NBA Chatter Thread

Rev said:
You can still be one of the greatest teams. I think you are thinking dynasty but what Im reading is a one year team.
Click to expand...

I get that distinction but I think especially in basketball where teams are basically just a handful of players that usually stay together for several years, you have to see sustained success over a handful of years to be one of the greatest of all time.

But for all I know maybe he meant like borderline top 10ish all time, which is possible, but you can't tell me that a single year winner is a top 5ish team all time without winning another title somewhere within a 3ish year range, either before or after the year we're talking about.
 
Simpleton said:
Gotta win more than one to be one of the greatest of all time, they're probably akin to like the early 2000's Pistons that won one and lost in 7 to the Spurs the next year.

Or maybe the late 80's Pistons.
Click to expand...


It should have been already obvious, but one of the greatest single season teams of all time.

The Sixers by the way were in the finals 3 out of 4 years. Getting Moses put them over the top.

Subsequent injuries and aging doesn't change the fact that that 83 team was one of the greatest teams of all time. Very few teams have only lost 1 game in an entire playoff run, and those Sixers were one of them.
 
Cujo said:
It was such a weird series between the Thunder and Spurs. At one point, OKC had won 3 of 4 and I thought they had it.
Click to expand...
OKC probably wins that series if Chet shows up and at least tries in Game 7. They didn't need a special performance out of him. If he just shows up, competes and gives them something like 12p and 10r, I truly think the Thunder win Game 7.

But he chose to roll over like a cowardly bitch so it's 'F' Chet Holmgren' for me until further notice.
 
Genghis Khan said:
It should have been already obvious, but one of the greatest single season teams of all time.

The Sixers by the way were in the finals 3 out of 4 years. Getting Moses put them over the top.

Subsequent injuries and aging doesn't change the fact that that 83 team was one of the greatest teams of all time. Very few teams have only lost 1 game in an entire playoff run, and those Sixers were one of them.
Click to expand...

I get the single season argument but it's hard for me to ignore the fact that there's so much carryover year to year in a sport where there are only about 6-8 guys playing serious roles any given year, on top of the fact that there are so many stretches with dominant teams winning 2-4 titles over a 5ish year stretch.

I don't think putting them on the same tier as those two versions of the Pistons is any slight, that's basically saying they're in the tier right behind the truly transcendent dynasties of all time.
 
Simpleton said:
I get the single season argument but it's hard for me to ignore the fact that there's so much carryover year to year in a sport where there are only about 6-8 guys playing serious roles any given year, on top of the fact that there are so many stretches with dominant teams winning 2-4 titles over a 5ish year stretch.

I don't think putting them on the same tier as those two versions of the Pistons is any slight, that's basically saying they're in the tier right behind the truly transcendent dynasties of all time.
Click to expand...


You're talking about dynasties and I'm obviously not.
 
Genghis Khan said:
You're talking about dynasties and I'm obviously not.
Click to expand...

Yea but how can some of the single year teams within those dynasty runs not be at the top of a greatest team list?

You can't put that Sixers team over one of the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, Russell Celtics and 2010's Warriors.

That's already 5, and then you could make arguments for multiple iterations of some of those teams (i.e. two single seasons of the 90's Bulls, etc.).

Like I said, if you want to say that team was somewhere in the back end of the top 10ish I can buy that. They aren't top 5 though, which is where my mind goes as far as "greatest of all time".
 
Simpleton said:
Yea but how can some of the single year teams within those dynasty runs not be at the top of a greatest team list?

You can't put that Sixers team over one of the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, Russell Celtics and 2010's Warriors.

That's already 5, and then you could make arguments for multiple iterations of some of those teams (i.e. two single seasons of the 90's Bulls, etc.).

Like I said, if you want to say that team was somewhere in the back end of the top 10ish I can buy that. They aren't top 5 though, which is where my mind goes as far as "greatest of all time".
Click to expand...


They literally beat the 80s Lakers and Celtics that year. Just stop. :lol
 
Genghis Khan said:
They literally beat the 80s Lakers and Celtics that year. Just stop. :lol
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that you think that Sixers team was better than the peak teams that the Lakers and Celtics had in the 80's? Teams that won 4-5 titles within about a 8-10 year span, largely with the same players throughout?

Probably talking the 86-87 Lakers and 85-86 Celtics if you want the specific peak years.
 
