Greatest Teams in NBA History (or at least after 1976)
Feb 12, 2020 20:53:02 GMT -5
Texas Rangers, Ryan_NatsGM, and 1 more like this
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Feb 12, 2020 20:53:02 GMT -5
So. I decided that I was interested in trying to determine the best teams in NBA history. You hear a lot of posturing from the talking heads but none of the more substantive stat-based analysis that I so favor. I've been thinking of how to go about it. The following is the product of those efforts.
The starting point is a basketball-reference stat called SRS, which is basically a margin-of-victory stat that adjusts for strength of schedule. Let me try and give you some context. A team with a 0 SRS is completely average. A +2.0 team is good but not intimidating, generally getting a low seed in the 5-7 range. A +4.0 team is really good but not great; think last year's Celtics or Nuggets, teams that you have to figure for solid seeds (2-6 depending on conference) but you aren't really comfortable picking to win it all. A +6.0 team is very, very good; not truly dominant but capable of winning it all if things play right. Last year's Raptors were +5.5 in the regular season, the Warriors were +6.5. A +8.0 team is very likely the best team in the conference, maybe in the league. This year's Lakers are +7.55 so far, last year's Bucks were +8. And +10 is the mother-lode; only eleven teams ever have put up a 10+ and eight of them won the championship (two of the three that failed were in the same league as another 10+ team). Only 22 teams (since 1976) have put up 8+ SRS seasons; 12 of them won the championship (three of the ten that fell short were in the same league as another 8+). The average championship winner since 1976 has put up an SRS of +6.5.
Anyhow, so that's the starting point.
Obviously I don't want to rely too much on that; plenty of teams dominate in the regular season only to struggle in the playoffs. Plenty of great teams coasted in the regular season only to dominate the playoffs. Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere.
Basically, I wanted to build a playoff SRS, simply comparing the margin of victory to the regular season SRS of the opposition. If you beat a +5 SRS team by five points per game, you should be credited with a +10 SRS for that series. Since the playoffs are usually 20+ games for any championship winner, this gives us a respectable sample size. So I just look at all the championship winner's opposition, compare it to margin of victory to generate a playoff SRS for the team. The average playoff SRS for championship winners is +10.3, which is to say, the average championship winning team plays at what would be an historically great level for the regular season. This is pretty intuitive and consistent with what we would guess.
To make my composite ratings I use 2/3 of the playoff SRS (because the playoffs are what really matters in the NBA) and 1/3 of the regular season SRS (to reduce statistical noise and give less credit to . . . fluky performances). I am only comparing championship winning teams and only from 1975-76 on (because I had to start somewhere, but I wanted most of the teams to have four full rounds of playoff reps). The results are pretty intuitive. Five of the top 15 are Jordan's Bulls teams. Both Magic and Bird have a top 10 appearance. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, NBA 'analysis' is fairly anecdotal so this is fairly sacrilegious in principle.
Flaws? Well, because it relies on margin of victory, there are times where the results seem weird. If you lose by 20 in game 1 and then win games 2 through 5 by 1, on paper it's a win in five games, but in practice you were outscored by 3 points per game which suggests that your victory was a bit lucky. Also, relying on regular season SRS for opponent-measuring is flawed. LeBron's Cavs (2nd edition) routinely put up underwhelming SRSs (+4, +5.5, +2.9 and +0.5) but always put up playoff SRSs that were much higher. So when the Warriors beat the 16-17 Cavs by 6.8 points per game they get credit for a +9.7 showing when in reality the Cavs were probably at least an +10 SRS playoff team (making the win more like +17). But adjusting that stuff is a nightmare, and the earlier rounds have much smaller sample sizes to work with. So we stick to what we have.
Anyhow, as far as the information is presented:
I'll list the team and their rank on this list (out of 43).
I'll list their SRS in the regular season (and its ranking among the 43 championship teams on this list), their Playoff SRS (and its ranking among these teams) and their Clutch rating (which is just their playoff rating minus their regular season rating). Clutch rating is a bit confusing; a 0 clutch rating just means they were just as good as they were in the regular season; for a +10 regular season team a 0 clutch rating isn't embarrassing because that means they were a +10 playoff team, which is just fine. Average clutch for this group is +3.8, average for the top 25 is +4.6, average for the top 10 is +6.
I'll list their playoff rounds with opponent, SRS, Margin of Victory, number of games and a semi-arbitrary adjective to represent their performance.
Here's a sample so I can explain it:
#37. 1983-84 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.42 (21st), Playoffs: +6.79 (40th), Clutch: +0.37 (38th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (-2.36) by 2.7 in 4; Disappointing
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.79) by 8 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.04) by 9 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+3.32) by -2.3 in 7; Disappointing
That First Round should be read: “they played the Bullets, a below average team (-2.36) and won their games by an average of 2.7 points per game and won the series in four games. Given that they only beat a -2.36 team by 2.7 per game this is about a league average result which is disappointing.
Anyhow. Here we go!
#43. 1977-78 Washington Bullets
Regular Season: +0.82 (43rd), Playoffs: +6.42 (41st), Clutch: +5.6 (9th)
Round 1: Atlanta Hawks (-0.13) by 6.5 in 2; Good
Round 2: San Antonio Spurs (+3.2) by 0.2 in 6; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.87) by 3.1 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+1.48) by 6.2 in 7; Good
#42. 1978-79 Seattle Supersonics
Regular Season: +2.69 (41st), Playoffs: +6.38 (42nd), Clutch: +3.69 (24th)
Round 1: N/A
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.95) by 3.6 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+3.55) by 0.2 in 7; Disappointing
NBA Finals: Washington Bullets (+4.75) by 4.8 in 5; Good
#41. 1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.81 (33rd), Playoffs: +5.4 (43rd), Clutch: +0.59 (36th)
Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (-5.02) by 10.6 in 3; Good
Round 2: Utah Jazz (+2.96) by 0.9 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+3.59) by 5.8 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Detroit Pistons (+5.46) by -2.6 in 7; Disappointing
For whatever reason, this iteration of Magic's Lakers really struggled in the playoffs. After a three-game sweep of the Spurs (who were awful that year) the Lakers were taken to seven games in each subsequent round. They barely snuck past a solid Utah Jazz team and facing a decent Mavericks team in the Conference Finals the Lakers put up their best series, putting up an average margin of victory of +5.8 (even if the series ran to 7). But the Finals were a disappointment; even if they did end up sneaking a victory over the Pistons, the Lakers were outscored by 2.6 points per game, the worst margin for a winning Finals team since 1978. They won, but it was a lackluster year.
#40. 2005-06 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +3.59 (40th), Playoffs: +7.32 (38th), Clutch: +3.73 (23rd)
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (+0.51) by 3 in 6; Disappointing
Round 2: New Jersey Nets (+1.11) by 6.4 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+6.24) by 5.1 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+5.96) by 1 in 6; Good
Nothing about this team was impressive except the trophy at the end. They spent six games barely sneaking by the average Bulls in the first round. They played well against the Nets (five games, +6.4 MOV) and decently in the Finals (only a +1 MOV against the very good Mavericks). Their best series was actually the Eastern Conference Finals, when they dispatched the Pistons with a +5.1 MOV. Still, little about these playoffs suggest dominance.
#39. 1994-95 Houston Rockets
Regular Season: +2.32 (42nd), Playoffs: +8.52 (30th), Clutch: +6.22 (5th)
First Round: Utah Jazz (+7.76) by +4 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.86) by +0.4 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+5.9) by +1.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Orlando Magic (+6.44) by +7 in 4; Really Good
Hakeem's second ring was a classic 'saving it for the playoffs' situation. The Rockets went only 47-35 in the regular season but turned it on in the playoffs (compared to their regular season), beating strong teams from Utah, Phoenix and San Antonio by 4, 0.4 and 1.7 points per game respectively. Their best showing was in the Finals, when they dispatched the strong Orlando Magic (led by a young Shaquille O'Neal) in a four-game sweep with an impressive margin of victory (+7).
#38. 1993-94 Houston Rockets
Regular Season: +4.19 (37th), Playoffs: +7.84 (36th), Clutch: +3.65 (26th)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+2.6) by 5.2 in 4; Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+4.68) by 5 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Utah Jazz (+4.1) by 4.2 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: New York Knicks (+6.48) by -0.8 in 7; Good
The Rockets that year were a solid team that managed their way through the playoffs pretty well but lacked any particularly dominant wins. The Finals against the Knicks actually saw them outscored overall, which isn't terribly awe-inspiring.
#37. 1983-84 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.42 (21st), Playoffs: +6.79 (40th), Clutch: +0.37 (38th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (-2.36) by 2.7 in 4; Disappointing
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.79) by 8 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.04) by 9 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+3.32) by -2.3 in 7; Disappointing
Larry Bird's second championship was a bit lackluster. The Celtics that year had a strong season (62-20 and a one seed) but had a weak playoffs. Their wins against the Knicks and Bucks were both excellent; big wins against strong teams. But barely edging out a below-average Bullets team isn't great and getting outscored by 2.3 points per game by a Lakers team that, while capable was definitely not their best, isn't a great look.
#36. 1976-77 Portland Trailblazers
Regular Season: +3.78 (38th), Playoffs: +8.15 (32nd), Clutch: +4.37 (16th)
First Round: Chicago Bulls (+0.92) by 6 in 3; Good
Second Round: Denver Nuggets (+4.95) by 1.7 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.64) by 5.8; Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+3.78) by 6.3; Really Good
#35. 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.78 (34th), Playoffs: +7.97 (35th), Clutch: +3.19 (28th)
First Round: Oklahoma City Thunder (+3.55) by 1.7 in 6; Good
Second Round: Utah Jazz (+5.33) by 7.3 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+4.67) by 4.2 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+3.37) by 3.5 in 7; Good
Kobe's last championship season was fine but not remarkable in this company. A solid 57-25 season and a one-seed led into three marginal victories over respectable competition. The only impressive win was the whipping of a very strong Jazz team in the second round.
#34. 1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +5.4 (31st), Playoffs: +8.16 (31st), Clutch: +2.76 (31st)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.25) by 2.8 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+4.24) by 4.6 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.04) by 5.3 in 6; Good
Magic's Rookie season. Played solidly in the regular season, played solidly in the playoffs against solid teams with solid victories. But nothing overly impressive in this company.
#33. 1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +8.41 (9th), Playoffs: +7.14 (39th), Clutch: -1.27 (42nd)
First Round: Sacramento Kings (+3.04) by 8 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+5.24) by 7.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.36) by -1.9 in 7; Disappointing
NBA Finals: Indiana Pacers (+4.15) by -1.9 in 6; Disappointing
The Lakers ripped through the regular season, throwing up a 67-15 record with impressive margins of victory. But they are one of the few teams in this list that actually seemed to get worse in the playoffs. Their first two rounds were excellent; margins of victory at 7+ against strong opposition is very impressive. But these Lakers were the only team on this list to be outscored in back to back series, by the Blazers and Pacers. They won in the end, but they definitely did not pay off the promise of their regular season dominance.
