Sansterre's Top 100 Teams, #71-75: 1996 SEA, 1992 POR, 2012 SAS, 1982 LAL, 1980 BOS

[homecourtloss]

Let's see if I'd be right about the ranking of the Spurs teams on the list;
1. 2014
2. 2013
3. 1999 or 2003
4. 2003 or 1999
5. 2005
6. 2007
7. 2012

My personal rankings of the Spurs teams would be a lot different than that but just tried to give it a shot on guessing about your results.

Great guesses! Of the teams you listed the order is:

2014
1999
2013
2007
2005
2003
2012

But there's one more Duncan Spurs team that you'd have no reason to guess that is also on the list.

Of course, 2016 should also be there. Dominant team.

2016 was crazy; it had of course the 73 win GSW, an OKC team that really should have beaten them, an incredible 10+ SRS Spurs team, and the eventual champions, an all time playoff team with a possible GOAT making GOAT impact.

2013 Spurs were really interesting when you look at their games played breakdown.

Duncan, 69 games, 30 mpg
Parker, 66 games, 33 mpg
Manu, 60 games, 23 mpg
Kawhi, 58 games, 31 mpg

Green, 27 mpg
Splitter, 25 mpg

+6.7 SRS team with these games/minutes played numbers from their 6 best players...Kawhi made a leap, Mills makes a leap and that team coalesces evennmore into that 2014 juggernaut.

[RCM88x]

Man, I had completely forgotten that Diaw was picked up after a mid season buyout, what a great move by SA.

Interesting bit about the Championship odds, SA has always been a team that was never respected by the casual fans, probably why they didn't get better odds in Vegas. Curious what they were after their 2014 title when they sort of proved themselves.

2nd.

And that season they proceeded to choke a key RS game and fall to the 6th seed on the last day, where they would go on to lose in 7 to the Clippers in the first round, crazy. That whole Western playoff seeding mess finally would lead the NBA to get rid of the division seeding rules once an for all.

Next season they'd re-load with LMA and go on to win 67 games and have the best home record all-time IIRC.

Kawhi era Spurs were just a roller-coaster of a team, crazy really.

[homecourtloss]

Spoiler:

The 90s Sonics put together six straight years of +6 SRS or better. But the teams consistently fizzled in the playoffs. Here’s the list of all six years, their regular season SRS, their playoff SRS and how far they got:

1993: +6.66 / +4.95, Conference Finals
1994: +8.68 / +2.34, First Round
1995: +7.91 / +3.79, First Round
1996: +7.40 / +9.50, NBA Finals
1997: +6.91 / +7.49, 2nd Round
1998: +6.33 / +0.39, 2nd Round

There really wasn’t a rhyme or reason; some years it was offensive struggles, some years it was defensive. But it was a seriously consistent theme. 1996 was their best playoff year, the only year when their significant assembly of regular season talent would get to play on the world’s biggest stage. Sure hope there isn’t a super-team at the other end of this . . .

Spoiler:

The Sonics bounced back against the ‘96 Rockets (who had won the last two titles). The Rockets really struggled to score. Hakeem shot -1.9% and not a single Rockets starter shot better than +2.1%. And Sam Perkins (a very early stretch 5, whose comp is Jae Crowder minus defense) shamelessly exploited the fact that the Rockets weren’t really equipped to handle a center shooting threes. For that matter, the Sonics bombed away from three and hit 46.1% of them. The Sonics won by 11.7 points per game; it was ugly. “But”, you may wonder, “if the Sonics weren’t actually playing a banging center, how did they stop Hakeem?” The Sonics played a super-aggressive trapping defense (not entirely unlike that employed by LeBron’s Miami Heat) and the Rockets didn’t really know how to handle it. Hakeem turned the ball over a ton (4 times a game) and wasn’t able to punish the Sonics by passing out of the pressure. The one major hole in Hakeem’s game (limited passing and decision-making) was brutally exposed.

About the bolded—too many times people lament the fall of the lot up gsme and boil it down to “not enough skilled post up big men,” but rules changes have made it easier to defend bigs. Why posting up is more difficult

Shifting illegal defense rules have made posting up so much harder than it was when they played. Houston's championship teams used Hakeem Olajuwon's post game to draw double-teams, and manufacture inside-out 3s and a Seattle had a strategy for it and had the players to implement it.

In today’s game, rule changes have unlocked better ways to defend the post. Defenses in the 1990s had to trap hard. Illegal defense rules (mostly) prohibited players from lurking in no-man's land to deny entry passes, swipe at the ball, or clutter those inside-out passing lanes Olajuwon exploited. Help defenders can do all of that today while protecting an area. Seattle’s frenetic trapping energy caused Hakeem to hesitate in that series and today, they could do that without committing to even trapping hard.