Simpleton said:
So you're telling me that you think that Sixers team was better than the peak teams that the Lakers and Celtics had in the 80's? Teams that won 4-5 titles within about a 8-10 year span, largely with the same players throughout?

Probably talking the 86-87 Lakers and 85-86 Celtics if you want the specific peak years.
Click to expand...


They literally swept the Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers and it wasn't close.
 
Genghis Khan said:
They literally swept the Magic/Kareem/Worthy Lakers and it wasn't close.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what to say if you think that Sixers team was better than the peak 80's Celtics/Lakers teams, teams who largely stayed together, won multiple titles with several other Finals appearances, eliminated the Sixers multiple times, and who are generally considered some of the absolute best teams of all time.

And Worthy didn't even play in that series you're talking about.
 
Simpleton said:
Not really sure what to say if you think that Sixers team was better than the peak 80's Celtics/Lakers teams, teams who largely stayed together, won multiple titles with several other Finals appearances, eliminated the Sixers multiple times, and who are generally considered some of the absolute best teams of all time.

And Worthy didn't even play in that series you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Again, you're talking about different things. This isn't a dynasty discussion.

The Sixers fell apart after that because Moses and Doc were aging and Toney couldn't stay healthy. That's got absolutely zero to do with how good they were in 83.
 
And for the record...

Yes, the 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers are widely considered one of the greatest NBA teams of all time.c868fd
They're frequently ranked in the top 10 (and sometimes higher) across major historical lists and expert opinions, thanks to their dominant 65-17 regular season, near-perfect 12-1 playoff run (still one of the best winning percentages in postseason history), and star power with Hall of Famers like Moses Malone (MVP and Finals MVP), Julius Erving (Dr. J), Maurice Cheeks, and strong supporting pieces like Andrew Toney and Bobby Jones.dd53a2
Key highlights from rankings and consensus:
Wikipedia and general consensus: Explicitly called "one of the greatest teams in NBA history."e8a824
SLAM Magazine's Top 75 NBA Teams (2022): Ranked #8.299224
ESPN's Jay Bilas: Ranked them #4 all-time.4a745c
NBA's 50th Anniversary Top 10 Teams: Included them as one of the greatest single-season squads.73ae5a
Their playoff dominance (12-1, "Fo' Fi' Fo'") and efficiency often put them in conversations with teams like the 1995-96 Bulls, 2016-17 Warriors, or 1986-87 Lakers.
 
Genghis Khan said:
One of the greatest teams of all time.

Little Mo, Big Mo, The Doctor, Andrew Toney and Iavaroni. No baloney!
Click to expand...


When ESPN was new, they showed Sixer games all the time, and that's the lineup I remember seeing the most. Excellent team.
 
1bigfan13 said:
OKC probably wins that series if Chet shows up and at least tries in Game 7. They didn't need a special performance out of him. If he just shows up, competes and gives them something like 12p and 10r, I truly think the Thunder win Game 7.

But he chose to roll over like a cowardly bitch so it's 'F' Chet Holmgren' for me until further notice.
Click to expand...


You think they'll try to shake up the roster? If they wanted to make some changes, they certainly have all the resources to do so.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Again, you're talking about different things. This isn't a dynasty discussion.

The Sixers fell apart after that because Moses and Doc were aging and Toney couldn't stay healthy. That's got absolutely zero to do with how good they were in 83.
Click to expand...

I just don't buy single season arguments as a self contained thing in the NBA in general given how the game is played. In my opinion you have to look at a window of at least 3ish years depending on the circumstances.
 
Cujo said:
You think they'll try to shake up the roster? If they wanted to make some changes, they certainly have all the resources to do so.
Click to expand...
Considering they were only a couple of minutes away from a return trip to the Finals, I think Presti will rationalize that all we need is better injury luck and a few minor tweaks to the roster.

I could see Dort leaving and Cason Wallace stepping in to replace him in the starting lineup. Aaron Wiggins may also be shopped since he fell out of the rotation in the 2nd half of the season. Those are the two most likely guys I can see the Thunder moving on from.

I do think there's a chance that Presti will make a surprise trade for a quality player like he did with Caruso a couple of years ago and Jared McCain this season. But I don't think he goes whale hunting for a superstar like Giannis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom