sixers barely shot 3's.

I take Philadelphia because

The Moses vs. Wilt component is the most fascinating part of this matchup. This is an odd comparison, but Moses reminds me a little it of Clubber Lang from Rocky III - just a great brawler who can slug with anyone (and has better footwork than is often given credit for). However, Wilt is just . . . a freak. I don't like Moses' style against someone like Wilt & worry about Philadelphia a bit there.

Another spot that's an edge for the Lakers is I worry about Toney's ability to go off with West likely hounding him.

On the other side, Cheeks is one of the GOAT defensive point guards & could really put pressure on West & slow him, while Dr J should be able to slice apart the Lakers on the perimeter. And that to me is the X factor in this series. Each side seemingly has a counter to each other & both sides have nice role players I haven't even gotten to (Jones for Philly & Hairston for Los Angeles) but Dr J is the one thing that cannot be accounted for easily by the Lakers.

I'll take the Sixers in an amazing 6 or 7 game series.

[penbeast0]

Damn, too much unanimity. C'mon Laker fans, we need someone to pick a fight!

[Samurai]

This would be a very interesting match-up. I would love to watch that Wilt vs. Moses match-up. I think that Russell would be a more interesting match-up against Moses: the GOAT at boxing out against a man that could not be boxed out. Wilt wasn't as skilled as Russell at boxing out; he just depended on his size, strength and jumping ability to outrebound his opponent.

If Wilt's defensive rebounding can effectively cancel out Moses' offensive rebounding, Happy Hairston could be the wildcard. I remember him as a great rebounder in his own right who had excellent technique in terms of positioning and boxing out. He was also an excellent defender; I would be inclined to put Hairston on Dr. J and let McMillian guard Bobby Jones; Jimmy Mac gives up a few inches but Jones was more inclined to be a facilitator on offense rather than being a go-to post up shooter.

Cheeks would do a very good job at harassing West when Logo is trying to run the offense, but West has the advantage of being able to see over Mo to deliver his passes. Remember that West was a shade over 6-4 in barefeet (per West himself) and saying Cheeks was 6-1 might be a tad generous. West's length on defense would make it difficult for Toney to get open looks and West himself was no slouch at harassing ball handlers and getting steals. And shooting was Toney's calling card, not his handles.

I could see the Lakers taking this series in a tough 6 or 7 game battle. The Lakers heavily depend on their backcourt to generate their offense. While I have tremendous respect for Bobby Jones' defense, the Lakers didn't depend on their forwards to generate offense. McMillian averaged almost 19 ppg but he did it by "getting lost" and waiting for a guard to find him for an open shot; he wasn't a shot creator. Thus Jones' all-world defense ends up being under-utilized against the Lakers.

[Dr Positivity]

The Sixers win the battle at SF rather easily, obviously, and I definitely like their depth better in general (especially if we're to assume the Lakers suffer the same injury troubles).

It all looks quite close, but I think I'm going to go with the Sixers based on the better depth and the Lakers not having a great foil for Dr. J. Like pen said, their rs SRS really understates just how talented the '83 Sixer team was.

Vote: Sixers (probably in an awesome 7-game series)

I'm surprised you like their depth better when the Sixers are a 5 player team. I can't say I'm an expert on the bottom half of the Lakers roster though.

[trex_8063]

The Sixers win the battle at SF rather easily, obviously, and I definitely like their depth better in general (especially if we're to assume the Lakers suffer the same injury troubles).

It all looks quite close, but I think I'm going to go with the Sixers based on the better depth and the Lakers not having a great foil for Dr. J. Like pen said, their rs SRS really understates just how talented the '83 Sixer team was.

Vote: Sixers (probably in an awesome 7-game series)

I'm surprised you like their depth better when the Sixers are a 5 player team. I can't say I'm an expert on the bottom half of the Lakers roster though.

Well, that was primarily if assuming the Lakers suffered the same injury issues (pen seemed to imply that): that means no Keith Erickson and only a limited amount of Flynn Robinson. Their bench was primary just LeRoy Ellis (OK) and Pat Riley (a solid "meh").