#32. 2002-03 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +5.65 (27th), Playoffs: +8.63 (29th), Clutch: +2.98 (29th)
First Round: Phoenix Suns (+1.57) by 5.3 in 6; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.71) by 1.8 in 6; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+7.9) by 5 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: New Jersey Nets (+4.42) by 5.8 in 6; Really Good
Tim Duncan's second ring was won this season. The Spurs went 60-22 and got the one seed but had relatively weak showings early in the playoffs (sure, the Lakers may have been better than their modest regular season numbers but they probably weren't thaaaat much better). However putting up 5+ margin of victory wins against two strong teams in Dallas and New Jersey was a good way to wrap things up.
#31. 2003-04 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +5.04 (32nd), Playoffs: +9.36 (27th), Clutch: +4.32 (19th)
First Round: Milwaukee Bucks (+0.42) by 12.6 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: New Jersey Nets (+1.88) by 3.4 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+4.93) by 2.8 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+4.35) by 9 in 5; Really Good
I don't know what it was about the Pistons managing to win championships without a traditional star. This version had a strong regular season and two strong series, the first and last. The Bucks may have been only average, but a +12.6 margin of victory is excellent. And taking the Lakers (still with Shaq and Kobe) by 9 points per game is a really impressive showing. Still, they could have benefited from better performances against the Nets and Pacers.
#30. 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +7.84 (13th), Playoffs: +8.09 (34th), Clutch: +0.25 (39th)
First Round: Denver Nuggets (+2.23) by 10.2 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Seattle Supersonics (+2.59) by 6.9 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+7.08) by 4.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Detroit Pistons (+3.31) by -1.8 in 7; Disappointing
The Spurs put up an excellent regular season, going 59-23 with a really good SRS. They whipped the Nuggets, beat the Sonics solidly and handled an excellent Phoenix team to make the Finals. But once there they really struggled with the Pistons, managing to win the series but were outscored pretty decently. Obviously the Pistons (defending champs) were better than their +3.31 regular season SRS but the result was still disappointing.
#29. 1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.37 (36th), Playoffs: +9.87 (21st), Clutch: +5.5 (11th)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.05) by 12.7 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+1.79) by 8.7 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+5.74) by -0.2 in 6; Good
I'd kill for a bigger sample size for this team. That 12.7 margin-of-victory whipping of a good Suns team is the first 'Outstanding' result we've seen in a series so far. The Spurs series was very solid. But basically drawing even with the 76ers (who were pretty good) was a disappointing climax to an otherwise excellent playoffs. Given their comparably weak regular season I'm inclined to dismiss this as a moderate fluke, but that's why I include regular season numbers in the calculation.
#28. 2006-07 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +8.35 (10th), Playoffs: +7.99 (34th), Clutch: -0.36 (41st)
First Round: Denver Nuggets (+1.69) by 6 in 5; Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+7.28) by -0.5 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Utah Jazz (+3.06) by 5.6 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+3.33) by 6 in 4; Good
For a team with a reputation for being clutch, this is the second time we've seen the Spurs turn in a 'nonclutch' playoffs, but still win because they were already so dominant in the regular season. These are four strong results; generally good teams and respectable margins of victory. They were outscored by the Suns, but the Suns were really good. They're a legitimate champion, but I wouldn't brag about this run.
#27. 2007-08 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +9.3 (6th), Playoffs: +7.76 (37th), Clutch: -1.54 (43rd)
First Round: Atlanta Hawks (-2.23) by 12 in 7; Good
Second Round: Cleveland Cavaliers (-0.53) by -1.1 in 7; Bad
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+6.67) by 1.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+7.34) by 8.4 in 6; Outstanding
The Celtics superteam with Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen was a wrecking ball in the regular season, posting a 66-16 record and the 6th best SRS of these teams. But they weirdly struggled in the playoffs. Not terribly; a +7.76 SRS is still pretty good, but it's actually worse than their regular season numbers. No other team of these 43 saw a bigger step back in performance from the regular season to the playoffs. Their two series against the Hawks and Pistons are fine, about at regular season levels. The series against the Cavs was the real turd in the punch bowl; the Cavs were an average team that year but still managed to outscore the Celtics over seven games (and LeBron only averaged a 27-6-8 with 3 steals+blocks). Yeah, it's LeBron, but you don't expect a +9 SRS team to struggle against a team like that. If there's a saving grace it's the Finals that year; the Lakers were really good that year and had gone 12-3 in the playoffs, and the Celtics rolled them by a huge margin; beating your opponent by more than 8 points in the Finals is pretty impressive, especially against a team as good as the Lakers.
#26. 1989-90 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +5.41 (30th), Playoffs: +9.74 (23rd), Clutch: +4.33 (18th)
First Round: Indiana Pacers (-0.18) by 12.3 in 3; Really Good
Second Round: New York Knicks (+0.78) by 11.4 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Chicago Bulls (+2.74) by 3 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.48) by 5 in 5; Really Good
Our first showing with three series at Really Good or better. Those are three really good showings; two blowouts against average teams and one decisive win against a very good team. The only outlier? Only beating the +2.74 Bulls by 3 over seven games doesn't look great. Maybe Jordan's averaging a 32-7-6 and three steals+blocks played a role . . .
#25. 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks
Regular Season: +4.41 (35th), Playoffs: +10.27 (19th), Clutch: +5.86 (6th)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+1.85) by 5.1 in 6; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.01) by 14 in 4; Dominant
Conference Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+3.81) by 4 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Miami Heat (+6.76) by 2.4 in 6; Good
It's notable how the major playoff jump this roster saw isn't the star stepping up; Playoff Dirk was pretty much as good as regular season Dirk. Specifically Jason Terry and Jason Kidd went from being solid above average contributors to really helping to carry the team. It's always interesting how often a championship is won because of subtle improvements of the supporting cast, not from the star.
The entire rating here isn't the product of the win over LeBron's Heat (although that certainly helps). It's their incredible evisceration of Kobe's Lakers. Remember, the Lakers were coming off of two straight NBA championships and had just won 57 games and put up a quality SRS. Going into the season the Heat were the #1 favorite for the Championship (+175) and the Lakers second (+250). The next team was at +1000, so I think it's safe to say that the Lakers were the favorite in the West. So, Game 1 in LA; Mavericks by 2, snuck it out. Game 2 in LA, Mavericks win by 12, not close at all. Game 3 in Dallas, Mavericks by 6. Now we're at elimination game 4, and this is Kobe suiting up for the Lakers so anything can happen. The Mavericks win by 36. The Mavericks dropped the consensus best team in the West by 14 points a game in a straight sweep; it's the first 'Dominant' rated series we've seen so far. That series, and not the victory over the Heat, is why these Mavericks are in the Top 25.
#24. 2018-19 Toronto Raptors
Regular Season: +5.49 (28th), Playoffs: +9.79 (22nd), Clutch: +4.3 (20th)
First Round: Orlando Magic (+0.28) by 14.4 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Philadelphia 76ers (+2.25) by 2.7 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+8.04) by 1 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Golden State Warriors (+6.42) by 5.7 in 6; Really Good
The Raptors were solid in the regular season but really stepped it up in the playoffs. They vaporized Orlando in Round 1. They struggled with Philadelphia, which wasn't great. But then they faced the Bucks, the best team in the East and knocked them out in six. It was a close series but beating a great team always counts. Their Finals was excellent; they managed to defeat the Warriors pretty decisively in six. That Durant was injured makes this win slightly less impressive but still; Curry+Draymond+Klay Thompson were enough to wreck the NBA for four years.
#23. 2012-13 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +7.03 (19th), Playoffs: +9.15 (28th), Clutch: +2.12 (34th)
First Round: Milwaukee Bucks (-1.83) by 14.7 in 4; Really Good
Second Round: Chicago Bulls (-0.02) by 13.2 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+3.34) by 4 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+6.67) by -0.7 in 7; Good
This team's rating is heavily reliant on its wrecking the Bucks and Bulls so decisively. The other two series, a solid win against Indiana and being outscored slightly by a fierce Spurs team, aren't particularly strong.
#22. 1980-81 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.05 (24th), Playoffs: +9.7 (24th), Clutch: +3.65 (25th)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Chicago Bulls (+2.34) by 8.3 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+7.76) by 1.5 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Houston Rockets (-0.2) by 9.8 in 6; Good
Not overwhelming but strong wins. The two weaker teams (Bulls and Rockets) they beat pretty decisively, and even if they only slipped by the 76ers, Philly was really good that year.
#21. 2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +7.15 (16th), Playoffs: +9.52 (26th), Clutch: +2.37 (33rd)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+3.21) by 5.4 in 3; Good
Second Round: San Antonio Spurs (+6.28) by 4.2 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Sacramento Kings (+7.61) by -0.3 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: New Jersey Nets (+3.67) by 9.2 in 4; Really Good
The last part of the Shaq + Kobe threepeat. It was a really stacked set of opponents. In fact, this is the fourth hardest schedule of any champion in this group. While they barely scraped by the Kings, barely getting by a really strong team is still an achievement. The strong win against the Spurs and the sweep of the Nets are both very solid showings.
#20. 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +7.12 (17th), Playoffs: +9.61 (25th), Clutch: +2.49 (32nd)
First Round: Minnesota Timberwolves (-0.17) by 6.3 in 4; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.68) by 8 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+5.67) by 10.3 in 4; Outstanding
NBA Finals: New York Knicks (+1.45) by 5 in 5; Good
This was Tim Duncan's second year. A pretty good run. It's not the strongest set of opponents, but anytime you can win a championship with only two losses en route is a pretty good deal. The last two Western series are particularly impressive. Those Lakers were the preseason favorites to win it all; they had Shaq and Kobe in his third year. They didn't have a great year but sweeping them by 8 points a game is pretty decisive. And then going on to play the Blazers (who were quite good in their own right) and to whip them by 10 points a game is a decisive showing.
#19. 2011-12 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +5.72 (26th), Playoffs: +10.39 (18th), Clutch: +4.67 (14th)
First Round: New York Knicks (+2.39) by 14 in 5; Outstanding
Second Round: Indiana Pacers (+2.6) by 6.5 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Boston Celtics (+2.26) by 4.9 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+6.44) by 4 in 5; Really Good
LeBron's first championship. Obviously the complete wrecking of the Knicks boosts their ratings a lot, but the Knicks were a decent team; a 14 point margin of victory is not easy to do. Their remaining series were all solid, especially a fairly decisive handling of a very good Oklahoma City team. Every single team from this point out has playoff SRSs of 10 or higher.
#18. 1992-93 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +6.19 (23rd), Playoffs: +10.92 (16th), Clutch: +4.73 (13th)
First Round: Atlanta Hawks (-0.67) by 16.4 in 3; Outstanding
Second Round: Cleveland Cavaliers (+6.3) by 8.5 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: New York Knicks (+5.87) by 4.7 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: Phoenix Suns (+6.27) by 0 in 6; Good
This was the third Michael Jordan title before he retired (the first time). The Bulls put up a solid (but for them pedestrian) regular season SRS, only going 57-25 for a 2 seed. In the first round they obliterated the Hawks. The next round they played a very good Cavs team and swept them with big margins of victory. In the conference Finals they met the one-seeded Knicks and beat them solidly for another strong win. In the Finals they faced Charles Barkley's Phoenix Suns and met their match, sneaking past them. It was a good playoff set for the Bulls, but they had far better in other seasons. And barely getting by the Suns (who were really good but not great) isn't a good look for a top team.