In any case, great writeup as per usual.

I agree, defences are as complex as ever, though you only see its full potential in the playoffs nowadays with the amount of coasting you see in the regular-season during the regular-season. Toronto and the 76ers were really on another level last year when it came to defence.

Also makes you wonder how D. Howard, Jokic, and Embiid would have looked with more old-school rules. Okay maybe not Dwight since he was never supremely skilled like the latter ones, but I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that Jokic and Embiid would have even be more dominant if they played in the 80's/90's.

Spoiler:

Glossary:

[spoiler]Overall SRS: My combo-SRS from the regular season and playoffs as discussed in the master thread
Standard Deviations: Standard Deviations of Overall SRS from the league mean.

When I post the roster makeup of the team, I try and do it by playoff minutes. The numbers are age, regular season BPM and Playoff BPM (basketball-reference's BPM is being used here).

So if I say: "C: Vlade Divac (22), +2.3 / +4.3" I mean that Vlade Divac was their center, he was 22, he had a BPM of +2.3 in the regular season and a +4.3 in the playoffs. Yes, BPM misses out on a lot of subtle stuff but I thought it a good quick-hits indicator of the skills of the players.

I then cover the three highest players in Usage% (assuming the season has those numbers), the three highest players in scoring per 100 (with their true shooting relative to league average) and the three highest players in Assists per 100. I realize that these are arbitrary, but I wanted a quick-hits reference for how these teams' offenses ran.

I then talk about Heliocentrism, Wingmen and Depth. Basically I add up all of the team's VORP (again, basketball-reference) and then figure out what percentage of that VORP comes from the #1 player (Heliocentrism), from the #2 and 3 players combined (Wingmen) and Depth (everyone else). I include the ranking among the top 100 for reference. There are only 82 of these rankings, because 18 teams pre-date BPM/VORP, so I only have 82 to work with. I'm not saying that these are particularly meaningful, I just thought they were cool.

Playoff Offensive Rating: Amount by which your playoff offensive rating exceeds the offensive rating you'd expect given the regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents. If you would be expected to post a 99 given your opponents but you post a 104, that's graded as +5. This way we can compare across eras.
Playoff Defensive Rating is the same as Offensive Rating, just the opposite.
Playoff SRS: Is SRS measured *only* in the playoffs. Overall SRS is a mix of both playoffs and regular season.
Total SRS Increase Through Playoffs: Basically their Overall SRS minus their Regular Season SRS. This is basically how much better a team did in the playoffs than you'd guess, relative to their regular season performance.
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: The average regular season offensive rating of your playoff opponents.
Average Playoff Opponent Defense: The average regular season defensive rating of your playoff opponents.

Rankings of any kind are out of my list. So if I say that the '91 Lakers had the 42nd best regular season offense, I don't mean "42nd best of All-Time", I mean "42nd best of my Top 100 Teams of All_Time". Which will be pretty comparable, but I want to be clear about this.

I also walk through the playoffs at each round, covering their opponent their SRS (at that time), how many games the series was, the margin of victory (and a "+" is always in the favor of the discussed team; losing a series by +2.0 means that you outscored the other team by two points a game on average despite losing) and for reference I put in an SRS equivalency (beat a +5 SRS team by 5 points a game, that's an equivalent +10 SRS series).

In writeups, if I ever say a player shot at "-8%" or something, that means "his true shooting was 8% lower than the league average that year". Any time I say "a player shot" and follow it by a percent, I am *always* using true shooting percentage unless otherwise indicated.

I also have a modern comps section for any teams pre-2011. It's nothing fancy; it's literally just me feeding the player's regular season numbers into Stathead and looking for player-seasons in the recent past (the more recent the better) that are reasonably comparable. This is *not* intended to be anything other than fun. I find it to be a neat way to re-conceive what a roster truly was when translated out of the trappings of their laundry and era. The method suffers when translating man defense, as steals/blocks/defensive rating are very approximate estimates of a player's defensive contributions. When I say something like:

PG: 2017 LeBron James (worse rebounding, better passing, way fewer shots)

What I mean is, "This team's point guard was basically 2017 LeBron James, but make his passing better, make his rebounding worse and make him take way fewer shots).

Anyhow. I don't know how clear any of this will be, so please let me know what does and doesn't work from these writeups. And thanks for reading!