The Sixers, otoh, had 6th Man of the Year quality guy in Bobby Jones, a couple fair/decent back-up guards in Clint Richardson and Franklin Edwards, and OK back-up C in Clemon Johnson.

The Lakers without Erickson and only limited Robinson.....I think the Sixers rather easily have the better bench.

Starting line-ups are debatable. Malone/Erving/Cheeks/Toney/Iavaroni vs Chamberlain/West/Goodrich/Hairston/McMillan is pretty close; I'd lean a little toward the Laker line-up, although fwiw Iavaroni was better than his numbers indicate. A good energy guy: hustle, defense, physicality.

idk, this is a great match-up. These are two true all-time level teams, imo. I think it's a tough, competitive series, very likely to go 7 games. As to who wins...... My gut says Philly, but I certainly can't fault anyone going with the Lakers.

[trex_8063]

This would be a very interesting match-up. I would love to watch that Wilt vs. Moses match-up. I think that Russell would be a more interesting match-up against Moses: the GOAT at boxing out against a man that could not be boxed out. Wilt wasn't as skilled as Russell at boxing out; he just depended on his size, strength and jumping ability to outrebound his opponent.

If Wilt's defensive rebounding can effectively cancel out Moses' offensive rebounding, Happy Hairston could be the wildcard. I remember him as a great rebounder in his own right who had excellent technique in terms of positioning and boxing out. He was also an excellent defender; I would be inclined to put Hairston on Dr. J and let McMillian guard Bobby Jones; Jimmy Mac gives up a few inches but Jones was more inclined to be a facilitator on offense rather than being a go-to post up shooter.

Cheeks would do a very good job at harassing West when Logo is trying to run the offense, but West has the advantage of being able to see over Mo to deliver his passes. Remember that West was a shade over 6-4 in barefeet (per West himself) and saying Cheeks was 6-1 might be a tad generous. West's length on defense would make it difficult for Toney to get open looks and West himself was no slouch at harassing ball handlers and getting steals. And shooting was Toney's calling card, not his handles.

I could see the Lakers taking this series in a tough 6 or 7 game battle. The Lakers heavily depend on their backcourt to generate their offense. While I have tremendous respect for Bobby Jones' defense, the Lakers didn't depend on their forwards to generate offense. McMillian averaged almost 19 ppg but he did it by "getting lost" and waiting for a guard to find him for an open shot; he wasn't a shot creator. Thus Jones' all-world defense ends up being under-utilized against the Lakers.

Love having your voice in a project like this, so I hope you stick with it.

I generally agree with the above except I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on the final bolded statement. For one, I suspect Jones would spend more time guarding Happy Hairston, and Erving would be on McMillan.
But at any rate, while I know Jones would generally draw the tougher cover between the opposing PF and SF, he didn't look like a true "stopper" in my limited scouting. To me, it seems like the lion's share of his defensive value came thru rim protection and generating turnovers. And some numbers certainly back this up: in '83, Bobby Jones was averaging 4.7 blk+stl per 100 possessions.

Those are fairly ridiculous for a forward. To put it in perspective, Lebron James's single-season BEST blk+stl per 100 was 4.0 (in '09); Paul George's single-season BEST was 3.9 (in '12); Draymond Green averaged 5.1 during his DPOY season, though that is one of only two seasons in which he exceeded Jones's '83 avg, and Green's career avg per 100 is 4.3.
So that gives an idea of just how active Jones was as a help defender, and the Sixers would still reap the benefits of that.

[70sFan]

The Sixers win the battle at SF rather easily, obviously, and I definitely like their depth better in general (especially if we're to assume the Lakers suffer the same injury troubles).

It all looks quite close, but I think I'm going to go with the Sixers based on the better depth and the Lakers not having a great foil for Dr. J. Like pen said, their rs SRS really understates just how talented the '83 Sixer team was.

Vote: Sixers (probably in an awesome 7-game series)

I'm surprised you like their depth better when the Sixers are a 5 player team. I can't say I'm an expert on the bottom half of the Lakers roster though.

