Sansterre's Top Playoff 3-Year Stretches

[Homer38]

The 1993 Suns were very good but far from perfect .... I mean, they almost lost to the 39-43 Lakers team in the first round ....

[sansterre]

I think some are questioning why a team with all championships get ranked behind teams with only 1.

Those people should think. Did Pippen and Grant get injured in 1991? Did they play a GOAT team in 1993?

They do think. Do injuries not affect a team's top playoff performances? What if Bird was never injured - should the Celtics be considered the greatest team in 86-88, because if McHale and Bird weren't both injured, they probably would've 3-peated?

That logic doesn't make sense...the Cavs played a historically weak eastern conference, and got absolutely destroyed in the playoffs twice. In 2016, Iggy/Bogut/Curry were all injured, and Draymond was suspended.

Furthermore, in1993 they DID PLAY A GOAT TEAM.... Barkley was a superstar MVP transferring into an elite playoff team in the Suns. That team was absolutely one of the greatest to never win, and far more talented than the Cavs were. KJ/Barkley/Majerle were an elite big 3, but more importantly, their supporting cast was excellent.

I didn't realize this list is just an average of playoff SRS, which is extremely flawed as both

a. sample size is too small
b. running up the score gets hugely rewarded

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

[homecourtloss]

HCL asked me about this and I thought it would be a fun project for a day off, so here it is!

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 +5 PSRS year to be included. If you're +10, +2 and +10 I'm not accepting it. I require a little consistency for this list. (in retrospect I should have made it a single standard deviation, but I only thought of that 2/3 of the way through)

Only thirty optimal and distinct three-year runs had +5 PSRS.

With that in mind, here we go!

#30. 1968-70 Los Angeles Lakers
#29. 2010-12 Boston Celtics
#28. 1998-00 Indiana Pacers
#27. 1994-96 New York Knicks
#26. 2017-19 Houston Rockets
#25. 1993-95 Houston Rockets
#24. 1978-80 Philadelphia 76ers
#23. 2007-09 Cleveland Cavaliers
#22. 2008-10 Orlando Magic
#21. 2004-06 Detroit Pistons
#20. 2002-04 San Antonio Spurs
#19. 2005-07 Phoenix Suns
#18. 2015-17 San Antonio Spurs
#17. 2005-07 San Antonio Spurs
#16. 1964-66 Boston Celtics
#15. 1987-89 Los Angeles Lakers
#14. 1996-98 Utah Jazz
#13. 1987-89 Detroit Pistons
#12. 2011-13 Miami Heat
#11. 2008-10 Los Angeles Lakers
#10. 1984-86 Boston Celtics
#9. 1980-82 Boston Celtics
#8. 1959-61 Boston Celtics
#7. 1984-86 Los Angeles Lakers
#6. 2000-02 Los Angeles Lakers
#5. 1991-93 Chicago Bulls
#4. 2015-17 Cleveland Cavaliers
#3. 2012-14 San Antonio Spurs
#2. 1996-98 Chicago Bulls
#1. 2016-18 Golden State Warriors

Merry Christmas!

Thank you, Sansterre. As I thought in your Top 100 teams of all time, that Cavs stretch was right near the top.

Lebron played 11 series against teams in this list, including 5 series against at the #1 and #3 stretches.

Do you have the raw numbers?

Of course! What specifically are you looking for?

Just the three-year stretch SRSs these teams posted and year by year, though that might give away some of the remaining top 100

[euroleague]

Those people should think. Did Pippen and Grant get injured in 1991? Did they play a GOAT team in 1993?

They do think. Do injuries not affect a team's top playoff performances? What if Bird was never injured - should the Celtics be considered the greatest team in 86-88, because if McHale and Bird weren't both injured, they probably would've 3-peated?

That logic doesn't make sense...the Cavs played a historically weak eastern conference, and got absolutely destroyed in the playoffs twice. In 2016, Iggy/Bogut/Curry were all injured, and Draymond was suspended.

Furthermore, in1993 they DID PLAY A GOAT TEAM.... Barkley was a superstar MVP transferring into an elite playoff team in the Suns. That team was absolutely one of the greatest to never win, and far more talented than the Cavs were. KJ/Barkley/Majerle were an elite big 3, but more importantly, their supporting cast was excellent.

I didn't realize this list is just an average of playoff SRS, which is extremely flawed as both

a. sample size is too small
b. running up the score gets hugely rewarded

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

[uberhikari]

They do think. Do injuries not affect a team's top playoff performances? What if Bird was never injured - should the Celtics be considered the greatest team in 86-88, because if McHale and Bird weren't both injured, they probably would've 3-peated?

That logic doesn't make sense...the Cavs played a historically weak eastern conference, and got absolutely destroyed in the playoffs twice. In 2016, Iggy/Bogut/Curry were all injured, and Draymond was suspended.

Furthermore, in1993 they DID PLAY A GOAT TEAM.... Barkley was a superstar MVP transferring into an elite playoff team in the Suns. That team was absolutely one of the greatest to never win, and far more talented than the Cavs were. KJ/Barkley/Majerle were an elite big 3, but more importantly, their supporting cast was excellent.

I didn't realize this list is just an average of playoff SRS, which is extremely flawed as both

a. sample size is too small
b. running up the score gets hugely rewarded

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

Jesus, dudel. There is no empirical evidence supporting your position. Why do you persist? How can you use subjective evaluations like All-NBA, etc. to argue against actual statistical evidence? That's wild...

[euroleague]

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

Jesus, dudel. There is no empirical evidence supporting your position. Why do you persist? How can you use subjective evaluations like All-NBA, etc. to argue against actual statistical evidence? That's wild...

You mean regarding KJ? I mean, he was statistically dominant before and after 1993. He missed most of 93 due to injury. He was definitely not outside of his peak.

Is a team's SRS over 10 games - only against 2-3 teams - really 'statistical evidence' in your book?

[sansterre]

They do think. Do injuries not affect a team's top playoff performances? What if Bird was never injured - should the Celtics be considered the greatest team in 86-88, because if McHale and Bird weren't both injured, they probably would've 3-peated?

That logic doesn't make sense...the Cavs played a historically weak eastern conference, and got absolutely destroyed in the playoffs twice. In 2016, Iggy/Bogut/Curry were all injured, and Draymond was suspended.

Furthermore, in1993 they DID PLAY A GOAT TEAM.... Barkley was a superstar MVP transferring into an elite playoff team in the Suns. That team was absolutely one of the greatest to never win, and far more talented than the Cavs were. KJ/Barkley/Majerle were an elite big 3, but more importantly, their supporting cast was excellent.

I didn't realize this list is just an average of playoff SRS, which is extremely flawed as both

a. sample size is too small
b. running up the score gets hugely rewarded

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

Arguing that the '93 Suns were a top 3 team in the 90s is a pretty uphill battle. First, you're saying that they're better than 4 of the 6 Bulls teams, almost certainly including the one they lost to. I've got to assume you have the '93 Bulls ahead of the Suns (since there's no reason to think that the Suns were better), and I can't imagine that you're arguing that the '93 Suns were better than the '91 Bulls and the '96 Bulls, so already we're having some trouble. You're also saying that they're better than *all* of the '99 Spurs, the '96, '97 and '98 Jazz, the '90 Pistons, the '96 Sonics, the '95 Rockets, the '89 and '90 Suns and the '91 Lakers. If you think that the '93 Suns are better than half of those teams . . . I think you're wrong. But I could understand thinking that the '93 Suns were better than half a dozen of those, maybe more. If you thought that the '93 Suns were #9 or #10 for the decade (behind the six Bulls teams, plus the '90 Pistons, '99 Spurs and maybe the '95 Rockets) I could see that, even if I don't agree with it. But Top 3 for the decade? I don't envy you that side of the argument.

Kevin Johnson (Regular Season):

'89: 21.2% Usage, +6.0% TS, 40.4 AST%, BPM: +4.2
'90: 25.0% Usage, +4.8% TS, 44.4 AST%, BPM: +5.0
'91: 24.8% Usage, +7.0% TS, 40.7 AST%, BPM: +6.6
'92: 23.6% Usage, +3.0% TS, 40.6 AST%, BPM: +3.5
'93: 21.0% Usage, +4.0% TS, 32.7 AST%, BPM: +2.0

(Playoffs, 10 game minimum):

'89: 22.3% Usage, +8.1% TS, 39.4 AST%, BPM: +5.4
'90: 26.8% Usage, +1.8% TS, 47.5 AST%, BPM: +6.1
'93: 22.0% Usage, +2.3% TS, 31.3 AST%, BPM: +1.0

Stats don't capture everything. But KJ's peak certainly appears to be in that '90-91 stretch. I think it's a hard argument that in '93 he was just as good as he had been at that time. Which would make him past his peak. Still good. But past his peak. And look, '93 was obviously a down year. He bounced back *after '93* (if not to the '90 and '91 peak). But your argument is premised on the idea that he was still at his peak in '93, when he was actually having one of the worst years of his career. Which makes the "93 Suns are fantastic" argument increasingly challenging.

The problem is that every single member of that roster (in the '89 and '90 runs) was worse in '93, in some cases by a lot. Majerle is the exception, but as you say, he was merely a solid 3&D guy. And they downgraded from Hornacek to Ainge (similar, but worse). Gaining Barkley is awesome (and developing Ceballos), but I'm not at all convinced that it's a bigger gain than downgrading KJ, Chambers, West and Hornacek is a loss.