#75. The 1996 Seattle SuperSonics

Spoiler:

Overall SRS: +8.75, Standard Deviations: +1.56, Lost in the NBA Finals

Regular Season Record: 64-18, Regular Season SRS: +7.40 (32nd), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +2.7 (65th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -5.5 (21st)

PG: Gary Payton (27), +4.6 / +5.0
SG: Hersey Hawkins (29), +2.8 / +3.5
SF: Detlef Schrempf (33), +2.5 / +0.2
PF: Shawn Kemp (26), +2.8 / +4.8
C: Ervin Johnson (28), -1.1 / -3.4
6th: Sam Perkins (34), +2.0 / +3.4
7th: Nate McMillan (31), +3.7 / +5.6

Usage Rate: Shawn Kemp (26.2%), Gary Payton (23.6%), Detlef Schrempf (21.3%)
Scoring/100: Shawn Kemp (30.1 / +8.9%), Gary Payton (25.3 / +1.2%), Detlef Schrempf (25.1 / 5.6%)
Assists/100: Gary Payton (9.8), Nate McMillan (8.0), Detlef Schrempf (6.4)

Heliocentrism: 28.0% (61st of 82 teams)
Wingmen: 35.4% (50th)
Depth: 36.6% (19th)

Playoff Offensive Rating: +0.01 (96th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -7.63 (22nd)
Playoff SRS: +9.50 (72nd), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +1.35 (74th)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +4.13 (8th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.91 (52nd)

Round 1: Sacramento Kings (-2.6), won 3-1, by +6.0 points per game (+3.4 SRS eq)
Round 2: Houston Rockets (+2.8), won 4-0, by +11.7 points per game (+14.5 SRS eq)
Round 3: Utah Jazz (+10.9), won 4-3, by -2.6 points per game (+8.3 SRS eq)
Round 4: Chicago Bulls (+15.4), lost 2-4 by -3.8 points per game (+11.6 SRS eq)

Modern Comps:

PG: 2019 Eric Bledsoe (playing full time but better in every way except rebounding)
SG: 2010 Ray Allen (little worse shooter, a little better defender)
SF: 2018 Khris Middleton (better in every way but rebounding)
PF: 2010 Dwight Howard (better offense, worse defense)
C: 2008 Kendrick Perkins
6th: 2016 Jae Crowder (worse defense)
7th: 2019 Draymond Green

Ha! Gary Payton as Super Bledsoe? I don’t necessarily disagree. Payton is basically everything Bledsoe is, but much better (obviously the method of scoring is different, but the footprint is pretty similar). This defense is pretty loaded. Super Bledsoe, Khris Middleton, a weaker Dwight Howard, Perk, a weaker Jae Crowder and Draymond? That is a sick group of players. That shouldn’t be a surprise; they finished in the Top 25 of Defensive Rating for both the regular season and the playoffs (for my list). As for their offense, it’s not terribly robust: obviously Super Dwight will be awesome, and Allen and Middleton (and Super Bledsoe) will round things out, but everyone after that (besides Crowder) is a defensive specialist.

The 90s Sonics put together six straight years of +6 SRS or better. But the teams consistently fizzled in the playoffs. Here’s the list of all six years, their regular season SRS, their playoff SRS and how far they got:

1993: +6.66 / +4.95, Conference Finals
1994: +8.68 / +2.34, First Round
1995: +7.91 / +3.79, First Round
1996: +7.40 / +9.50, NBA Finals
1997: +6.91 / +7.49, 2nd Round
1998: +6.33 / +0.39, 2nd Round

There really wasn’t a rhyme or reason; some years it was offensive struggles, some years it was defensive. But it was a seriously consistent theme. 1996 was their best playoff year, the only year when their significant assembly of regular season talent would get to play on the world’s biggest stage. Sure hope there isn’t a super-team at the other end of this . . .

In the first round the Sonics continued to underperform out of the gate. The Kings were a fairly bad team that year; beating them by 6 points a game was a weak-sauce showing. And you may be thinking “Come on, it’s a weak first round opponent. You don’t really need to try hard.” Given that the Sonics got knocked out twice in the first round (even with positive MoV) suggests that maybe there’s some benefit to putting it beyond doubt. In a preview of problems the Sonics would face throughout the playoffs, Olden Polynice grabbed 4 offensive boards a game, and the Sonics took four games to finish off the Kings.

The Sonics bounced back against the ‘96 Rockets (who had won the last two titles). The Rockets really struggled to score. Hakeem shot -1.9% and not a single Rockets starter shot better than +2.1%. And Sam Perkins (a very early stretch 5, whose comp is Jae Crowder minus defense) shamelessly exploited the fact that the Rockets weren’t really equipped to handle a center shooting threes. For that matter, the Sonics bombed away from three and hit 46.1% of them. The Sonics won by 11.7 points per game; it was ugly. “But”, you may wonder, “if the Sonics weren’t actually playing a banging center, how did they stop Hakeem?” The Sonics played a super-aggressive trapping defense (not entirely unlike that employed by LeBron’s Miami Heat) and the Rockets didn’t really know how to handle it. Hakeem turned the ball over a ton (4 times a game) and wasn’t able to punish the Sonics by passing out of the pressure. The one major hole in Hakeem’s game (limited passing and decision-making) was brutally exposed.