#17. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
Regular Season: +7.53 (14th), Playoffs: +10.47 (17th), Clutch: +2.94 (30th)
Round 1: N/A
Round 2: New York Knicks (+2.58) by 5.5 in 4; Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.32) by 4.4 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+5.06) by 10 in 4; Outstanding
This is Moses Malone's semi-famous “Fo Fo Fo” playoffs, even though they didn't actually sweep all three series. The first two series are good performances, but the clear gem here is the Finals. You're facing the defending champs, Magic and Kareem and you sweep them by 10 points a game? Damn! Personally I'm not sure I like this team so high, but I can't shake a stick at that Finals performance.
#16. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +6.24 (22nd), Playoffs: +11.17 (13th), Clutch: +4.93 (12th)
Round 1: Boston Celtics (+1.26) by 10.7 in 3; Really Good
Round 2: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.11) by 11.8 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Chicago Bulls (+2.13) by 4.2 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.38) by 6.7 in 4; Really Good
The first of those super-deep Bad Boys Pistons team to win a championship. As with the other Pistons team the only weak spot in their resume is the series against Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Double-digit margins of victory in the first two rounds against decent teams and a sweep of the Lakers (by good margins) is a great way to finish it off.
#15. 2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +7.11 (18th), Playoffs: +11.09 (15th), Clutch: +3.98 (22nd)
First Round: Utah Jazz (+2.31) by 9.2 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Houston Rockets (+3.73) by 7.3 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Denver Nuggets (+3.13) by 3.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Orlando Magic (+6.48) by 9.4 in 5; Outstanding
Kobe's first Shaqless championship. The first two rounds were really strong performances; they beat solid teams by big margins. But the Finals performance was the real deal. Orlando (led by Dwight Howard) had made it past LeBron's Cavs before getting completely demolished. Orlando was really good and beating them by 9.4 points a game is a fantastic showing.
#14. 1997-98 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +7.24 (15th), Playoffs: +11.59 (11th), Clutch: +4.35 (17th)
First Round: New Jersey Nets (+1.88) by 7.7 in 3; Good
Second Round: Charlotte Hornets (+2.45) by 9.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+6.25) by 4.2 in 7; Really Good
NBA Finals: Utah Jazz (+5.73) by 7.8 in 6; Really Good
This was Jordan's last ring and last year with the Bulls. For a Jordan team their regular season SRS was pretty low. None of the series in the playoffs really stands out. It was a series of workmanlike wins. None of the wins were by less than four points per game (which is a pretty good margin) and their set of opponents was pretty good.
#13. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +10.07 (4th), Playoffs: +10.23 (20th), Clutch: +0.16 (40th)
First Round: Miami Heat (-3.94) by 18 in 3; Really Good
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.67) by 3.8 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+5.34) by 1.8 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.94) by 7.7 in 6; Really Good
This is one of the sort of weird things about the Jordan Bulls being called “clutch” and about how they “raised their game to another level in the playoffs”. If the Bulls were routinely winning 50 games and then crushing fools en route to a title I could see that. But the Bulls dominated the regular season routinely; this year's version went 67-15 and won ten more games than the next closest team. The threw up a +10 SRS for the season (which, again, is a really impressive feat) and then they threw up a +10 SRS in the playoffs, winning out pretty decisively. Did they show how clutch they were? Did they take their game to the next level? Not really. They were already the best team in the NBA; they just continued to play at that level. It's sort of like how Derek Jeter is a really good “clutch” hitter. I mean, he does hit well in the clutch, but it's 90% because he's already a really good hitter.
#12. 2014-15 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +10.01 (5th), Playoffs: +11.14 (14th), Clutch: +1.13 (35th)
Round 1: New Orleans Pelicans (+1.13) by 8 in 4; Good
Round 2: Memphis Grizzlies (+3.62) by 8 in 6; Really Good
Conference Finals: Houston Rockets (+3.82) by 8.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+4.08) by 7.2 in 6; Really Good
The first year of the Warriors dynasty. Steph Curry was already fantastic but Draymond Green and Klay Thompson took a big step forward and suddenly the Warriors were the best team in the league. In retrospect it seems obvious, but this team was given a one in thirty or so chance of winning it all in the preseason. So they rip through everyone, go 67-15 with massive margins of victory. They hit the playoffs and just roll over everyone without stopping. Not a single series with a margin of victory lower than 7 points per game; that's nuts. A naysayer would argue that this isn't really a particularly tough set of opponents (which is true) but look at the teams above the Warriors on this list. Whipping through a playoffs like this is really hard to do. The Warriors were the best team in the NBA during the regular season and nothing in the playoffs went one inch closer to proving that notion wrong. Still, there are better teams coming up.
#11. 1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +6.48 (20th), Playoffs: +13.08 (9th), Clutch: +6.6 (4th)
Round 1: Phoenix Suns (-2.34) by 20.3 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Portland Trailblazers (+2.8) by 11 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Denver Nuggets (+2.05) by 12.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+6.47) by 2.6 in 6; Good
The second best iteration of the Showtime Lakers. Those margins of victory in the first three rounds are nuts. Sure, they're not the toughest teams, but taking anyone by 20 is nuts, and taking solid teams like Portland and Denver by double digits is really, really impressive. Granted that their showing against the Celtics is only pretty good, but overall this is an exceptional playoff performance (9th overall apparently).
#10. 1996-97 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +10.7 (3rd), Playoffs: +11.22 (12th), Clutch: +0.52 (37th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (+1.77) by 6 in 3; Good
Second Round: Atlanta Hawks (+5.52) by 7.8 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Miami Heat (+5.56) by 8.8 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Utah Jazz (+7.97) by 0.6 in 6; Good
This was another iteration of the Bulls ripping through the regular season and then doing equally well in the playoffs. Those wins against the Hawks and Heat are excellent. Wouldn't mind a better finish against the Jazz, but this team gets credit for having such a dominant regular season.
#9. 2015-16 Cleveland Cavaliers
Regular Season: +5.45 (29th), Playoffs: +13.97 (5th), Clutch: +8.52 (2nd)
Round 1: Detroit Pistons (+0.43) by 8.5 in 4; Good
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+3.49) by 12.5 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Toronto Raptors (+4.08) by 15.5 in 6; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Golden State Warriors (+10.38) by 0.5 in 7; Really Good
Yeah, this was a really, really good playoffs. The win over the Pistons was fine; 8.5 is a good margin. But then you have a very decent Hawks team get crushed by 12.5 points per game. Then you get a solid Raptors team and win by, wait for it, 15 points a game? What!? You may wonder how a margin of victory like that goes to six games. Here's the breakdown:
Game 1, in Cleveland, Cavs by 31
Game 2, in Cleveland, Cavs by 19
Game 3, in Toronto, Raptors by 15
Game 4, in Toronto, Raptors by 6
Game 5, in Cleveland, Cavs by 38
Game 6, in Toronto, Cavs by 26
So that's how you do it. When you win, you win by at least 19 points. That's three wins against a good team by 25 points or more. Holy balls. As for the Finals, sure, they barely beat Golden State. But Golden State was really freaking good already (setting the record for regular season wins and whatnot). Just winning is a big accomplishment. My system thinks that this is the 5th best playoff performance since the mid 70s and I'm not about to argue with it. The Cavs get penalized here for a comparably weak regular season.
#8. 2017-18 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +5.79 (25th), Playoffs: +13.89 (6th), Clutch: +8.1 (3rd)
Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (+2.89) by 8.8 in 5; Really Good
Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (+1.48) by 8.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Houston Rockets (+8.21) by 9 in 7; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+0.59) by 15 in 4; Outstanding
This is the last year of the Curry + Durant combo, when they had lost their edge and were still really good. This is the first playoffs we've seen where every series is rated Really Good or better. The best achievement was that win against the Rockets; Houston had been really, really good that year and the Warriors took them out very decisively (even if it did take seven games). As for the Cavs, that roster was on fumes of fumes, but LeBron averaged a 34-9-10 with efficient shooting and the Warriors still swept and won every game by 15. Absolutely brutal.
#7. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +8.32 (11th), Playoffs: +12.73 (10th), Clutch: +4.41 (15th)
Round 1: Denver Nuggets (-1.14) by 27.4 in 3; Dominant
Round 2: Golden State Warriors (-2.54) by 10.6 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+0.08) by 11.3 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+6.57) by 4.2 in 6; Really Good
The best of the Showtime Lakers. Much of their rating comes from the complete obliteration of the Nuggets in the first round. All of the subsequent rounds are nowhere near at that level. You could argue that their quality of opposition is low (and in-conference it sure was) but when you're winning every game by 10+ points that makes for a pretty strong showing in any case. And a 4 point MOV against the Celtics (who were always very good) is a very strong way to finish things out.
#6. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +9.06 (7th), Playoffs: +13.18 (8th), Clutch: +4.12 (21st)
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (-3.12) by 13.7 in 3; Really Good
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+2.59) by 9.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+8.69) by 15 in 4; Dominant
NBA Finals: Houston Rockets (+2.1) by 6.2 in 6; Good
The best of the Larry Bird Celtics. They had a very strong regular season and then rolled through the playoffs. The Bulls may have a bad rating but Michael Jordan averaged a 44-6-6 (with efficient shooting) and the Celtics still won by 14 a game. The next round they faced a solid Hawks team and whipped them by ten points a game. The Conference Finals was weird; the Bucks had thrashed the rest of the East pretty hard but the Celtics had won every regular season matchup and their playoff series was no different. The Celtics obliterated the Bucks by 15 points a game, which would be impressive against a weak team, much less a very strong team. The Finals against the Rockets is a bit misleading; Hakeem Olajuwon had missed a lot of games during the regular season so the Rockets numbers are artificially depressed. Also, Hakeem always played out of his mind in the playoffs (he averaged a 25-12-2 with 5.5 blocks+steals in the Finals) so the Rockets were definitely tougher than the +2.1 rating. And I could see moving this team up. Still. Bill Simmons would not be happy with me.
#5. 2013-14 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +8.0 (12th), Playoffs: +13.79 (7th), Clutch: +5.79 (7th)
Round 1: Dallas Mavericks (+2.91) by 2 in 7; Disappointing
Round 2: Portland Trailblazers (+4.44) by 13.4 in 5; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+6.66) by 10.5 in 6; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Miami Heat (+4.15) by 14 in 5; Outstanding
Did I just put the 13-14 Spurs ahead of the 85-86 Celtics? Heck yes I did. So these Spurs were pretty solid during the regular season (62-20 and a 1 seed) but nobody was looking at them to win it all. The top two preseason favorites to win it all were the Heat and Thunder; the Spurs were 6th in the betting. But of course, this was the year that Kawhi Leonard ascended from being merely another very strong Spurs role-player into being one of the best players in the league, especially in the playoffs. When the playoffs started the Mavericks really gave them a hard time. Sure, the Mavs at +2.91 were an unusually good 8-seed, but the Spurs really struggled to close that series out. At that point absolutely nobody was taking them seriously (I remember this season very well if it doesn't show).