[euroleague]

Here's a comparison between the '89 Suns, the '90 Suns and the '93 Suns:

RSRS:

1989: +6.84
1990: +7.09
1993: +6.27

PSRS:

1989: +11.05
1990: +9.12
1993: +5.30

Postseason Opponent Quality (from regular season):

1989: +2.61
1990: +6.00
1993: +4.29

RORating:

1989: +5.3
1990: +5.0
1993: +5.3

RDRating:

1989: -2.1
1990: -1.9
1993: -1.3

PORating:

1989: +6.18
1990: +4.97
1993: +4.49

PDRating:

1989: -3.23
1990: -4.23
1993: -0.60


Here's the breakdown of the '93 Suns offensive and defensive performances (opponent regular season rating -> '93 Suns' results in the game -> relative rating):

Offense:

Lakers: 108.9 -> 107.8 -> -1.1
Spurs: 106.8 -> 109.9 -> +3.1
Sonics: 104.9 -> 115.8 -> +10.9
Bulls: 106.1 -> 113 -> +6.9

So the Suns’ offense was pretty good. It had two very strong series against the Sonics and Bulls, but had two weak series against the Lakers and Spurs. The aggregate result, +4.49, is pretty good but nothing to brag about.

Defense:

Lakers: 107.6 -> 103.8 -> -3.8
Spurs: 109.6 -> 109.9 -> +0.3
Sonics: 112.3 -> 115.6 -> +3.3
Bulls: 112.9 -> 113.0 -> +0.1

The Suns defense in the playoffs was pretty close to league average. Three of their four opponents actually scored better against the playoff Suns than they did in the regular season. This shouldn't really be a surprise. Chambers had never been a good defender and now he was old, West was over the hill (still good, but not as good as he'd been) . . . this wasn't a strong defensive roster by a long shot.

There’s just not a lot of evidence that the ‘93 Suns were better than the ‘89 or ‘90 edition, except that the ‘93 Suns happened to get farther in the playoffs (even if they probably shouldn’t have - and while they did, it's been accurately pointed out that the playoffs are a small sample size). In the playoffs, their defense played pretty comparably to the '17 Cavs. And on offense they played like a pretty good offense, not one of the greatest offenses ever. We're sort of in Moneyball "If they're a great team why don't they play great?" territory.

And saying that the ‘93 Suns were a GOAT team (because they had the cast of the ‘89 and ‘90 Suns plus Barkley) is a little out there (unless GOAT means Top 100-200 ever). Their primary selling point was name recognition; KJ, Majerle, Chambers and Barkley! Except that KJ was past his peak, Chambers was way past his peak, Marjerle wasn't actually that good (he was decent but nothing great, a 17% usage shooter at +3.7% efficiency, with mediocre rebounding and passing isn't really blowing up my skirt), Ainge was fine, former defensive cornerstone Mark West was past his prime . . . It was Barkley and a roster that *had* been great (or at least really good), but really wasn't anymore.

It’s like saying that the ‘04 Lakers were the best of the early aughts Lakers because they had Shaq, Kobe *and* Malone *and* Payton.

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

Arguing that the '93 Suns were a top 3 team in the 90s is a pretty uphill battle. First, you're saying that they're better than 4 of the 6 Bulls teams, almost certainly including the one they lost to. I've got to assume you have the '93 Bulls ahead of the Suns (since there's no reason to think that the Suns were better), and I can't imagine that you're arguing that the '93 Suns were better than the '91 Bulls and the '96 Bulls, so already we're having some trouble. You're also saying that they're better than *all* of the '99 Spurs, the '96, '97 and '98 Jazz, the '90 Pistons, the '96 Sonics, the '95 Rockets, the '89 and '90 Suns and the '91 Lakers. If you think that the '93 Suns are better than half of those teams . . . I think you're wrong. But I could understand thinking that the '93 Suns were better than half a dozen of those, maybe more. If you thought that the '93 Suns were #9 or #10 for the decade (behind the six Bulls teams, plus the '90 Pistons, '99 Spurs and maybe the '95 Rockets) I could see that, even if I don't agree with it. But Top 3 for the decade? I don't envy you that side of the argument.

Kevin Johnson (Regular Season):

'89: 21.2% Usage, +6.0% TS, 40.4 AST%, BPM: +4.2
'90: 25.0% Usage, +4.8% TS, 44.4 AST%, BPM: +5.0
'91: 24.8% Usage, +7.0% TS, 40.7 AST%, BPM: +6.6
'92: 23.6% Usage, +3.0% TS, 40.6 AST%, BPM: +3.5
'93: 21.0% Usage, +4.0% TS, 32.7 AST%, BPM: +2.0

(Playoffs, 10 game minimum):

'89: 22.3% Usage, +8.1% TS, 39.4 AST%, BPM: +5.4
'90: 26.8% Usage, +1.8% TS, 47.5 AST%, BPM: +6.1
'93: 22.0% Usage, +2.3% TS, 31.3 AST%, BPM: +1.0

Stats don't capture everything. But KJ's peak certainly appears to be in that '90-91 stretch. I think it's a hard argument that in '93 he was just as good as he had been at that time. Which would make him past his peak. Still good. But past his peak.