In the Conference Finals the Sonics advanced to face the Utah Jazz, who had just beat two good teams (the +2.2 Blazers and the +7.3 Spurs) by double-digits each and looked to be a serious challenge. And they were. The series went to seven and the Jazz outscored them by 2.6 points per game. The Sonics’ wins were by 30, 4, 2 and 4. The Jazz’ wins were by 20, 3 and 35. So what happened? First, the Jazz exploited the Sonics’ weakness for turning the ball over. The Sonics had no players with turnover% lower than 14%, and most were above 20%. Kemp and Schrempf combined for seven turnovers a game. At the intersection of this advantage and turnovers and Utah’s superiority on the glass (led by Malone grabbing 12 a game), the Jazz took a whopping ten extra shots a game. A ten-shot margin is really hard to overcome and, by MoV, the Sonics didn’t. But the Sonics made up much of that gap with superior shooting. Shawn Kemp put up a 20/10/1 while shooting an astounding +19.7% (Malone guarded him without help for most of the series). But Perkins and Hawkins also combined for 26 points a game on +7.2% or better scoring. And the Jazz . . . Jeff Hornacek shot well (20 points per game on +9.7%) but Malone and Stockton really struggled. Malone shot -4.1% and Stockton couldn’t do better than -9%. Even with all of that, the Jazz probably played better over the series. But the Sonics had managed to pull it out and advance to the NBA Finals.

To face the ‘96 Bulls.

For those of you who are new to the party, the ‘96 Bulls were Jordan’s best team, and they are often considered the best team ever. The Bulls not only ripped through the regular season (+11.8 SRS, 72-10 record), but ripped through the playoffs as well. They beat the +1.5 Heat by 23 points a game, they ‘struggled’ with the +4.5 Knicks by winning only by +6.2 points a game, and they obliterated the +8.5 Magic by 16.7 points a game. The ‘96 Bulls were scary good.

And you know what? It was actually kind of close. The Bulls struggled to shoot well. That may sound hard to believe, but the Bulls shot way below their season average. Pippen shot at -11.3%, His Airness shot at -0.4%, Toni Kukoc shot at -2.3% . . . Jordan’s assertion “I had no problems with the Glove” (Payton’s nickname) . . . I think the data suggests that he did. Maybe Jordan struggled for other reasons, but either way; Jordan struggled. And I want to take a moment for this. The Sonics’ shot defense was so good that they were able to somewhat shut down one of the best offenses ever. The Sonics didn’t shoot particularly well, but they did shoot better. Led by Kemp (23/10/2 on +9.1%) and Hersey Hawkins (13/4/1 on +6%) the Sonics did well enough (about a point above league average). If all this happened, how did the Sonics lose?

The Sonics had two weaknesses. The first was that they turned the ball over a lot (especially Shawn Kemp - it’s the downside to a Dwight Howard comp). The second was that by playing Sam Perkins in place of Ervin Johnson (who barely played in the Finals) they were really weakening their rebounding (Perkins’ rebounding was not dissimilar to Detlef Schrempf’s, which isn’t good for a center). Just as the Jazz had, the Bulls exploited the crap out of those weaknesses. Kemp turned the ball over four times a game, and Dennis Rodman grabbed *6* offensive boards a game (Pippen added three more). It yielded the Bulls an extra 9 shots a game, and that was enough. The Bulls won by 3.8 points a game. And that loss is considered by my formula to be a great result for the Sonics. Losing by only 3.8 points to a 15 SRS team is really good. And let’s be real, the Sonics did an amazing job. Forever on the ‘96 Sonics’ headstone it will read, “Outshot and Seriously challenged the ‘96 Bulls”. That’s an achievement few can brag of.

#74. The 1992 Portland Trail Blazers

Spoiler:

Overall SRS: +8.48, Standard Deviations: +1.65, Lost in the NBA Finals

Regular Season Record: 57-25, Regular Season SRS: +6.94 (47th), Earned the 1 Seed
Regular Season Offensive Rating: +3.2 (59th), Regular Season Defensive Rating: -4.0 (42nd)

PG: Terry Porter (28), +3.7 / +5.4
SG: Clyde Drexler (29), +8.7 / +7.8
SF: Jerome Kersey (29), +1.7 / +3.7
PF: Buck Williams (31), +1.2 / -0.8
C: Kevin Duckworth (27), -3.6 / -2.0
6th: Clifford Robinson (25), -0.2 / +0.1
7th: Danny Ainge (32), +1.9 / +1.5

Usage Rate: Clyde Drexler (28.7%), Clifford Robinson (22.1%), Terry Porter (21.6%)
Scoring/100: Clyde Drexler (33.5 / +2.9%), Terry Porter (25.9 / +4.4%), Danny Ainge (23.8 / +0.3%)
Assists/100: Clyde Drexler (9.0), Terry Porter (8.3), Danny Ainge (6.1)

Heliocentrism: 42.0% (22nd of 82 teams)
Wingmen: 36.4% (45th)
Depth: 21.6% (55th)

Playoff Offensive Rating: +7.69 (21st), Playoff Defensive Rating: -2.16 (84th)
Playoff SRS: +9.33 (75th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +1.54 (72nd)
Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +4.06 (9th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.29 (44th)

Round 1: Los Angeles Lakers (-1.0), won 3-1, by +14.8 points per game (+13.8 SRS eq)
Round 2: Phoenix Suns (+6.9), won 4-1, by +3.2 points per game (+10.1 SRS eq)
Round 3: Utah Jazz (+5.9), won 4-2, by +6.5 points per game (+12.4 SRS eq)
Round 4: Chicago Bulls (+9.9), lost 2-4, by -7.3 points per game (+2.6 SRS eq)

Modern Comps:

PG: 2013 George Hill (but somewhat better in every way)
SG: 2005 LeBron James
SF: 2014 P.J. Tucker (a little better in every way)
PF: 2017 Tyson Chandler
C: 2020 Rui Hachimura (better rebounding and defense, worse scoring)
6th: 2017 Terrence Jones
7th: 2016 Patty Mills

Okay, I want to be clear on a few things. I’m working primarily off stats here. Most of these are teams I’ve never watched, and what I know about them is a combination of stats and what I’ve picked up from books and articles that I’ve read and whatnot. There are times when this lack of primary source interaction occasionally bites me in the butt (for example, with the injury-riddled slate of opponents the ‘89 Pistons played). So every conclusion I come to has a bit of an asterisk, and I’m certainly open to correction. Especially with this.

But what the hell is up with this lineup? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s fascinating that the best comp for peak Drexler is 20 year-old LeBron (who was athletic as hell, but was still very unpolished compared to what he would grow into). They’re both strong rebounders, carry high (but not huge) loads, both did most of the passing on their team (but not tons), both shot above average (but not by much), both posted strong box-score defensive stats. Weirdly I think this comparison complements them both. Drexler because ‘05 LeBron was a proto-version of the ultimate floor-raiser, and LeBron because at 20 he was comparable to a peak Hall of Famer leading a team to the Finals. So that part’s fine.

George Hill (and Fred VanVleet) are the two modern players that the comp engine seems to reach for whenever you have a solid-shooting decent usage player with solid, but not heavy assist% numbers. So it identifies Porter as more of a decent passing shooting guard, which is fine, but it’s hardly woo-woo. And Kersey? Nice defender and *great* rebounder for a wing, but that’s about as good as I can say. Buck Williams? He seems like some uber roll-man; his shooting efficiency is a stratospheric +12% for decent usage (17.8%) but his turnover to assist is hot garbage, his rebounding is strong but his defense (box-score numbers) look pretty weak for a 4. He was a 75.4% free throw shooter so he clearly had a solid shooting touch, but he also ran a high FTr of 0.520, so I’d assume he was at the rim *a lot*. Duckworth . . . I really don’t know how much positive I can say about Duckworth. The Ainge/Mills comp is nice; both were smart role players who didn’t take anything off the table. But Clifford Robinson . . . at least he looks like a decent defender. I’m just saying, Kersey, Duckworth and Robinson *all* shot well below league average.

How the heck was this team that good? I don’t doubt that they dominated the glass eight ways from Sunday; between Drexler and Kersey you had a lot of extra rebounding coming from the backcourt (sure enough, 4th in ORB% and 2nd in DRB%). And the scoring *must* have run on Drexler, Porter and Williams carrying the scoring, because Ainge was only league average (though a nice passer). Their defense really lacks a traditional defensive big (Robinson notwithstanding), but their shot defense was actually really good, especially from 3 (3rd in the league on 3P% allowed). So I’m going to basically infer that the Blazers’s backcourt (specifically Drexler and Kersey) did a great job containing perimeter shooters. I don’t know. I guess I’m really not used to seeing a team on this list post such a weak starter (and fairly weak 6th man). This is just a very unusual roster configuration. If anyone with more inside info wants to enlighten me I’m all ears.