In the second round they match up with a strong Portland team and absolutely crush them, winning the series by 13.4 points per game. That wasn't hugely impressive to everyone (though it should have been); Portland wasn't seen as a real threat. But the Oklahoma City Thunder definitely were; remember that the Thunder were the team from the West picked to win it all by most bettors. So who would come out in this clash of the titans?
Game 1 in San Antonio, Spurs by 17
Game 2 in San Antonio, Spurs by 35 (uh oh)
Game 3 in Oklahoma City, Thunder by 9
Game 4 in Oklahoma City, Thunder by 13
Game 5 in San Antonio, Spurs by 28
Game 6 in Oklahoma City, Spurs by 5
The Thunder were the fashionable pick to win it all from the West; they had two stars in their prime in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. And the Spurs absolutely wrecked them. Do you know how many times the Thunder lost by more than 15 points that season? Three. The Spurs put up that many in six games, two of them by 25+ points. Absolutely brutal.
So now the Spurs advance to rematch themselves against the Heat who beat them the prior year. Everyone still favored the Heat, but after seeing OKC fall people were becoming a little bit wary of betting against the Spurs. Sure enough, the Spurs proceed to obliterate the Heat in five by 14 a game. I'll tell you right now, those last three series are about as good as you'll see from any team ever. In this group I'd say it's the third best set of three series. But I just want to emphasize, a playoffs that good is really, really rare. The Spurs deserve their place here.
#4. 1990-91 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +8.57 (8th), Playoffs: +14.22 (4th), Clutch: +5.65 (8th)
Round 1: New York Knicks (-0.43) by 20 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Philadelphia 76ers (-0.39) by 8.8 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+3.08) by 11.5 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.73) by 9.8 in 5; Outstanding
So the Bulls had made the Eastern Conference Finals twice in a row, each year losing to the Pistons. This year they go into season as the #2 team in the East, considered to have half the chance of winning the Championship that the Pistons did. In the West the Lakers were the preferred team, still featuring the excellent Magic Johnson and boasting a capable supporting cast. As with Steph Curry, the subtle change that happened to take Jordan to the Finals didn't actually involve Jordan. With three seasons under their belt Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant took big steps forward and suddenly the Bulls were really, really good, going 61-21 and finishing first in the conference.
The first round was an overmatched Knicks team; the Bulls annihilated them by 20 a game. Great win.
The second round was an equally mediocre 76ers team that the Bulls actually struggled with (just kidding, they won by 9 points a game, but compared to the rest of the playoffs it was a weak spot).
But then the Bulls were matched up against the Pistons. The team that had dispatched them the prior three years. The Pistons had only won 50 games, but customarily saved themselves for the playoffs with an extra gear. Would history repeat itself? Not really; the Bulls crushed them by 11.5 points a game in a clean sweep. The era of the Pistons was over and the Bulls were in the Finals for the first time against Magic Johnson and the Lakers.
Going into the Finals, the Hot Takes from the Talking Heads at the time were generally that Jordan was an exceptional player, but that he didn't know what it took to win and he would struggle in the Finals against Magic (you may remember similar things being said about LeBron during later days in Cleveland). So of course the Bulls annihilate the Lakers by ten points a game in a five game romp. Nobody could mistake Jordan and the Bulls for anything but the best player and team in the league.
#3. 2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +3.74 (39th), Playoffs: +18.21 (1st), Clutch: +14.47 (1st)
Round 1: Portland Trailblazers (+4.52) by 14.7 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Sacramento Kings (+6.07) by 9.2 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+7.92) by 22.2 in 4; HolyMotherlovingWhatTheHeck
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+3.64) by 6.8 in 5; Really Good
So. 39th best Regular Season, absolute best Playoffs. I'll be honest; the reason I made the rating formula 1/3 regular season and 2/3 playoffs is because if I kept it all playoffs then this team would be #1 by a mile, and I wasn't totally comfortable with that. Maybe I'm weak-willed.
Anyhow, let's set the mood. It's 2000. The Lakers have just won the NBA Finals over the Indiana Pacers. They feature arguably the best pure player in the league at his peak in Shaquille O'Neal (just coming off averaging a 30-14-4 with 3 blocks in the regular season and a 31-15-3 in the playoffs) and a young star still improving in Kobe Bryant. They go into the 2000-01 season the prohibitive favorite to win the Finals. So what do they do? They mail in the season. They open the season 48-26 before going on an 8-game win streak to close things out. The record was solid (good enough for a two-seed) but their merely good SRS (6th in the West) suggested that they weren't at the height of their powers.
In Round 1 they meet the Portland team that had been the #2 most favored team to win the Finals and proceed to mash them to the tune of 14.7 points a game. I want to be clear, this was a really good team and the Lakers vaporized them.
In Round 2 they face the Sacramento Kings who were having a great year; the Lakers sweep them and win the series by 9.2 points per game. What?
So. The Conference Finals put them against the Spurs who won the Finals only two years before (#20 on this list). This team featured two Hall of Famers, Tim Duncan with three years of experience and David Robinson, slowing down but still really good. The Spurs by every reasonable indicator were the best team in the NBA. The series goes:
Game 1 in San Antonio, Lakers by 14
Game 2 in San Antonio, Lakers by 7
Game 3 in Los Angeles, Lakers by 39
Game 4 in Los Angeles, Lakers by 29
Ummm, what? Do you realize that the Lakers played what seemed to be the toughest team in the league and whipped them by more than 20 points a game in a sweep? Full disclosure, that was the most dominant performance of any team in any series that I tracked and it wasn't close. Teams that good simply don't lose like that.
The Finals matched them up against Allen Iverson and the 76ers, the worst team for the Lakers to play so far (the West was really really strong at this time.). The Lakers only win in five games by 6.8 points per game.
So, the Lakers played one of the hardest schedules in playoff history and lost (wait for it) one game en route to the Championship. And beyond that they completely stomped every team they played. Is this the best team ever? I don't feel comfortable saying that. But best playoff performance ever? Yeah. I'm there.
#2. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +11.8 (1st), Playoffs: +15.07 (3rd), Clutch: +3.27 (27th)
Round 1: Miami Heat (+1.46) by 23 in 3; Dominant
Round 2: New York Knicks (+2.24) by 6.2 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Orlando Magic (+5.4) by 16.7 in 4; Dominant
NBA Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+7.4) by 3.8 in 6; Really Good
This team is the 1927 Yankees of 'NBA Greatest Teams Ever'; nobody really has any idea, but nobody's going to fight you if this is your pick. This is the best Bulls season, when Jordan came back and the Bulls had added Rodman and Kukoc (with Steve Kerr and Ron Harper; holy crap was this team loaded).
So. They lollygag through the regular season (just kidding, they went 72-10 and set the record for the most wins in a season that stood for over two decades).
They match up with a decent Heat team in the first round. Vaporized, 23 points per game.
They weirdly struggled with the Knicks (for some reason the Bulls never seemed to be able to stomp the Ewing and Starks Knicks the way they could everyone else), but still won in 5 by 6.2 points per game.
In the Conference Finals they faced a star-studded team in the Magic. Coming off a 60-win season they featured young Shaquille O'Neal, younger Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant (former Bull). They had swept the Pistons in the first round and taken the Hawks by 6.6 points per game in Round 2. In the preseason betting the Bulls and Magic were #1 and #2 in Championship odds (+350 and +400 respectively). So everyone was expecting a real matchup; Horace Grant was injured but he was only the #3 on his team. After all the Magic had won the East the year before and had an insanely young core; everyone assumed that the Magic would be the team in the East going forward. The Eastern Conference Finals promised to be an incredible battle.
So the Bulls win game one by 38.
Battle over.
The Bulls swept the Magic and moved on to the Finals to face a really, really good Sonics team. The Bulls did not dominate that series; it went to 6 and only had a 3.8 point margin of victory, but against a team as good as Seattle that's still a respectable showing.
Is this the best team ever? It's certainly one of the best (maybe the best) regular season team ever, and they certainly whipped plenty of butts in the playoffs. I'm not about to say this one isn't the best. Buuuuuuut . . .
#1. 2016-17 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +11.35 (2nd), Playoffs: +16.94 (2nd), Clutch: +5.59 (10th)
Round 1: Portland Trailblazers (-0.23) by 18 in 4; Outstanding
Round 2: Utah Jazz (+4.0) by 15 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+7.13) by 16 in 4; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+2.87) by 6.8 in 5; Good
Hokay so. The Warriors won the title in 2015 (#12 on this list). They have an even better year in the next season, breaking the single-season win record, but fall in seven to LeBron and the Cavs in the Finals. Going into the next season the Warriors are the overwhelming favorite to win the championship, with odds at -128. What changed?
They got Kevin Durant.
Not for nothing; they did lost Harrison Barnes in the process (not a huge loss but still counts) and the salary did thin out their bench.
Did I mention that they got Kevin Durant? So they already have Steph Curry (one of the top 3 players in the league), Draymond Green and Klay Thompson, and now they have another Top 5-10 player? Yeah, no wonder they were favored.
They only go 67-15 but crush everyone they play, putting up the 2nd best regular season SRS on this list.
In the first round they play an average Portland team and win by 18 per game. No biggity.
In the second round they play a quality Utah team and win by 15 in 4. Riiiiiight.
In the Conference Finals they play a really, really good Spurs team that featured peak Kawhi Leonard. The Warriors sweep them too by 16 points a game. Yeesh.
So going into the Finals, there really wasn't much of a doubt of what was going to happen. I mean, the Warriors had swept three straight opponents to the tune of 15+ per game.
Then again, the Cavs weren't an ordinary +2.87 SRS team. They had playoff LeBron and playoff LeBron in his 30s is just scary as hell. In fact, here were the Cavs' playoffs so far:
Round 1: Indiana Pacers (-0.64) by 4 in 4; disappointing, but LeBron averages a 33-10-9
Round 2: Toronto Raptors (+3.65) by 15.3 in 4; Outstanding, LeBron averages a 36-8-5
Conference Finals: Boston Celtics (+2.25) by 20 in 5; Dominant, LeBron averages a 30-6-7
So at this point the Cavs have only lost one game and are throwing around a playoff SRS of about +15. Do we really expect the Cavs to tangle with these Warriors? … Maybe?
So what happens? LeBron averages a triple double (34-12-10) and the Warriors still win in five, with an average MOV of 6.8. So if we're counting the Cavs SRS as being only +2.87 then this is still the second best playoffs ever. But if we're treating the Cavs like they're a +10 or +12.5 (which they would be after the Finals) then this playoffs might actually be as good or better than that of the 00-01 Lakers.
When you take a 73 win team and add a superstar like Durant, you get a team like the 16-17 Warriors. They vaporized every single non-great team. And when they played a really, really good Cavs team they still won in five with a strong margin of victory.
I get why people say the 95-96 Bulls. But I think the 16-17 Warriors were better.
The starting point is a basketball-reference stat called SRS, which is basically a margin-of-victory stat that adjusts for strength of schedule. Let me try and give you some context. A team with a 0 SRS is completely average. A +2.0 team is good but not intimidating, generally getting a low seed in the 5-7 range. A +4.0 team is really good but not great; think last year's Celtics or Nuggets, teams that you have to figure for solid seeds (2-6 depending on conference) but you aren't really comfortable picking to win it all. A +6.0 team is very, very good; not truly dominant but capable of winning it all if things play right. Last year's Raptors were +5.5 in the regular season, the Warriors were +6.5. A +8.0 team is very likely the best team in the conference, maybe in the league. This year's Lakers are +7.55 so far, last year's Bucks were +8. And +10 is the mother-lode; only eleven teams ever have put up a 10+ and eight of them won the championship (two of the three that failed were in the same league as another 10+ team). Only 22 teams (since 1976) have put up 8+ SRS seasons; 12 of them won the championship (three of the ten that fell short were in the same league as another 8+). The average championship winner since 1976 has put up an SRS of +6.5.
Anyhow, so that's the starting point.
Obviously I don't want to rely too much on that; plenty of teams dominate in the regular season only to struggle in the playoffs. Plenty of great teams coasted in the regular season only to dominate the playoffs. Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere.
Basically, I wanted to build a playoff SRS, simply comparing the margin of victory to the regular season SRS of the opposition. If you beat a +5 SRS team by five points per game, you should be credited with a +10 SRS for that series. Since the playoffs are usually 20+ games for any championship winner, this gives us a respectable sample size. So I just look at all the championship winner's opposition, compare it to margin of victory to generate a playoff SRS for the team. The average playoff SRS for championship winners is +10.3, which is to say, the average championship winning team plays at what would be an historically great level for the regular season. This is pretty intuitive and consistent with what we would guess.
To make my composite ratings I use 2/3 of the playoff SRS (because the playoffs are what really matters in the NBA) and 1/3 of the regular season SRS (to reduce statistical noise and give less credit to . . . fluky performances). I am only comparing championship winning teams and only from 1975-76 on (because I had to start somewhere, but I wanted most of the teams to have four full rounds of playoff reps). The results are pretty intuitive. Five of the top 15 are Jordan's Bulls teams. Both Magic and Bird have a top 10 appearance. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, NBA 'analysis' is fairly anecdotal so this is fairly sacrilegious in principle.
Flaws? Well, because it relies on margin of victory, there are times where the results seem weird. If you lose by 20 in game 1 and then win games 2 through 5 by 1, on paper it's a win in five games, but in practice you were outscored by 3 points per game which suggests that your victory was a bit lucky. Also, relying on regular season SRS for opponent-measuring is flawed. LeBron's Cavs (2nd edition) routinely put up underwhelming SRSs (+4, +5.5, +2.9 and +0.5) but always put up playoff SRSs that were much higher. So when the Warriors beat the 16-17 Cavs by 6.8 points per game they get credit for a +9.7 showing when in reality the Cavs were probably at least an +10 SRS playoff team (making the win more like +17). But adjusting that stuff is a nightmare, and the earlier rounds have much smaller sample sizes to work with. So we stick to what we have.
Anyhow, as far as the information is presented:
I'll list the team and their rank on this list (out of 43).
I'll list their SRS in the regular season (and its ranking among the 43 championship teams on this list), their Playoff SRS (and its ranking among these teams) and their Clutch rating (which is just their playoff rating minus their regular season rating). Clutch rating is a bit confusing; a 0 clutch rating just means they were just as good as they were in the regular season; for a +10 regular season team a 0 clutch rating isn't embarrassing because that means they were a +10 playoff team, which is just fine. Average clutch for this group is +3.8, average for the top 25 is +4.6, average for the top 10 is +6.
I'll list their playoff rounds with opponent, SRS, Margin of Victory, number of games and a semi-arbitrary adjective to represent their performance.
Here's a sample so I can explain it:
#37. 1983-84 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.42 (21st), Playoffs: +6.79 (40th), Clutch: +0.37 (38th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (-2.36) by 2.7 in 4; Disappointing
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.79) by 8 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.04) by 9 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+3.32) by -2.3 in 7; Disappointing
That First Round should be read: “they played the Bullets, a below average team (-2.36) and won their games by an average of 2.7 points per game and won the series in four games. Given that they only beat a -2.36 team by 2.7 per game this is about a league average result which is disappointing.
Anyhow. Here we go!
#43. 1977-78 Washington Bullets
Regular Season: +0.82 (43rd), Playoffs: +6.42 (41st), Clutch: +5.6 (9th)
Round 1: Atlanta Hawks (-0.13) by 6.5 in 2; Good
Round 2: San Antonio Spurs (+3.2) by 0.2 in 6; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.87) by 3.1 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+1.48) by 6.2 in 7; Good
#42. 1978-79 Seattle Supersonics
Regular Season: +2.69 (41st), Playoffs: +6.38 (42nd), Clutch: +3.69 (24th)
Round 1: N/A
Round 2: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.95) by 3.6 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+3.55) by 0.2 in 7; Disappointing
NBA Finals: Washington Bullets (+4.75) by 4.8 in 5; Good
#41. 1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.81 (33rd), Playoffs: +5.4 (43rd), Clutch: +0.59 (36th)
Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (-5.02) by 10.6 in 3; Good
Round 2: Utah Jazz (+2.96) by 0.9 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+3.59) by 5.8 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Detroit Pistons (+5.46) by -2.6 in 7; Disappointing
For whatever reason, this iteration of Magic's Lakers really struggled in the playoffs. After a three-game sweep of the Spurs (who were awful that year) the Lakers were taken to seven games in each subsequent round. They barely snuck past a solid Utah Jazz team and facing a decent Mavericks team in the Conference Finals the Lakers put up their best series, putting up an average margin of victory of +5.8 (even if the series ran to 7). But the Finals were a disappointment; even if they did end up sneaking a victory over the Pistons, the Lakers were outscored by 2.6 points per game, the worst margin for a winning Finals team since 1978. They won, but it was a lackluster year.
#40. 2005-06 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +3.59 (40th), Playoffs: +7.32 (38th), Clutch: +3.73 (23rd)
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (+0.51) by 3 in 6; Disappointing
Round 2: New Jersey Nets (+1.11) by 6.4 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+6.24) by 5.1 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+5.96) by 1 in 6; Good
Nothing about this team was impressive except the trophy at the end. They spent six games barely sneaking by the average Bulls in the first round. They played well against the Nets (five games, +6.4 MOV) and decently in the Finals (only a +1 MOV against the very good Mavericks). Their best series was actually the Eastern Conference Finals, when they dispatched the Pistons with a +5.1 MOV. Still, little about these playoffs suggest dominance.
#39. 1994-95 Houston Rockets
Regular Season: +2.32 (42nd), Playoffs: +8.52 (30th), Clutch: +6.22 (5th)
First Round: Utah Jazz (+7.76) by +4 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.86) by +0.4 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+5.9) by +1.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Orlando Magic (+6.44) by +7 in 4; Really Good
Hakeem's second ring was a classic 'saving it for the playoffs' situation. The Rockets went only 47-35 in the regular season but turned it on in the playoffs (compared to their regular season), beating strong teams from Utah, Phoenix and San Antonio by 4, 0.4 and 1.7 points per game respectively. Their best showing was in the Finals, when they dispatched the strong Orlando Magic (led by a young Shaquille O'Neal) in a four-game sweep with an impressive margin of victory (+7).
#38. 1993-94 Houston Rockets
Regular Season: +4.19 (37th), Playoffs: +7.84 (36th), Clutch: +3.65 (26th)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+2.6) by 5.2 in 4; Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+4.68) by 5 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Utah Jazz (+4.1) by 4.2 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: New York Knicks (+6.48) by -0.8 in 7; Good
The Rockets that year were a solid team that managed their way through the playoffs pretty well but lacked any particularly dominant wins. The Finals against the Knicks actually saw them outscored overall, which isn't terribly awe-inspiring.
#37. 1983-84 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.42 (21st), Playoffs: +6.79 (40th), Clutch: +0.37 (38th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (-2.36) by 2.7 in 4; Disappointing
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.79) by 8 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.04) by 9 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+3.32) by -2.3 in 7; Disappointing
Larry Bird's second championship was a bit lackluster. The Celtics that year had a strong season (62-20 and a one seed) but had a weak playoffs. Their wins against the Knicks and Bucks were both excellent; big wins against strong teams. But barely edging out a below-average Bullets team isn't great and getting outscored by 2.3 points per game by a Lakers team that, while capable was definitely not their best, isn't a great look.
#36. 1976-77 Portland Trailblazers
Regular Season: +3.78 (38th), Playoffs: +8.15 (32nd), Clutch: +4.37 (16th)
First Round: Chicago Bulls (+0.92) by 6 in 3; Good
Second Round: Denver Nuggets (+4.95) by 1.7 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.64) by 5.8; Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+3.78) by 6.3; Really Good
#35. 2009-10 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.78 (34th), Playoffs: +7.97 (35th), Clutch: +3.19 (28th)
First Round: Oklahoma City Thunder (+3.55) by 1.7 in 6; Good
Second Round: Utah Jazz (+5.33) by 7.3 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+4.67) by 4.2 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+3.37) by 3.5 in 7; Good
Kobe's last championship season was fine but not remarkable in this company. A solid 57-25 season and a one-seed led into three marginal victories over respectable competition. The only impressive win was the whipping of a very strong Jazz team in the second round.
#34. 1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +5.4 (31st), Playoffs: +8.16 (31st), Clutch: +2.76 (31st)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.25) by 2.8 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+4.24) by 4.6 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+4.04) by 5.3 in 6; Good
Magic's Rookie season. Played solidly in the regular season, played solidly in the playoffs against solid teams with solid victories. But nothing overly impressive in this company.
#33. 1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +8.41 (9th), Playoffs: +7.14 (39th), Clutch: -1.27 (42nd)
First Round: Sacramento Kings (+3.04) by 8 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+5.24) by 7.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.36) by -1.9 in 7; Disappointing
NBA Finals: Indiana Pacers (+4.15) by -1.9 in 6; Disappointing
The Lakers ripped through the regular season, throwing up a 67-15 record with impressive margins of victory. But they are one of the few teams in this list that actually seemed to get worse in the playoffs. Their first two rounds were excellent; margins of victory at 7+ against strong opposition is very impressive. But these Lakers were the only team on this list to be outscored in back to back series, by the Blazers and Pacers. They won in the end, but they definitely did not pay off the promise of their regular season dominance.
#32. 2002-03 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +5.65 (27th), Playoffs: +8.63 (29th), Clutch: +2.98 (29th)
First Round: Phoenix Suns (+1.57) by 5.3 in 6; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.71) by 1.8 in 6; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Dallas Mavericks (+7.9) by 5 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: New Jersey Nets (+4.42) by 5.8 in 6; Really Good
Tim Duncan's second ring was won this season. The Spurs went 60-22 and got the one seed but had relatively weak showings early in the playoffs (sure, the Lakers may have been better than their modest regular season numbers but they probably weren't thaaaat much better). However putting up 5+ margin of victory wins against two strong teams in Dallas and New Jersey was a good way to wrap things up.