The problem is that every single member of that roster (in the '89 and '90 runs) was worse in '93, in some cases by a lot. Majerle is the exception, but as you say, he was merely a solid 3&D guy. And they downgraded from Hornacek to Ainge (similar, but worse). Gaining Barkley is awesome (and developing Ceballos), but I'm not at all convinced that it's a bigger gain than downgrading KJ, Chambers, West and Hornacek is a loss.

Why don't you include KJ in 1994? How you pick and choose stats is pretty wild.

Playoffs:
'89: 19.3% TO
'90: 16.8% TO
'92: 22.9% Usage, 40.2 AST%, BPM 5.4, 12.5% TO
'95: 26.7% Usage, 66% TS (career high), 7.9 BPM (also career high), 10 games played.

By all of your metrics, KJ's peak was 1995...

I have the 93 Suns better than the 93 Bulls when fully healthy - I think the Ceballos injury, right before the Finals, was the difference between winning and losing.


Ceballos was a 21PER player for 22 mpg, and a key piece off the bench, who got injured right before the finals.... obviously it wasn't the Bulls fault he was injured, but if we're going off of team averages, that would include Ceballos.

2 more points in game 6, or 4 more points in game 1 - if they had both of those extra points, they win in 6. That team was nervous in their first Finals as the #1 seed against MJ, and winning the first game would've been huge. John Paxson actually won that series at the buzzer in game 6, and he was worse than Ceballos.


I'm not even that high on Barkley, but that 93 Suns team was very deep and talented.

Edit: I'd also like to laugh a bit that you think KJ and Chambers slightly downgraded, and adding prime charles Barkley, makes the team worse. KJ had a down year, because he got a sports hernia lifting his teammate over his head as a joke... and didn't fully adapt to playing with Barkley as quickly as he might have. He was definitely in his peak. LBJ in 2011 had a down year - that doesn't mean he wasn't in his peak in 2011.

[sansterre]

The 04 Lakers would have been the best, if Malone didn't get injured and Kobe get charged with rape. They were on fire to start the season, and Malone was the glue holding it together. When Malone's knee got injured, and Kobe got distracted,that season changed. Otherwise, that would've likely been by far the best Lakers team. The Suns didn't have those issues.

KJ wasn't past his peak, he had been all-nba last year, and was all-nba next year...Chambers was past his peak, Majerle was just a good 3D player. Mark West was nothing to sing home about.

Despite that, Barkley was fighting with Malone for the title of best PF to ever play. The Suns weren't the 16 Warriors, but they got Barkley losing less than the Warriors did for KD. The main piece missing was Hornacek.

BORDERLINE GOAT means top 15-25 teams ever. GOAT would be top 10, as there are very good arguments for any team in my list (Lakers 87, Celtics 86, Bulls 92, Bulls 96, Lakers 01, 76ers 83, Lakers 72, 76ers 67, Warriors 17) to be considered GOAT.

That Suns team was a top 3 team in the 90s,

Arguing that the '93 Suns were a top 3 team in the 90s is a pretty uphill battle. First, you're saying that they're better than 4 of the 6 Bulls teams, almost certainly including the one they lost to. I've got to assume you have the '93 Bulls ahead of the Suns (since there's no reason to think that the Suns were better), and I can't imagine that you're arguing that the '93 Suns were better than the '91 Bulls and the '96 Bulls, so already we're having some trouble. You're also saying that they're better than *all* of the '99 Spurs, the '96, '97 and '98 Jazz, the '90 Pistons, the '96 Sonics, the '95 Rockets, the '89 and '90 Suns and the '91 Lakers. If you think that the '93 Suns are better than half of those teams . . . I think you're wrong. But I could understand thinking that the '93 Suns were better than half a dozen of those, maybe more. If you thought that the '93 Suns were #9 or #10 for the decade (behind the six Bulls teams, plus the '90 Pistons, '99 Spurs and maybe the '95 Rockets) I could see that, even if I don't agree with it. But Top 3 for the decade? I don't envy you that side of the argument.

Kevin Johnson (Regular Season):

'89: 21.2% Usage, +6.0% TS, 40.4 AST%, BPM: +4.2
'90: 25.0% Usage, +4.8% TS, 44.4 AST%, BPM: +5.0
'91: 24.8% Usage, +7.0% TS, 40.7 AST%, BPM: +6.6
'92: 23.6% Usage, +3.0% TS, 40.6 AST%, BPM: +3.5
'93: 21.0% Usage, +4.0% TS, 32.7 AST%, BPM: +2.0

(Playoffs, 10 game minimum):

'89: 22.3% Usage, +8.1% TS, 39.4 AST%, BPM: +5.4
'90: 26.8% Usage, +1.8% TS, 47.5 AST%, BPM: +6.1
'93: 22.0% Usage, +2.3% TS, 31.3 AST%, BPM: +1.0

Stats don't capture everything. But KJ's peak certainly appears to be in that '90-91 stretch. I think it's a hard argument that in '93 he was just as good as he had been at that time. Which would make him past his peak. Still good. But past his peak.

The problem is that every single member of that roster (in the '89 and '90 runs) was worse in '93, in some cases by a lot. Majerle is the exception, but as you say, he was merely a solid 3&D guy. And they downgraded from Hornacek to Ainge (similar, but worse). Gaining Barkley is awesome (and developing Ceballos), but I'm not at all convinced that it's a bigger gain than downgrading KJ, Chambers, West and Hornacek is a loss.

Why don't you include KJ in 1994? How you pick and choose stats is pretty wild.

Playoffs:
'89: 19.3% TO
'90: 16.8% TO
'92: 22.9% Usage, 40.2 AST%, BPM 5.4, 12.5% TO
'95: 26.7% Usage, 66% TS (career high), 7.9 BPM (also career high), 10 games played.

By all of your metrics, KJ's peak was 1995...

I have the 93 Suns better than the 93 Bulls when fully healthy - I think the Ceballos injury, right before the Finals, was the difference between winning and losing.


Ceballos was a 21PER player for 22 mpg, and a key piece off the bench, who got injured right before the finals.... obviously it wasn't the Bulls fault he was injured, but if we're going off of team averages, that would include Ceballos.

2 more points in game 6, or 4 more points in game 1 - if they had both of those extra points, they win in 6. That team was nervous in their first Finals as the #1 seed against MJ, and winning the first game would've been huge. John Paxson actually won that series at the buzzer in game 6, and he was worse than Ceballos.


I'm not even that high on Barkley, but that 93 Suns team was very deep and talented.

Edit: I'd also like to laugh a bit that you think KJ and Chambers slightly downgraded, and adding prime charles Barkley, makes the team worse. KJ had a down year, because he got a sports hernia lifting his teammate over his head as a joke... and didn't fully adapt to playing with Barkley as quickly as he might have. He was definitely in his peak. LBJ in 2011 had a down year - that doesn't mean he wasn't in his peak in 2011.

By all means. His peak was everything on either side of '93. But when arguing how good the '93 Suns were, you don't really get to argue, "And they had KJ, who was really good in years besides this one!"

So we agree that KJ wasn't that good in '93. And you don't think much of West. Majerle is just 3&D, Ainge is decent. Chambers was pretty poor. Ceballos was pretty solid. That's the stud cast around Barkley that makes it Top 3 for the decade?

Out of curiosity, what are the only two teams from the 90s that are better than the '93 Suns in your mind?

[Doctor MJ]

This is quite cool Sansterre. I appreciate this window.

Thoughts:

1. The Warriors' taking the top spot is interesting given that it was split between the Joy & KD eras. The fact the Cavs are so also split between those two eras - but with lean toward the Joy era - and place so high makes for an important moment to focus in on. These two teams really were outlier dominant. These were successful "superteams", even if in the case of the Cavs they didn't ever really feel like a superteam.

By contrast, LeBron's Heatles felt like THE superteam, but were less dominant than his later Cavs teams. And yeah, this is part of why Wade's ranking is falling a bit for me. Circa 2014, it made sense to talk about the Heatles as arguably the best thing we'd seen since the Shaq-Kobe Lakers and to write of the not-quite-"NOT 7" as about as good as you could reasonably expect.

But the fact that LeBron then went to Cleveland to a weaker supporting cast and did better, casts the Heatles in a new light.

2. I love seeing the "Beautiful Game" Spurs so high on this list, but I will note that I expect the way Miami just died against them may overrate them a bit.

3. Shaq-Kobe Lakers are the best Lakers. Really not a shock. Wouldn't have been a shock if these Lakers were even higher.

4. Strange that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '84-86 Celtics.

5. Surprising that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '87-89 to me.

6. Jordan's the guy with the best 2nd-best-run with his '91-93 team coming in 5th. Bird's the other with two in the Top 10, but he'll be booted out soon. I wonder if the LeBron-AD Lakers will be the ones to do it, in which case, the two with two would be Jordan & LeBron.

7. Interesting that '59-61 is the peak dominance for the Celtics, because I really do think they got better after that, but so did their competition.

8. In terms of era comparisons, clearly it's easier to achieve separation in different eras. Russell's Celtics' first appearance is at #8 by this approach, but I'd still be inclined to rank them considerably higher than that.

9. Something weird: Where are the early '70s teams? Knicks, Bucks, '72 Lakers, Cowens Celtics? Absent despite high regular season dominance in this era. Wonder why these teams all seemed to be pulled back down to earth by playoff-grade opposition but later teams didn't.

10. Malone-Stockton Jazz as best team not to win, followed by the Kawhi-first Spurs, the SSOL Suns, Dwight's Magic, and LeBron's 1st Cavs.

11. All above the '78-80 76ers who are on the list without the '83 76ers. Wasn't expecting that.

12. '17-19 Rockets manage to fall just short of either being the best Rockets (Dream's) or the best D'Antoni run (Suns).

13. No Thunder team on the list. Must be injuries.

14. No Clipper team on the list. Must be the Clippers.

15. Uh, I'm still going to look at the Reed-Frazier Knicks as the best Knicks.

16. Ewing's Knicks & Reggie's Pacers. Makes sense they'd squeak in.

17. '10-12 Celtics. That's quite weird and clearly an indication that those Celtics when healthy were really freaking good for a half decade. Could have been a dynasty if the trio had come together earlier in thier career.

18. Last team on the list is the only non-Russell pre-merger team on the list, with West-Baylor-Wilt. Wilt, of course, was only there for the last of those 3 years. I have to say: The fact that this is the only way Wilt got on the list really speaks to how problematic Wilt's mercurial motivation was and how it led him to achieve much less than he could have. Repeat '66-67 two more times, boom, you clinch that you led an all-time run. It was within his reach, but he didn't actually do it.

Trying to think of other teams/guys not on the list:

19. No Blazers. Might have thought Drexler's Blazers would be on the list.

20. No Bucks. No Kareem era is a surprise. Might've thought Nelson era would be there too.

21. No Barkley Suns, and no KJ Suns at all.

22. No pre-Duncan Spurs. Gervin or Robinson era.

23. No Adelman Kings. Thought they might make it.

24. No Mavericks. So never Dirk.

25. Other franchises not on this list: Nets, Hawks, Wiz, Rapt, Hornets, T-wolves, Pelicans, Nuggets, Grizz

[euroleague]

4. Strange that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '84-86 Celtics.

5. Surprising that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '87-89 to me.

9. Something weird: Where are the early '70s teams? Knicks, Bucks, '72 Lakers, Cowens Celtics? Absent despite high regular season dominance in this era. Wonder why these teams all seemed to be pulled back down to earth by playoff-grade opposition but later teams didn't.

The ranking seems to prefer winning games by a lot over weak competition to closer series against strong competition. The 86 Lakers didn't make the Finals, and the 84 Lakers lost in the Finals, while the Celtics won twice, but got burned with close games against MJ's low-ranked Bulls in 86 (because MJ was injured)

[sansterre]

This is quite cool Sansterre. I appreciate this window.

Thoughts:

1. The Warriors' taking the top spot is interesting given that it was split between the Joy & KD eras. The fact the Cavs are so also split between those two eras - but with lean toward the Joy era - and place so high makes for an important moment to focus in on. These two teams really were outlier dominant. These were successful "superteams", even if in the case of the Cavs they didn't ever really feel like a superteam.

By contrast, LeBron's Heatles felt like THE superteam, but were less dominant than his later Cavs teams. And yeah, this is part of why Wade's ranking is falling a bit for me. Circa 2014, it made sense to talk about the Heatles as arguably the best thing we'd seen since the Shaq-Kobe Lakers and to write of the not-quite-"NOT 7" as about as good as you could reasonably expect.

But the fact that LeBron then went to Cleveland to a weaker supporting cast and did better, casts the Heatles in a new light.

2. I love seeing the "Beautiful Game" Spurs so high on this list, but I will note that I expect the way Miami just died against them may overrate them a bit.

3. Shaq-Kobe Lakers are the best Lakers. Really not a shock. Wouldn't have been a shock if these Lakers were even higher.

4. Strange that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '84-86 Celtics.

5. Surprising that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '87-89 to me.

6. Jordan's the guy with the best 2nd-best-run with his '91-93 team coming in 5th. Bird's the other with two in the Top 10, but he'll be booted out soon. I wonder if the LeBron-AD Lakers will be the ones to do it, in which case, the two with two would be Jordan & LeBron.

7. Interesting that '59-61 is the peak dominance for the Celtics, because I really do think they got better after that, but so did their competition.

8. In terms of era comparisons, clearly it's easier to achieve separation in different eras. Russell's Celtics' first appearance is at #8 by this approach, but I'd still be inclined to rank them considerably higher than that.

9. Something weird: Where are the early '70s teams? Knicks, Bucks, '72 Lakers, Cowens Celtics? Absent despite high regular season dominance in this era. Wonder why these teams all seemed to be pulled back down to earth by playoff-grade opposition but later teams didn't.