Well, that was primarily if assuming the Lakers suffered the same injury issues (pen seemed to imply that): that means no Keith Erickson and only a limited amount of Flynn Robinson. Their bench was primary just LeRoy Ellis (OK) and Pat Riley (a solid "meh").

The Sixers, otoh, had 6th Man of the Year quality guy in Bobby Jones, a couple fair/decent back-up guards in Clint Richardson and Franklin Edwards, and OK back-up C in Clemon Johnson.

The Lakers without Erickson and only limited Robinson.....I think the Sixers rather easily have the better bench.

Starting line-ups are debatable. Malone/Erving/Cheeks/Toney/Iavaroni vs Chamberlain/West/Goodrich/Hairston/McMillan is pretty close; I'd lean a little toward the Laker line-up, although fwiw Iavaroni was better than his numbers indicate. A good energy guy: hustle, defense, physicality.

idk, this is a great match-up. These are two true all-time level teams, imo. I think it's a tough, competitive series, very likely to go 7 games. As to who wins...... My gut says Philly, but I certainly can't fault anyone going with the Lakers.

This is the most important thing in this matchup. Lakers had his share of injuries in playoffs, even West wasn't himself and Wilt had hand injury in the finals. With a healthy team I may go with them, but with playoffs versions give me Sixers. They played perfect basketball in the playoffs for a non-shooting team. Moses would probably struggle against Wilt, but he's not someone who cares about it and he would try and try and try to beat him. Julius struggled shooting-wise, but his all-around play was never better. Lineups with Julius and Jones were scary on defense and they out-fastbreaked Showtime Lakers. Of course, 1972 Lakers were also fastbreak team but with injured roster this could be tough for them.

It's also interesting how would Gail play against Sixers guards. He would have a lot of problems with either on defense, which might be another key factor.

Very tough decision, but with playoffs versions give me Sixers.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 83 Sixers - I think they have the stronger cast after West/Wilt and Erving/Moses. Cheeks and Jones just scream high impact vs boxscore players. I like the matchup because both teams are on a mission. The Lakers obviously after so many heartbreaks against Celtics and Knicks, but the Sixers as well with losses in 77, 80 and 82 Finals and with adding another ringless player in Moses who had a possessed motor

[trex_8063]

Just for a little added tid-bit, since the seedings are based on SRS (and the '83 Sixers had an SRS or "only" +7.53).....

If we look at their playoff run, counting HCA as worth 3 pts, the Sixers' playoff SRS was +10.24. When clicking, this team was as good nearly any ever assembled.


btw pen, where did you end up putting the '96 Bulls (with their 2nd-best all-time SRS, ahead of the '72 Lakers)?

[Samurai]

This would be a very interesting match-up. I would love to watch that Wilt vs. Moses match-up. I think that Russell would be a more interesting match-up against Moses: the GOAT at boxing out against a man that could not be boxed out. Wilt wasn't as skilled as Russell at boxing out; he just depended on his size, strength and jumping ability to outrebound his opponent.

If Wilt's defensive rebounding can effectively cancel out Moses' offensive rebounding, Happy Hairston could be the wildcard. I remember him as a great rebounder in his own right who had excellent technique in terms of positioning and boxing out. He was also an excellent defender; I would be inclined to put Hairston on Dr. J and let McMillian guard Bobby Jones; Jimmy Mac gives up a few inches but Jones was more inclined to be a facilitator on offense rather than being a go-to post up shooter.

Cheeks would do a very good job at harassing West when Logo is trying to run the offense, but West has the advantage of being able to see over Mo to deliver his passes. Remember that West was a shade over 6-4 in barefeet (per West himself) and saying Cheeks was 6-1 might be a tad generous. West's length on defense would make it difficult for Toney to get open looks and West himself was no slouch at harassing ball handlers and getting steals. And shooting was Toney's calling card, not his handles.