#31. 2003-04 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +5.04 (32nd), Playoffs: +9.36 (27th), Clutch: +4.32 (19th)
First Round: Milwaukee Bucks (+0.42) by 12.6 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: New Jersey Nets (+1.88) by 3.4 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+4.93) by 2.8 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+4.35) by 9 in 5; Really Good
I don't know what it was about the Pistons managing to win championships without a traditional star. This version had a strong regular season and two strong series, the first and last. The Bucks may have been only average, but a +12.6 margin of victory is excellent. And taking the Lakers (still with Shaq and Kobe) by 9 points per game is a really impressive showing. Still, they could have benefited from better performances against the Nets and Pacers.
#30. 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +7.84 (13th), Playoffs: +8.09 (34th), Clutch: +0.25 (39th)
First Round: Denver Nuggets (+2.23) by 10.2 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Seattle Supersonics (+2.59) by 6.9 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Phoenix Suns (+7.08) by 4.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Detroit Pistons (+3.31) by -1.8 in 7; Disappointing
The Spurs put up an excellent regular season, going 59-23 with a really good SRS. They whipped the Nuggets, beat the Sonics solidly and handled an excellent Phoenix team to make the Finals. But once there they really struggled with the Pistons, managing to win the series but were outscored pretty decently. Obviously the Pistons (defending champs) were better than their +3.31 regular season SRS but the result was still disappointing.
#29. 1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +4.37 (36th), Playoffs: +9.87 (21st), Clutch: +5.5 (11th)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+3.05) by 12.7 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+1.79) by 8.7 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+5.74) by -0.2 in 6; Good
I'd kill for a bigger sample size for this team. That 12.7 margin-of-victory whipping of a good Suns team is the first 'Outstanding' result we've seen in a series so far. The Spurs series was very solid. But basically drawing even with the 76ers (who were pretty good) was a disappointing climax to an otherwise excellent playoffs. Given their comparably weak regular season I'm inclined to dismiss this as a moderate fluke, but that's why I include regular season numbers in the calculation.
#28. 2006-07 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +8.35 (10th), Playoffs: +7.99 (34th), Clutch: -0.36 (41st)
First Round: Denver Nuggets (+1.69) by 6 in 5; Good
Second Round: Phoenix Suns (+7.28) by -0.5 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Utah Jazz (+3.06) by 5.6 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+3.33) by 6 in 4; Good
For a team with a reputation for being clutch, this is the second time we've seen the Spurs turn in a 'nonclutch' playoffs, but still win because they were already so dominant in the regular season. These are four strong results; generally good teams and respectable margins of victory. They were outscored by the Suns, but the Suns were really good. They're a legitimate champion, but I wouldn't brag about this run.
#27. 2007-08 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +9.3 (6th), Playoffs: +7.76 (37th), Clutch: -1.54 (43rd)
First Round: Atlanta Hawks (-2.23) by 12 in 7; Good
Second Round: Cleveland Cavaliers (-0.53) by -1.1 in 7; Bad
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+6.67) by 1.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+7.34) by 8.4 in 6; Outstanding
The Celtics superteam with Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen was a wrecking ball in the regular season, posting a 66-16 record and the 6th best SRS of these teams. But they weirdly struggled in the playoffs. Not terribly; a +7.76 SRS is still pretty good, but it's actually worse than their regular season numbers. No other team of these 43 saw a bigger step back in performance from the regular season to the playoffs. Their two series against the Hawks and Pistons are fine, about at regular season levels. The series against the Cavs was the real turd in the punch bowl; the Cavs were an average team that year but still managed to outscore the Celtics over seven games (and LeBron only averaged a 27-6-8 with 3 steals+blocks). Yeah, it's LeBron, but you don't expect a +9 SRS team to struggle against a team like that. If there's a saving grace it's the Finals that year; the Lakers were really good that year and had gone 12-3 in the playoffs, and the Celtics rolled them by a huge margin; beating your opponent by more than 8 points in the Finals is pretty impressive, especially against a team as good as the Lakers.
#26. 1989-90 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +5.41 (30th), Playoffs: +9.74 (23rd), Clutch: +4.33 (18th)
First Round: Indiana Pacers (-0.18) by 12.3 in 3; Really Good
Second Round: New York Knicks (+0.78) by 11.4 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Chicago Bulls (+2.74) by 3 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.48) by 5 in 5; Really Good
Our first showing with three series at Really Good or better. Those are three really good showings; two blowouts against average teams and one decisive win against a very good team. The only outlier? Only beating the +2.74 Bulls by 3 over seven games doesn't look great. Maybe Jordan's averaging a 32-7-6 and three steals+blocks played a role . . .
#25. 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks
Regular Season: +4.41 (35th), Playoffs: +10.27 (19th), Clutch: +5.86 (6th)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+1.85) by 5.1 in 6; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.01) by 14 in 4; Dominant
Conference Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+3.81) by 4 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Miami Heat (+6.76) by 2.4 in 6; Good
It's notable how the major playoff jump this roster saw isn't the star stepping up; Playoff Dirk was pretty much as good as regular season Dirk. Specifically Jason Terry and Jason Kidd went from being solid above average contributors to really helping to carry the team. It's always interesting how often a championship is won because of subtle improvements of the supporting cast, not from the star.
The entire rating here isn't the product of the win over LeBron's Heat (although that certainly helps). It's their incredible evisceration of Kobe's Lakers. Remember, the Lakers were coming off of two straight NBA championships and had just won 57 games and put up a quality SRS. Going into the season the Heat were the #1 favorite for the Championship (+175) and the Lakers second (+250). The next team was at +1000, so I think it's safe to say that the Lakers were the favorite in the West. So, Game 1 in LA; Mavericks by 2, snuck it out. Game 2 in LA, Mavericks win by 12, not close at all. Game 3 in Dallas, Mavericks by 6. Now we're at elimination game 4, and this is Kobe suiting up for the Lakers so anything can happen. The Mavericks win by 36. The Mavericks dropped the consensus best team in the West by 14 points a game in a straight sweep; it's the first 'Dominant' rated series we've seen so far. That series, and not the victory over the Heat, is why these Mavericks are in the Top 25.
#24. 2018-19 Toronto Raptors
Regular Season: +5.49 (28th), Playoffs: +9.79 (22nd), Clutch: +4.3 (20th)
First Round: Orlando Magic (+0.28) by 14.4 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Philadelphia 76ers (+2.25) by 2.7 in 7; Disappointing
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+8.04) by 1 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Golden State Warriors (+6.42) by 5.7 in 6; Really Good
The Raptors were solid in the regular season but really stepped it up in the playoffs. They vaporized Orlando in Round 1. They struggled with Philadelphia, which wasn't great. But then they faced the Bucks, the best team in the East and knocked them out in six. It was a close series but beating a great team always counts. Their Finals was excellent; they managed to defeat the Warriors pretty decisively in six. That Durant was injured makes this win slightly less impressive but still; Curry+Draymond+Klay Thompson were enough to wreck the NBA for four years.
#23. 2012-13 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +7.03 (19th), Playoffs: +9.15 (28th), Clutch: +2.12 (34th)
First Round: Milwaukee Bucks (-1.83) by 14.7 in 4; Really Good
Second Round: Chicago Bulls (-0.02) by 13.2 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+3.34) by 4 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+6.67) by -0.7 in 7; Good
This team's rating is heavily reliant on its wrecking the Bucks and Bulls so decisively. The other two series, a solid win against Indiana and being outscored slightly by a fierce Spurs team, aren't particularly strong.
#22. 1980-81 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +6.05 (24th), Playoffs: +9.7 (24th), Clutch: +3.65 (25th)
First Round: N/A
Second Round: Chicago Bulls (+2.34) by 8.3 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+7.76) by 1.5 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Houston Rockets (-0.2) by 9.8 in 6; Good
Not overwhelming but strong wins. The two weaker teams (Bulls and Rockets) they beat pretty decisively, and even if they only slipped by the 76ers, Philly was really good that year.
#21. 2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +7.15 (16th), Playoffs: +9.52 (26th), Clutch: +2.37 (33rd)
First Round: Portland Trailblazers (+3.21) by 5.4 in 3; Good
Second Round: San Antonio Spurs (+6.28) by 4.2 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Sacramento Kings (+7.61) by -0.3 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: New Jersey Nets (+3.67) by 9.2 in 4; Really Good
The last part of the Shaq + Kobe threepeat. It was a really stacked set of opponents. In fact, this is the fourth hardest schedule of any champion in this group. While they barely scraped by the Kings, barely getting by a really strong team is still an achievement. The strong win against the Spurs and the sweep of the Nets are both very solid showings.
#20. 1998-99 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +7.12 (17th), Playoffs: +9.61 (25th), Clutch: +2.49 (32nd)
First Round: Minnesota Timberwolves (-0.17) by 6.3 in 4; Good
Second Round: Los Angeles Lakers (+2.68) by 8 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+5.67) by 10.3 in 4; Outstanding
NBA Finals: New York Knicks (+1.45) by 5 in 5; Good
This was Tim Duncan's second year. A pretty good run. It's not the strongest set of opponents, but anytime you can win a championship with only two losses en route is a pretty good deal. The last two Western series are particularly impressive. Those Lakers were the preseason favorites to win it all; they had Shaq and Kobe in his third year. They didn't have a great year but sweeping them by 8 points a game is pretty decisive. And then going on to play the Blazers (who were quite good in their own right) and to whip them by 10 points a game is a decisive showing.
#19. 2011-12 Miami Heat
Regular Season: +5.72 (26th), Playoffs: +10.39 (18th), Clutch: +4.67 (14th)
First Round: New York Knicks (+2.39) by 14 in 5; Outstanding
Second Round: Indiana Pacers (+2.6) by 6.5 in 6; Good
Conference Finals: Boston Celtics (+2.26) by 4.9 in 7; Good
NBA Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+6.44) by 4 in 5; Really Good
LeBron's first championship. Obviously the complete wrecking of the Knicks boosts their ratings a lot, but the Knicks were a decent team; a 14 point margin of victory is not easy to do. Their remaining series were all solid, especially a fairly decisive handling of a very good Oklahoma City team. Every single team from this point out has playoff SRSs of 10 or higher.
#18. 1992-93 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +6.19 (23rd), Playoffs: +10.92 (16th), Clutch: +4.73 (13th)
First Round: Atlanta Hawks (-0.67) by 16.4 in 3; Outstanding
Second Round: Cleveland Cavaliers (+6.3) by 8.5 in 4; Really Good
Conference Finals: New York Knicks (+5.87) by 4.7 in 6; Really Good
NBA Finals: Phoenix Suns (+6.27) by 0 in 6; Good
This was the third Michael Jordan title before he retired (the first time). The Bulls put up a solid (but for them pedestrian) regular season SRS, only going 57-25 for a 2 seed. In the first round they obliterated the Hawks. The next round they played a very good Cavs team and swept them with big margins of victory. In the conference Finals they met the one-seeded Knicks and beat them solidly for another strong win. In the Finals they faced Charles Barkley's Phoenix Suns and met their match, sneaking past them. It was a good playoff set for the Bulls, but they had far better in other seasons. And barely getting by the Suns (who were really good but not great) isn't a good look for a top team.