The Blazers had been a decent team before making the leap in 1990. Their offense only got slightly better, but their defense improved considerably (from league average to pretty good), mostly in shot defense and defensive rebounding. And, let the record show that, in 1990 they added Buck Williams and Clifford Robinson. So I won’t pretend to know the details, save that adding Williams and Robinson was something of a wash on offense, but a big step forward in shot defense. In ‘90 they actually made the Finals (sneaking by the ‘90 Suns who outscored them in the series) before losing convincingly to the Pistons. In ‘91 they were narrowly beaten by the ‘91 Lakers; 1992 would be the last serious year they’d have together. In ‘93 they lost Ainge and struggled with injuries (Drexler and Kersey) and it went downhill from there. If the Blazers were going to win a ring, this was going to need to be the year.

In the first round they faced the post-Magic Johnson Lakers, who had also lost James Worthy for the season. You’d expect Portland to win handily and they certainly did. The Blazers dominated the boards (Duckworth, Drexler and Williams combined for 9.5 offensive rebounds a game) and dominated shooting as well. The Lakers shot 2 points below average, while Drexler had a 26/9/9 with +4% shooting. It was a 14.8 point a game blowout, and while you’d be right to say that the no-Magic un-Worthy Lakers had no chance, obliterating them is exactly what you’re expected to do if you’re a top team. The Blazers were not so lucky with their matchups for the rest of the playoffs.

In the second round they ran into the ‘92 Suns, who were damned good; they had a +5.7 SRS for the regular season and started the playoffs by whipping the +2.8 SRS Spurs by 9 points a game. My formula definitely favored the Blazers for the series, but the Suns were really good. It was a track meet - neither team could really stop the other. Kevin Johnson ran amok with a 24-5-9 on +6.1% shooting with 2 steals a games, while Cedric Ceballos and Tim Perry combined for 26 points a game on +8.9% shooting or better. But the Blazers dominated the boards (as they usually did); Drexler averaged 4 offensive rebounds a game and four of their five starters posted TRB% of 10% or higher. Drexler posted a 31/8/7 on +4.1% shooting (1.8 steals and 1.6 blocks a game - doesn’t this look like a LeBron stat-line?), while Porter and Ainge both shot well, combining for 38 points a game on +11.7% shooting or better. The Blazers pulled off a 3.2 point a game win, a solid showing against a very good team.

And then they faced the Utah Jazz who, while not as good as the Suns, were very good (+5.9 SRS at this point in the playoffs). You might assume that the Blazers dominated the boards but they did not; Karl Malone went into beast mode, posting a DRB% of 28% for the series (blink blink) and the Jazz were actually able to gain a small advantage on the glass. However, the Blazers had a considerable advantage in shooting. You may be thinking “Right, Malone choked in the playoffs, duh” but Malone actually had a great series, posting a 28/12/2 on +9.7% shooting. A Malone did struggle in the series however, Jeff Malone, the pre-Hornacek shooting guard, who posted 19 points a game on -3.7% shooting, and Stockton only managed to shoot at an average level. On the other side, Terry Porter smoked Stockton hard, posting a 26/4/8 on +19.7% shooting, and Jerome Kersey actually had a good scoring series with a 20/7/3 on +7% shooting. In the end the Blazers managed to pull this one off by 6.5 points a game, a strong margin against a very solid team.

So the Blazers emerge from this Western Conference gauntlet to face . . . the ‘92 Bulls. Well hell. The series was billed as something of a face-off between Jordan and Drexler. And this isn’t as crazy as it sounds (yes it was, but bear with me). They were both dominant shooting guards that were both by far the best players on their teams. Drexler was the better rebounder (though Jordan was no slouch in that department) and Drexler dished more assists (though Jordan was no slouch in that department). That said, Jordan was better on defense and just a teensy, weensy bit better scoring (being the best scorer ever and whatnot). So Jordan was definitely better but it wasn’t . . . a crazy comparison. But of course, Jordan being Jordan, he took it personal. Drexler really struggled Game 1, putting up a 16/5/7 on -6.3% shooting with 4 turnovers. And Jordan . . . well, Jordan had a 39/3/11 on +18% shooting. Jordan was better than Drexler in the regular season by a respectable bit. Taking It Personal playoff Jordan was on another planet compared to Drexler. And that’s kind of how it went.

Jordan averaged a 36/5/7 on +8.6% shooting (and remember, the Blazers were a good shot-defense team). Holy **** mushrooms Batman! Drexler ended up with a respectable (but not compared to Jordan) 25/8/5 on -0.9% shooting. The Bulls outscored the Blazers top to bottom; of Blazers that used more than 7 shots a game, nobody scored above +4% (Porter) and everyone who wasn’t Porter shot below league average. The Bulls just smothered them. The Blazers did manage to win on the boards (Kersey and Drexler combined for 7 offensive boards a game) but it was nowhere near enough. The Blazers lost by 7.3 points a game, a really bad loss even against a very good team. The Blazers really were quite good, and really acquitted themselves well against multiple very good teams. But they were absolutely not able to compete with the ‘92 Bulls.

Back to the Main Thread

Glad you mentioned Stockton struggled, too often this gets overlooked and people mainly keep on blaming Malone when the Jazz lost in the post-season.

Oh, absolutely. Jokic’s strengths would be amplified in the ‘80s and ‘90s and his weaknesses diminished. Embiid would be an absolute terror on both sides of the ball.

[70sFan]

I don't think Jokic or Embiid would be GOAT-level players in any era. They had clear weaknesses that would always prevent them from that tier.

[O_6]

Hey man, you're doing an awesome job.

I've always felt that the '92 Blazers were kind of underrated historically in comparison to the '96 Sonics and '93 Suns, since they're all linked as MJ Finals opponents. Especially when it came to the '92 Blazers and '96 Sonics, I've had a hard time ranking them. The '96 Sonics get a lot more attention due to their valiant defeat against the '96 Bulls and Payton/Kemp being a more popular duo than the Drexler/Porter Blazers, and the '93 Suns obviously get more attention because of Barkley, but those '92 Blazers were a hell of a team.

The thing with those Blazers is that they were deep and overwhelmingly athletic, Drexler/Kersey/Williams/Robinson are all great athletes and it's no surprise that they had really strong rebounding numbers. Led by Drexler (one of the 10 best open court finishers ever), they were also probably a Top 3 fastbreak scoring team that year (#1 if I had to guess). The problem with those teams was their half-court offense was lacking. Terry Porter was much better than George Hill (I know your comps aren't meant to be overanalyzed), I view him as closer to a slightly lesser Chauncey Billups, but he was forced to be that team's best half-court player due to some holes in Drexler's game which kind of put a ceiling on the team. But they were definitely capable of winning a title in some years due to their stupid athleticism and having two legit studs in Porter/Drexler running the show.

I wonder where the '93 Suns and '97/'98 Jazz show up. Is it possible the '93 Suns don't even show up? The '92 Blazers being ranked ahead of the '96 Sonics and '93 Suns would be surprising to a lot of people.

[sansterre]

Hey man, you're doing an awesome job.

I've always felt that the '92 Blazers were kind of underrated historically in comparison to the '96 Sonics and '93 Suns, since they're all linked as MJ Finals opponents. Especially when it came to the '92 Blazers and '96 Sonics, I've had a hard time ranking them. The '96 Sonics get a lot more attention due to their valiant defeat against the '96 Bulls and Payton/Kemp being a more popular duo than the Drexler/Porter Blazers, and the '93 Suns obviously get more attention because of Barkley, but those '92 Blazers were a hell of a team.

The thing with those Blazers is that they were deep and overwhelmingly athletic, Drexler/Kersey/Williams/Robinson are all great athletes and it's no surprise that they had really strong rebounding numbers. Led by Drexler (one of the 10 best open court finishers ever), they were also probably a Top 3 fastbreak scoring team that year (#1 if I had to guess). The problem with those teams was their half-court offense was lacking. Terry Porter was much better than George Hill (I know your comps aren't meant to be overanalyzed), I view him as closer to a slightly lesser Chauncey Billups, but he was forced to be that team's best half-court player due to some holes in Drexler's game which kind of put a ceiling on the team. But they were definitely capable of winning a title in some years due to their stupid athleticism and having two legit studs in Porter/Drexler running the show.

I wonder where the '93 Suns and '97/'98 Jazz show up. Is it possible the '93 Suns don't even show up? The '92 Blazers being ranked ahead of the '96 Sonics and '93 Suns would be surprising to a lot of people.

Thanks for the kind words!

Remember, this is formula-driven; that the '96 Sonics and '92 Blazers are right next to each other basically means that they're about equal, but one has to be placed above the other. I didn't make any sort of decision between them.

Both the '98 Jazz and '93 Suns did not make this list, mostly because of weak playoff SRSs. You'll see the '97 Jazz in the next week or two.

[sansterre]

Bump for team #72, the 1982 Los Angeles Lakers!

[sansterre]

Bump for team #71, the 1980 Boston Celtics!

[70sFan]

Strange to see 1980 Celtics above 1982 Lakers, given that I can't see 1980 Celtics beating them but it's caused by relatively Lakers weak RS.

[trex_8063]

I've only read the first two entries ('96 Sonics, '92 Blazers) so far, but....

Just wanted to say [again?] these have been a delight. It's interesting to get the numerical spin on these teams, but you have a way with the narrative in the write-ups that make these fun to read.


Few comments on the '92 Blazers.....
My impression on them was always that it was kind of an ensemble effort (which is kind of consistent with your "modern comp" section, where 20-yr-old Lebron is the "best player"). Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Williams always felt like an awfully nice big 4, and Robinson and Ainge were two really nice bench pieces.
Thus, I was initially a bit surprised that they ranked so high on your Heliocentricism factor.....until I recalled that BPM loves the kind of statline Drexler represents.

As to how they were so good [relative to their statistical profile], well, Buck Williams was [as you sort of implied you suspected] a better defensive player than his numbers indicate. He was a solid post defender [could guard C or PF], decent pnr defense, VERY capable shoring up the defensive glass, good rotational defender, and is someone I would say sort of "set the tone" on the team by way of being physical.
In terms of offense, Williams could show some touch out to 12-15 ft on open looks, but that wasn't really his game. He was a banger. And that was mostly the limit to his offensive game; he never developed a passing game in the least and had an atrocious turnover economy his entire career.

In terms of fundamentals and defensive intelligence, I'm not sure Kersey was as good as PJ Tucker; he was, however, bigger and more athletic.....which can cover a multitude of sins defensively.
Rich man's George Hill ('13 version) is a pretty good comp for '92 Porter, although I don't think he was better [or perhaps even quite as good??] defensively as Hill was. Porter was totally decent defensively though.

Their 3pt defense is actually a bit of a double-edged sword: you noted they were #1 in the league in terms of opp 3pt%......but they were also DEAD-LAST in terms of 3PA allowed per game. They were consequently 25th (of 27) in made 3pters allowed. Not sure I've ever seen such a weird split; not sure we can truly credit their 3pt defense as "good", though.

You hit the Drexler v Jordan media narrative right on the head, though. And yeah, Jordan being Jordan.....maybe the media put the nail in the Blazers coffin by ever cooking that up??....


Anyway, I look forward to the rest of the write-ups...

[sansterre]

I've only read the first two entries ('96 Sonics, '92 Blazers) so far, but....

Just wanted to say [again?] these have been a delight. It's interesting to get the numerical spin on these teams, but you have a way with the narrative in the write-ups that make these fun to read.


Few comments on the '92 Blazers.....
My impression on them was always that it was kind of an ensemble effort (which is kind of consistent with your "modern comp" section, where 20-yr-old Lebron is the "best player"). Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Williams always felt like an awfully nice big 4, and Robinson and Ainge were two really nice bench pieces.
Thus, I was initially a bit surprised that they ranked so high on your Heliocentricism factor.....until I recalled that BPM loves the kind of statline Drexler represents.

As to how they were so good [relative to their statistical profile], well, Buck Williams was [as you sort of implied you suspected] a better defensive player than his numbers indicate. He was a solid post defender [could guard C or PF], decent pnr defense, VERY capable shoring up the defensive glass, good rotational defender, and is someone I would say sort of "set the tone" on the team by way of being physical.
In terms of offense, Williams could show some touch out to 12-15 ft on open looks, but that wasn't really his game. He was a banger. And that was mostly the limit to his offensive game; he never developed a passing game in the least and had an atrocious turnover economy his entire career.

In terms of fundamentals and defensive intelligence, I'm not sure Kersey was as good as PJ Tucker; he was, however, bigger and more athletic.....which can cover a multitude of sins defensively.
Rich man's George Hill ('13 version) is a pretty good comp for '92 Porter, although I don't think he was better [or perhaps even quite as good??] defensively as Hill was. Porter was totally decent defensively though.

Their 3pt defense is actually a bit of a double-edged sword: you noted they were #1 in the league in terms of opp 3pt%......but they were also DEAD-LAST in terms of 3PA allowed per game. They were consequently 25th (of 27) in made 3pters allowed. Not sure I've ever seen such a weird split; not sure we can truly credit their 3pt defense as "good", though.

You hit the Drexler v Jordan media narrative right on the head, though. And yeah, Jordan being Jordan.....maybe the media put the nail in the Blazers coffin by ever cooking that up??....


Anyway, I look forward to the rest of the write-ups...

This is great stuff about the Blazers; I'll probably vulture some of it for the inevitable 2.0 writeup, whenever that happens

I appreciate your comments on the writing. I never know how much these get read (besides the occasional comment or And1) but they're a lot of fun to write. Every team I think "How can I make this interesting?" and I usually think it works out. Though I will say that when I get lots of the same teams (60s Celtics, 80s Celtics, 80s Lakers) it does become a little bit of a challenge.

I'm really excited to share some of the ones I have backlogged; the '97 Jazz and the '00 Blazers are two that I'm especially pleased with.