I could see the Lakers taking this series in a tough 6 or 7 game battle. The Lakers heavily depend on their backcourt to generate their offense. While I have tremendous respect for Bobby Jones' defense, the Lakers didn't depend on their forwards to generate offense. McMillian averaged almost 19 ppg but he did it by "getting lost" and waiting for a guard to find him for an open shot; he wasn't a shot creator. Thus Jones' all-world defense ends up being under-utilized against the Lakers.

Love having your voice in a project like this, so I hope you stick with it.

I generally agree with the above except I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on the final bolded statement. For one, I suspect Jones would spend more time guarding Happy Hairston, and Erving would be on McMillan.
But at any rate, while I know Jones would generally draw the tougher cover between the opposing PF and SF, he didn't look like a true "stopper" in my limited scouting. To me, it seems like the lion's share of his defensive value came thru rim protection and generating turnovers. And some numbers certainly back this up: in '83, Bobby Jones was averaging 4.7 blk+stl per 100 possessions.

Those are fairly ridiculous for a forward. To put it in perspective, Lebron James's single-season BEST blk+stl per 100 was 4.0 (in '09); Paul George's single-season BEST was 3.9 (in '12); Draymond Green averaged 5.1 during his DPOY season, though that is one of only two seasons in which he exceeded Jones's '83 avg, and Green's career avg per 100 is 4.3.
So that gives an idea of just how active Jones was as a help defender, and the Sixers would still reap the benefits of that.

I view Jones' defense somewhat similar to Jerry West: a very good man defender and a GOAT-level help defender. And when people knock Jones down a notch or so on his man defense, his championship series against the Doctor in 76 is often cited: in that 6-game series, Erving averaged 37.7 ppg on 59% shooting. Specifically, Dr. J hit a short baseline jumpshot that pretty much iced the deciding game in which Jones did not fully elevate to contest the shot. But I've always felt that 76 Dr J has to be a GOAT-level peak season; I can't see any forward in history just flat-out "stopping" 76 Erving. But the point is that I do agree that Jones was an even better help defender than a man defender, similar to West. But he was still a very good man defender.

And you are probably right that Cunningham would probably put 83 Jones on 72 Hairston; while Jones typically drew the more difficult defensive assignment, if there was no clear offensive superstar at the forward position then Jones would typically guard the PF. And while Hairston was clearly not a shot creator, he was effective with an outside shot if you left him open (odd release - sort of a set shot but he released the ball seemingly from behind his right ear. Can't recall seeing anyone else shoot like that but he was effective if you left him wide open). And that worked for the Lakers because West and Goodrich would handle the ball and could hit Happy or Jimmy Mac once you left them alone to double the backcourt. And Jones wouldn't be able to cheat off of Happy too much because that would allow him to crash the offensive glass, which was one of Hairston's strengths. If the Lakers had a shot creator at the forward position, I believe Jones' defense would be better utilized.

[trex_8063]

I view Jones' defense somewhat similar to Jerry West: a very good man defender and a GOAT-level help defender. And when people knock Jones down a notch or so on his man defense, his championship series against the Doctor in 76 is often cited: in that 6-game series, Erving averaged 37.7 ppg on 59% shooting. Specifically, Dr. J hit a short baseline jumpshot that pretty much iced the deciding game in which Jones did not fully elevate to contest the shot. But I've always felt that 76 Dr J has to be a GOAT-level peak season; I can't see any forward in history just flat-out "stopping" 76 Erving. But the point is that I do agree that Jones was an even better help defender than a man defender, similar to West. But he was still a very good man defender.

And you are probably right that Cunningham would probably put 83 Jones on 72 Hairston; while Jones typically drew the more difficult defensive assignment, if there was no clear offensive superstar at the forward position then Jones would typically guard the PF. And while Hairston was clearly not a shot creator, he was effective with an outside shot if you left him open (odd release - sort of a set shot but he released the ball seemingly from behind his right ear. Can't recall seeing anyone else shoot like that but he was effective if you left him wide open). And that worked for the Lakers because West and Goodrich would handle the ball and could hit Happy or Jimmy Mac once you left them alone to double the backcourt. And Jones wouldn't be able to cheat off of Happy too much because that would allow him to crash the offensive glass, which was one of Hairston's strengths. If the Lakers had a shot creator at the forward position, I believe Jones' defense would be better utilized.