#17. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
Regular Season: +7.53 (14th), Playoffs: +10.47 (17th), Clutch: +2.94 (30th)
Round 1: N/A
Round 2: New York Knicks (+2.58) by 5.5 in 4; Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.32) by 4.4 in 5; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+5.06) by 10 in 4; Outstanding
This is Moses Malone's semi-famous “Fo Fo Fo” playoffs, even though they didn't actually sweep all three series. The first two series are good performances, but the clear gem here is the Finals. You're facing the defending champs, Magic and Kareem and you sweep them by 10 points a game? Damn! Personally I'm not sure I like this team so high, but I can't shake a stick at that Finals performance.
#16. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons
Regular Season: +6.24 (22nd), Playoffs: +11.17 (13th), Clutch: +4.93 (12th)
Round 1: Boston Celtics (+1.26) by 10.7 in 3; Really Good
Round 2: Milwaukee Bucks (+4.11) by 11.8 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Chicago Bulls (+2.13) by 4.2 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.38) by 6.7 in 4; Really Good
The first of those super-deep Bad Boys Pistons team to win a championship. As with the other Pistons team the only weak spot in their resume is the series against Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Double-digit margins of victory in the first two rounds against decent teams and a sweep of the Lakers (by good margins) is a great way to finish it off.
#15. 2008-09 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +7.11 (18th), Playoffs: +11.09 (15th), Clutch: +3.98 (22nd)
First Round: Utah Jazz (+2.31) by 9.2 in 5; Really Good
Second Round: Houston Rockets (+3.73) by 7.3 in 7; Really Good
Conference Finals: Denver Nuggets (+3.13) by 3.7 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Orlando Magic (+6.48) by 9.4 in 5; Outstanding
Kobe's first Shaqless championship. The first two rounds were really strong performances; they beat solid teams by big margins. But the Finals performance was the real deal. Orlando (led by Dwight Howard) had made it past LeBron's Cavs before getting completely demolished. Orlando was really good and beating them by 9.4 points a game is a fantastic showing.
#14. 1997-98 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +7.24 (15th), Playoffs: +11.59 (11th), Clutch: +4.35 (17th)
First Round: New Jersey Nets (+1.88) by 7.7 in 3; Good
Second Round: Charlotte Hornets (+2.45) by 9.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Indiana Pacers (+6.25) by 4.2 in 7; Really Good
NBA Finals: Utah Jazz (+5.73) by 7.8 in 6; Really Good
This was Jordan's last ring and last year with the Bulls. For a Jordan team their regular season SRS was pretty low. None of the series in the playoffs really stands out. It was a series of workmanlike wins. None of the wins were by less than four points per game (which is a pretty good margin) and their set of opponents was pretty good.
#13. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +10.07 (4th), Playoffs: +10.23 (20th), Clutch: +0.16 (40th)
First Round: Miami Heat (-3.94) by 18 in 3; Really Good
Second Round: New York Knicks (+3.67) by 3.8 in 7; Good
Conference Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+5.34) by 1.8 in 6; Good
NBA Finals: Portland Trailblazers (+6.94) by 7.7 in 6; Really Good
This is one of the sort of weird things about the Jordan Bulls being called “clutch” and about how they “raised their game to another level in the playoffs”. If the Bulls were routinely winning 50 games and then crushing fools en route to a title I could see that. But the Bulls dominated the regular season routinely; this year's version went 67-15 and won ten more games than the next closest team. The threw up a +10 SRS for the season (which, again, is a really impressive feat) and then they threw up a +10 SRS in the playoffs, winning out pretty decisively. Did they show how clutch they were? Did they take their game to the next level? Not really. They were already the best team in the NBA; they just continued to play at that level. It's sort of like how Derek Jeter is a really good “clutch” hitter. I mean, he does hit well in the clutch, but it's 90% because he's already a really good hitter.
#12. 2014-15 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +10.01 (5th), Playoffs: +11.14 (14th), Clutch: +1.13 (35th)
Round 1: New Orleans Pelicans (+1.13) by 8 in 4; Good
Round 2: Memphis Grizzlies (+3.62) by 8 in 6; Really Good
Conference Finals: Houston Rockets (+3.82) by 8.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+4.08) by 7.2 in 6; Really Good
The first year of the Warriors dynasty. Steph Curry was already fantastic but Draymond Green and Klay Thompson took a big step forward and suddenly the Warriors were the best team in the league. In retrospect it seems obvious, but this team was given a one in thirty or so chance of winning it all in the preseason. So they rip through everyone, go 67-15 with massive margins of victory. They hit the playoffs and just roll over everyone without stopping. Not a single series with a margin of victory lower than 7 points per game; that's nuts. A naysayer would argue that this isn't really a particularly tough set of opponents (which is true) but look at the teams above the Warriors on this list. Whipping through a playoffs like this is really hard to do. The Warriors were the best team in the NBA during the regular season and nothing in the playoffs went one inch closer to proving that notion wrong. Still, there are better teams coming up.
#11. 1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +6.48 (20th), Playoffs: +13.08 (9th), Clutch: +6.6 (4th)
Round 1: Phoenix Suns (-2.34) by 20.3 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Portland Trailblazers (+2.8) by 11 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Denver Nuggets (+2.05) by 12.2 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+6.47) by 2.6 in 6; Good
The second best iteration of the Showtime Lakers. Those margins of victory in the first three rounds are nuts. Sure, they're not the toughest teams, but taking anyone by 20 is nuts, and taking solid teams like Portland and Denver by double digits is really, really impressive. Granted that their showing against the Celtics is only pretty good, but overall this is an exceptional playoff performance (9th overall apparently).
#10. 1996-97 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +10.7 (3rd), Playoffs: +11.22 (12th), Clutch: +0.52 (37th)
First Round: Washington Bullets (+1.77) by 6 in 3; Good
Second Round: Atlanta Hawks (+5.52) by 7.8 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Miami Heat (+5.56) by 8.8 in 5; Really Good
NBA Finals: Utah Jazz (+7.97) by 0.6 in 6; Good
This was another iteration of the Bulls ripping through the regular season and then doing equally well in the playoffs. Those wins against the Hawks and Heat are excellent. Wouldn't mind a better finish against the Jazz, but this team gets credit for having such a dominant regular season.
#9. 2015-16 Cleveland Cavaliers
Regular Season: +5.45 (29th), Playoffs: +13.97 (5th), Clutch: +8.52 (2nd)
Round 1: Detroit Pistons (+0.43) by 8.5 in 4; Good
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+3.49) by 12.5 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Toronto Raptors (+4.08) by 15.5 in 6; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Golden State Warriors (+10.38) by 0.5 in 7; Really Good
Yeah, this was a really, really good playoffs. The win over the Pistons was fine; 8.5 is a good margin. But then you have a very decent Hawks team get crushed by 12.5 points per game. Then you get a solid Raptors team and win by, wait for it, 15 points a game? What!? You may wonder how a margin of victory like that goes to six games. Here's the breakdown:
Game 1, in Cleveland, Cavs by 31
Game 2, in Cleveland, Cavs by 19
Game 3, in Toronto, Raptors by 15
Game 4, in Toronto, Raptors by 6
Game 5, in Cleveland, Cavs by 38
Game 6, in Toronto, Cavs by 26
So that's how you do it. When you win, you win by at least 19 points. That's three wins against a good team by 25 points or more. Holy balls. As for the Finals, sure, they barely beat Golden State. But Golden State was really freaking good already (setting the record for regular season wins and whatnot). Just winning is a big accomplishment. My system thinks that this is the 5th best playoff performance since the mid 70s and I'm not about to argue with it. The Cavs get penalized here for a comparably weak regular season.
#8. 2017-18 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +5.79 (25th), Playoffs: +13.89 (6th), Clutch: +8.1 (3rd)
Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (+2.89) by 8.8 in 5; Really Good
Round 2: New Orleans Pelicans (+1.48) by 8.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Houston Rockets (+8.21) by 9 in 7; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+0.59) by 15 in 4; Outstanding
This is the last year of the Curry + Durant combo, when they had lost their edge and were still really good. This is the first playoffs we've seen where every series is rated Really Good or better. The best achievement was that win against the Rockets; Houston had been really, really good that year and the Warriors took them out very decisively (even if it did take seven games). As for the Cavs, that roster was on fumes of fumes, but LeBron averaged a 34-9-10 with efficient shooting and the Warriors still swept and won every game by 15. Absolutely brutal.
#7. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +8.32 (11th), Playoffs: +12.73 (10th), Clutch: +4.41 (15th)
Round 1: Denver Nuggets (-1.14) by 27.4 in 3; Dominant
Round 2: Golden State Warriors (-2.54) by 10.6 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+0.08) by 11.3 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Boston Celtics (+6.57) by 4.2 in 6; Really Good
The best of the Showtime Lakers. Much of their rating comes from the complete obliteration of the Nuggets in the first round. All of the subsequent rounds are nowhere near at that level. You could argue that their quality of opposition is low (and in-conference it sure was) but when you're winning every game by 10+ points that makes for a pretty strong showing in any case. And a 4 point MOV against the Celtics (who were always very good) is a very strong way to finish things out.
#6. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
Regular Season: +9.06 (7th), Playoffs: +13.18 (8th), Clutch: +4.12 (21st)
Round 1: Chicago Bulls (-3.12) by 13.7 in 3; Really Good
Round 2: Atlanta Hawks (+2.59) by 9.6 in 5; Really Good
Conference Finals: Milwaukee Bucks (+8.69) by 15 in 4; Dominant
NBA Finals: Houston Rockets (+2.1) by 6.2 in 6; Good
The best of the Larry Bird Celtics. They had a very strong regular season and then rolled through the playoffs. The Bulls may have a bad rating but Michael Jordan averaged a 44-6-6 (with efficient shooting) and the Celtics still won by 14 a game. The next round they faced a solid Hawks team and whipped them by ten points a game. The Conference Finals was weird; the Bucks had thrashed the rest of the East pretty hard but the Celtics had won every regular season matchup and their playoff series was no different. The Celtics obliterated the Bucks by 15 points a game, which would be impressive against a weak team, much less a very strong team. The Finals against the Rockets is a bit misleading; Hakeem Olajuwon had missed a lot of games during the regular season so the Rockets numbers are artificially depressed. Also, Hakeem always played out of his mind in the playoffs (he averaged a 25-12-2 with 5.5 blocks+steals in the Finals) so the Rockets were definitely tougher than the +2.1 rating. And I could see moving this team up. Still. Bill Simmons would not be happy with me.