10. Malone-Stockton Jazz as best team not to win, followed by the Kawhi-first Spurs, the SSOL Suns, Dwight's Magic, and LeBron's 1st Cavs.

11. All above the '78-80 76ers who are on the list without the '83 76ers. Wasn't expecting that.

12. '17-19 Rockets manage to fall just short of either being the best Rockets (Dream's) or the best D'Antoni run (Suns).

13. No Thunder team on the list. Must be injuries.

14. No Clipper team on the list. Must be the Clippers.

15. Uh, I'm still going to look at the Reed-Frazier Knicks as the best Knicks.

16. Ewing's Knicks & Reggie's Pacers. Makes sense they'd squeak in.

17. '10-12 Celtics. That's quite weird and clearly an indication that those Celtics when healthy were really freaking good for a half decade. Could have been a dynasty if the trio had come together earlier in thier career.

18. Last team on the list is the only non-Russell pre-merger team on the list, with West-Baylor-Wilt. Wilt, of course, was only there for the last of those 3 years. I have to say: The fact that this is the only way Wilt got on the list really speaks to how problematic Wilt's mercurial motivation was and how it led him to achieve much less than he could have. Repeat '66-67 two more times, boom, you clinch that you led an all-time run. It was within his reach, but he didn't actually do it.

Trying to think of other teams/guys not on the list:

19. No Blazers. Might have thought Drexler's Blazers would be on the list.

20. No Bucks. No Kareem era is a surprise. Might've thought Nelson era would be there too.

21. No Barkley Suns, and no KJ Suns at all.

22. No pre-Duncan Spurs. Gervin or Robinson era.

23. No Adelman Kings. Thought they might make it.

24. No Mavericks. So never Dirk.

25. Other franchises not on this list: Nets, Hawks, Wiz, Rapt, Hornets, T-wolves, Pelicans, Nuggets, Grizz

The '85 Lakers absolutely massacred their way through the playoffs (even though they're not considered a dominant team historically. In a list that's all playoffs, the '85 Lakers are actually comparable to (or even better than) the '87 version.

The '59-61 Celtics may not have been the most dominant straight, but they were stupid good compared to their era (as determined by standard deviations from zero). I'm not saying this is the alpha and omega, but that's how I ran the numbers.

The requirement that each team have at least 3 consecutive years at +5 PSRS (and play at least two series in each year) screwed a lot of teams over (and I think that was my mistake). The '69 and '70 Knicks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '68 and '71 Knicks didn't meet the criteria. The '71 and '72 Bucks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '70 version got whipped by the Knicks, and the '73 version got knocked out in the first round. The '73 and '74 Celtics meet the criteria but neither the '72 nor '75 Celtics do. If I run the numbers again I'll remove the "5 SRS requirement" but leave the 2 series requirement in. Because I'm not super happy with those being left out.

I screwed up on the early 80s 76ers, their '81 met the standard. I'll put them in.

Yeah, the Thunder had several strong years, but never three in a row (the injuries really hurt).

The Blazers '91 and '92 made the cut, but '90 and '93 didn't (I know they made the Finals in '90, but their PSRS was really low).

The 90s Suns were rough . . . '89, '90, '92, '93 and '95 made the cut. But no three years in a row.

Adelman Kings had '02 and '03, but neither '01 nor '04.

Thanks for the thoughts! I'll probably throw together a new list with the 5 SRS cutoff removed, so that we can get more inclusion.

[sansterre]

4. Strange that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '84-86 Celtics.

5. Surprising that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '87-89 to me.

9. Something weird: Where are the early '70s teams? Knicks, Bucks, '72 Lakers, Cowens Celtics? Absent despite high regular season dominance in this era. Wonder why these teams all seemed to be pulled back down to earth by playoff-grade opposition but later teams didn't.

The ranking seems to prefer winning games by a lot over weak competition to closer series against strong competition. The 86 Lakers didn't make the Finals, and the 84 Lakers lost in the Finals, while the Celtics won twice, but got burned with close games against MJ's low-ranked Bulls in 86 (because MJ was injured)

A totally legitimate criticism. I've considered diminishing the weights of the results against weaker teams, but that's for the next version of the formula. For now, decisively defeating weaker teams is something the formula really looks for. And don't overthink the '86 Celtics against Jordan; they still won by 13.7 points a game. My sheet loves the '86 Celtics, as it should.

[Doctor MJ]

4. Strange that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '84-86 Celtics.

5. Surprising that the '84-86 Lakers are ahead of the '87-89 to me.

9. Something weird: Where are the early '70s teams? Knicks, Bucks, '72 Lakers, Cowens Celtics? Absent despite high regular season dominance in this era. Wonder why these teams all seemed to be pulled back down to earth by playoff-grade opposition but later teams didn't.