Aside from Happy being the "PF" in this Laker line-up, his offensive rebounding was the other reason I thought maybe Jones would match-up with him. I think Bobby's individual rebounding numbers underrate his value on the defensive glass. At least, in my [again, somewhat limited] scouting of him, he does seem to fairly consistent put a body on his man to box-out.

I get what you're saying though, that if he's come of to contest a shot at the rim on a driving West for example, he'll likely not be in position to box out his man.

[Jiminy Glick]

The 1983 Sixers beat the 1983 Lakers so they would beat the 1972 Lakers.

[Samurai]

The 1983 Sixers beat the 1983 Lakers so they would beat the 1972 Lakers.

Since zero members of the 72 Lakers were still playing in the NBA in 83, let alone members of the 83 Lakers, the logic of this rationale escapes me.

[Jiminy Glick]

The 1983 Sixers beat the 1983 Lakers so they would beat the 1972 Lakers.

Since zero members of the 72 Lakers were still playing in the NBA in 83, let alone members of the 83 Lakers, the logic of this rationale escapes me.

What? The 1983 Lakers were better than the 1972 Lakers. If the Sixers could beat the 83 team they could beat the 72 team. They swept the 83 team and that team was stacked.

[Samurai]

The 1983 Sixers beat the 1983 Lakers so they would beat the 1972 Lakers.

Since zero members of the 72 Lakers were still playing in the NBA in 83, let alone members of the 83 Lakers, the logic of this rationale escapes me.

What? The 1983 Lakers were better than the 1972 Lakers. If the Sixers could beat the 83 team they could beat the 72 team. They swept the 83 team and that team was stacked.

First, it is very debatable whether the 83 Lakers with a SRS of 5.06 was better than the 72 Lakers with a SRS of 11.65.

Second, how relevant is it whether the 83 Lakers were or were not better than the 72 Lakers? They are going against the 83 Sixers, and the 83 Lakers did not match-up well against the Sixers. 35-year old Kareem did not have the strength or physicality to keep Moses from owning the offensive glass. 35-year old Wilt was a physically stronger player than Kareem and would be a better match-up against Malone. As already stated, Wilt wasn't as skilled at boxing out as Russell, but he has a better chance at neutralizing Moses with his size and strength than Kareem.

This tournament seems to be based as much or more on specific team match-ups than it does on how generically good a team was.

[70sFan]

The 1983 Sixers beat the 1983 Lakers so they would beat the 1972 Lakers.

Since zero members of the 72 Lakers were still playing in the NBA in 83, let alone members of the 83 Lakers, the logic of this rationale escapes me.

What? The 1983 Lakers were better than the 1972 Lakers. If the Sixers could beat the 83 team they could beat the 72 team. They swept the 83 team and that team was stacked.

They weren't better by any objective measure and they were good matchup for the Sixers. Wilt would do far better job on Moses than Kareem and West/Gail were better than Nixon/Magic. 1983 Lakers were great, but they weren't suited to beat Philly.

[penbeast0]

Since zero members of the 72 Lakers were still playing in the NBA in 83, let alone members of the 83 Lakers, the logic of this rationale escapes me.

What? The 1983 Lakers were better than the 1972 Lakers. If the Sixers could beat the 83 team they could beat the 72 team. They swept the 83 team and that team was stacked.

They weren't better by any objective measure and they were good matchup for the Sixers. Wilt would do far better job on Moses than Kareem and West/Gail were better than Nixon/Magic. 1983 Lakers were great, but they weren't suited to beat Philly.

I have a problem with the idea that West and Goodrich were better than Nixon and Magic, even young Magic. West was the best of the four, but Norm Nixon always impressed me with his fire and passing while Goodrich seemed more a product of shooting a lot than shooting very well.

On the other hand, the 83 Lakers were great individually but didn't ever seem to mesh as a team (and Worthy missed the whole playoffs though he was only the 7th man that year; the 72 Lakers played great team ball -- Bill Sharman gets some credit here.