The ranking seems to prefer winning games by a lot over weak competition to closer series against strong competition. The 86 Lakers didn't make the Finals, and the 84 Lakers lost in the Finals, while the Celtics won twice, but got burned with close games against MJ's low-ranked Bulls in 86 (because MJ was injured)

Which is pretty much what we would expect, no?

[Doctor MJ]

The '85 Lakers absolutely massacred their way through the playoffs (even though they're not considered a dominant team historically. In a list that's all playoffs, the '85 Lakers are actually comparable to (or even better than) the '87 version.

The '59-61 Celtics may not have been the most dominant straight, but they were stupid good compared to their era (as determined by standard deviations from zero). I'm not saying this is the alpha and omega, but that's how I ran the numbers.

The requirement that each team have at least 3 consecutive years at +5 PSRS (and play at least two series in each year) screwed a lot of teams over (and I think that was my mistake). The '69 and '70 Knicks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '68 and '71 Knicks didn't meet the criteria. The '71 and '72 Bucks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '70 version got whipped by the Knicks, and the '73 version got knocked out in the first round. The '73 and '74 Celtics meet the criteria but neither the '72 nor '75 Celtics do. If I run the numbers again I'll remove the "5 SRS requirement" but leave the 2 series requirement in. Because I'm not super happy with those being left out.

I screwed up on the early 80s 76ers, their '81 met the standard. I'll put them in.

Yeah, the Thunder had several strong years, but never three in a row (the injuries really hurt).

The Blazers '91 and '92 made the cut, but '90 and '93 didn't (I know they made the Finals in '90, but their PSRS was really low).

The 90s Suns were rough . . . '89, '90, '92, '93 and '95 made the cut. But no three years in a row.

Adelman Kings had '02 and '03, but neither '01 nor '04.

Thanks for the thoughts! I'll probably throw together a new list with the 5 SRS cutoff removed, so that we can get more inclusion.

That all makes sense. Thanks sansterre!

So you know I have all sorts of variants on this analysis I could request, because I'm really interested. The #1 thing would be something more of a "Top 3 for that core", which would allow you to ignore injury years. I recognize that that throws a whole bunch of judgment calls into the process which makes it more work and opening yourself up to various criticisms.

[sansterre]

The '85 Lakers absolutely massacred their way through the playoffs (even though they're not considered a dominant team historically. In a list that's all playoffs, the '85 Lakers are actually comparable to (or even better than) the '87 version.

The '59-61 Celtics may not have been the most dominant straight, but they were stupid good compared to their era (as determined by standard deviations from zero). I'm not saying this is the alpha and omega, but that's how I ran the numbers.

The requirement that each team have at least 3 consecutive years at +5 PSRS (and play at least two series in each year) screwed a lot of teams over (and I think that was my mistake). The '69 and '70 Knicks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '68 and '71 Knicks didn't meet the criteria. The '71 and '72 Bucks were awesome in the playoffs, but the '70 version got whipped by the Knicks, and the '73 version got knocked out in the first round. The '73 and '74 Celtics meet the criteria but neither the '72 nor '75 Celtics do. If I run the numbers again I'll remove the "5 SRS requirement" but leave the 2 series requirement in. Because I'm not super happy with those being left out.

I screwed up on the early 80s 76ers, their '81 met the standard. I'll put them in.

Yeah, the Thunder had several strong years, but never three in a row (the injuries really hurt).

The Blazers '91 and '92 made the cut, but '90 and '93 didn't (I know they made the Finals in '90, but their PSRS was really low).

The 90s Suns were rough . . . '89, '90, '92, '93 and '95 made the cut. But no three years in a row.

Adelman Kings had '02 and '03, but neither '01 nor '04.

Thanks for the thoughts! I'll probably throw together a new list with the 5 SRS cutoff removed, so that we can get more inclusion.

That all makes sense. Thanks sansterre!

So you know I have all sorts of variants on this analysis I could request, because I'm really interested. The #1 thing would be something more of a "Top 3 for that core", which would allow you to ignore injury years. I recognize that that throws a whole bunch of judgment calls into the process which makes it more work and opening yourself up to various criticisms.

It's my pleasure!

I'm not against such things of course, as I'm always interested in interesting uses for the data, but obviously the more cumbersome the hoops are to jump through, the harder it is to allocate the time to do it.

When you're talking about "cores" exactly how are you defining that? Obviously the addition of Barkley started a new "core" for Phoenix, but what about Sam Jones taking over for Bill Sharman? Is that a new core (new starters) or an old core (same roster composition, just different starters)? It's a really neat idea.

[carlquincy]

#29??

I dont recall Celtics being that during that period, other than '10.

They weren't particularly good, but they were consistently good enough to break the +5 PSRS requirement in those three years. Obviously '08-10 would have been better, except that '09 was a lost year for them.

I see. Thanks for the explanation man.