#5. 2013-14 San Antonio Spurs
Regular Season: +8.0 (12th), Playoffs: +13.79 (7th), Clutch: +5.79 (7th)
Round 1: Dallas Mavericks (+2.91) by 2 in 7; Disappointing
Round 2: Portland Trailblazers (+4.44) by 13.4 in 5; Outstanding
Conference Finals: Oklahoma City Thunder (+6.66) by 10.5 in 6; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Miami Heat (+4.15) by 14 in 5; Outstanding
Did I just put the 13-14 Spurs ahead of the 85-86 Celtics? Heck yes I did. So these Spurs were pretty solid during the regular season (62-20 and a 1 seed) but nobody was looking at them to win it all. The top two preseason favorites to win it all were the Heat and Thunder; the Spurs were 6th in the betting. But of course, this was the year that Kawhi Leonard ascended from being merely another very strong Spurs role-player into being one of the best players in the league, especially in the playoffs. When the playoffs started the Mavericks really gave them a hard time. Sure, the Mavs at +2.91 were an unusually good 8-seed, but the Spurs really struggled to close that series out. At that point absolutely nobody was taking them seriously (I remember this season very well if it doesn't show).
In the second round they match up with a strong Portland team and absolutely crush them, winning the series by 13.4 points per game. That wasn't hugely impressive to everyone (though it should have been); Portland wasn't seen as a real threat. But the Oklahoma City Thunder definitely were; remember that the Thunder were the team from the West picked to win it all by most bettors. So who would come out in this clash of the titans?
Game 1 in San Antonio, Spurs by 17
Game 2 in San Antonio, Spurs by 35 (uh oh)
Game 3 in Oklahoma City, Thunder by 9
Game 4 in Oklahoma City, Thunder by 13
Game 5 in San Antonio, Spurs by 28
Game 6 in Oklahoma City, Spurs by 5
The Thunder were the fashionable pick to win it all from the West; they had two stars in their prime in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. And the Spurs absolutely wrecked them. Do you know how many times the Thunder lost by more than 15 points that season? Three. The Spurs put up that many in six games, two of them by 25+ points. Absolutely brutal.
So now the Spurs advance to rematch themselves against the Heat who beat them the prior year. Everyone still favored the Heat, but after seeing OKC fall people were becoming a little bit wary of betting against the Spurs. Sure enough, the Spurs proceed to obliterate the Heat in five by 14 a game. I'll tell you right now, those last three series are about as good as you'll see from any team ever. In this group I'd say it's the third best set of three series. But I just want to emphasize, a playoffs that good is really, really rare. The Spurs deserve their place here.
#4. 1990-91 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +8.57 (8th), Playoffs: +14.22 (4th), Clutch: +5.65 (8th)
Round 1: New York Knicks (-0.43) by 20 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Philadelphia 76ers (-0.39) by 8.8 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Detroit Pistons (+3.08) by 11.5 in 4; Really Good
NBA Finals: Los Angeles Lakers (+6.73) by 9.8 in 5; Outstanding
So the Bulls had made the Eastern Conference Finals twice in a row, each year losing to the Pistons. This year they go into season as the #2 team in the East, considered to have half the chance of winning the Championship that the Pistons did. In the West the Lakers were the preferred team, still featuring the excellent Magic Johnson and boasting a capable supporting cast. As with Steph Curry, the subtle change that happened to take Jordan to the Finals didn't actually involve Jordan. With three seasons under their belt Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant took big steps forward and suddenly the Bulls were really, really good, going 61-21 and finishing first in the conference.
The first round was an overmatched Knicks team; the Bulls annihilated them by 20 a game. Great win.
The second round was an equally mediocre 76ers team that the Bulls actually struggled with (just kidding, they won by 9 points a game, but compared to the rest of the playoffs it was a weak spot).
But then the Bulls were matched up against the Pistons. The team that had dispatched them the prior three years. The Pistons had only won 50 games, but customarily saved themselves for the playoffs with an extra gear. Would history repeat itself? Not really; the Bulls crushed them by 11.5 points a game in a clean sweep. The era of the Pistons was over and the Bulls were in the Finals for the first time against Magic Johnson and the Lakers.
Going into the Finals, the Hot Takes from the Talking Heads at the time were generally that Jordan was an exceptional player, but that he didn't know what it took to win and he would struggle in the Finals against Magic (you may remember similar things being said about LeBron during later days in Cleveland). So of course the Bulls annihilate the Lakers by ten points a game in a five game romp. Nobody could mistake Jordan and the Bulls for anything but the best player and team in the league.
#3. 2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers
Regular Season: +3.74 (39th), Playoffs: +18.21 (1st), Clutch: +14.47 (1st)
Round 1: Portland Trailblazers (+4.52) by 14.7 in 3; Outstanding
Round 2: Sacramento Kings (+6.07) by 9.2 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+7.92) by 22.2 in 4; HolyMotherlovingWhatTheHeck
NBA Finals: Philadelphia 76ers (+3.64) by 6.8 in 5; Really Good
So. 39th best Regular Season, absolute best Playoffs. I'll be honest; the reason I made the rating formula 1/3 regular season and 2/3 playoffs is because if I kept it all playoffs then this team would be #1 by a mile, and I wasn't totally comfortable with that. Maybe I'm weak-willed.
Anyhow, let's set the mood. It's 2000. The Lakers have just won the NBA Finals over the Indiana Pacers. They feature arguably the best pure player in the league at his peak in Shaquille O'Neal (just coming off averaging a 30-14-4 with 3 blocks in the regular season and a 31-15-3 in the playoffs) and a young star still improving in Kobe Bryant. They go into the 2000-01 season the prohibitive favorite to win the Finals. So what do they do? They mail in the season. They open the season 48-26 before going on an 8-game win streak to close things out. The record was solid (good enough for a two-seed) but their merely good SRS (6th in the West) suggested that they weren't at the height of their powers.
In Round 1 they meet the Portland team that had been the #2 most favored team to win the Finals and proceed to mash them to the tune of 14.7 points a game. I want to be clear, this was a really good team and the Lakers vaporized them.
In Round 2 they face the Sacramento Kings who were having a great year; the Lakers sweep them and win the series by 9.2 points per game. What?
So. The Conference Finals put them against the Spurs who won the Finals only two years before (#20 on this list). This team featured two Hall of Famers, Tim Duncan with three years of experience and David Robinson, slowing down but still really good. The Spurs by every reasonable indicator were the best team in the NBA. The series goes:
Game 1 in San Antonio, Lakers by 14
Game 2 in San Antonio, Lakers by 7
Game 3 in Los Angeles, Lakers by 39
Game 4 in Los Angeles, Lakers by 29
Ummm, what? Do you realize that the Lakers played what seemed to be the toughest team in the league and whipped them by more than 20 points a game in a sweep? Full disclosure, that was the most dominant performance of any team in any series that I tracked and it wasn't close. Teams that good simply don't lose like that.
The Finals matched them up against Allen Iverson and the 76ers, the worst team for the Lakers to play so far (the West was really really strong at this time.). The Lakers only win in five games by 6.8 points per game.
So, the Lakers played one of the hardest schedules in playoff history and lost (wait for it) one game en route to the Championship. And beyond that they completely stomped every team they played. Is this the best team ever? I don't feel comfortable saying that. But best playoff performance ever? Yeah. I'm there.
#2. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
Regular Season: +11.8 (1st), Playoffs: +15.07 (3rd), Clutch: +3.27 (27th)
Round 1: Miami Heat (+1.46) by 23 in 3; Dominant
Round 2: New York Knicks (+2.24) by 6.2 in 5; Good
Conference Finals: Orlando Magic (+5.4) by 16.7 in 4; Dominant
NBA Finals: Seattle Supersonics (+7.4) by 3.8 in 6; Really Good
This team is the 1927 Yankees of 'NBA Greatest Teams Ever'; nobody really has any idea, but nobody's going to fight you if this is your pick. This is the best Bulls season, when Jordan came back and the Bulls had added Rodman and Kukoc (with Steve Kerr and Ron Harper; holy crap was this team loaded).
So. They lollygag through the regular season (just kidding, they went 72-10 and set the record for the most wins in a season that stood for over two decades).
They match up with a decent Heat team in the first round. Vaporized, 23 points per game.
They weirdly struggled with the Knicks (for some reason the Bulls never seemed to be able to stomp the Ewing and Starks Knicks the way they could everyone else), but still won in 5 by 6.2 points per game.
In the Conference Finals they faced a star-studded team in the Magic. Coming off a 60-win season they featured young Shaquille O'Neal, younger Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant (former Bull). They had swept the Pistons in the first round and taken the Hawks by 6.6 points per game in Round 2. In the preseason betting the Bulls and Magic were #1 and #2 in Championship odds (+350 and +400 respectively). So everyone was expecting a real matchup; Horace Grant was injured but he was only the #3 on his team. After all the Magic had won the East the year before and had an insanely young core; everyone assumed that the Magic would be the team in the East going forward. The Eastern Conference Finals promised to be an incredible battle.
So the Bulls win game one by 38.
Battle over.
The Bulls swept the Magic and moved on to the Finals to face a really, really good Sonics team. The Bulls did not dominate that series; it went to 6 and only had a 3.8 point margin of victory, but against a team as good as Seattle that's still a respectable showing.
Is this the best team ever? It's certainly one of the best (maybe the best) regular season team ever, and they certainly whipped plenty of butts in the playoffs. I'm not about to say this one isn't the best. Buuuuuuut . . .
#1. 2016-17 Golden State Warriors
Regular Season: +11.35 (2nd), Playoffs: +16.94 (2nd), Clutch: +5.59 (10th)
Round 1: Portland Trailblazers (-0.23) by 18 in 4; Outstanding
Round 2: Utah Jazz (+4.0) by 15 in 4; Outstanding
Conference Finals: San Antonio Spurs (+7.13) by 16 in 4; Outstanding
NBA Finals: Cleveland Cavaliers (+2.87) by 6.8 in 5; Good
Hokay so. The Warriors won the title in 2015 (#12 on this list). They have an even better year in the next season, breaking the single-season win record, but fall in seven to LeBron and the Cavs in the Finals. Going into the next season the Warriors are the overwhelming favorite to win the championship, with odds at -128. What changed?
They got Kevin Durant.
Not for nothing; they did lost Harrison Barnes in the process (not a huge loss but still counts) and the salary did thin out their bench.
Did I mention that they got Kevin Durant? So they already have Steph Curry (one of the top 3 players in the league), Draymond Green and Klay Thompson, and now they have another Top 5-10 player? Yeah, no wonder they were favored.
They only go 67-15 but crush everyone they play, putting up the 2nd best regular season SRS on this list.
In the first round they play an average Portland team and win by 18 per game. No biggity.
In the second round they play a quality Utah team and win by 15 in 4. Riiiiiight.
In the Conference Finals they play a really, really good Spurs team that featured peak Kawhi Leonard. The Warriors sweep them too by 16 points a game. Yeesh.
So going into the Finals, there really wasn't much of a doubt of what was going to happen. I mean, the Warriors had swept three straight opponents to the tune of 15+ per game.
Then again, the Cavs weren't an ordinary +2.87 SRS team. They had playoff LeBron and playoff LeBron in his 30s is just scary as hell. In fact, here were the Cavs' playoffs so far:
Round 1: Indiana Pacers (-0.64) by 4 in 4; disappointing, but LeBron averages a 33-10-9
Round 2: Toronto Raptors (+3.65) by 15.3 in 4; Outstanding, LeBron averages a 36-8-5
Conference Finals: Boston Celtics (+2.25) by 20 in 5; Dominant, LeBron averages a 30-6-7
So at this point the Cavs have only lost one game and are throwing around a playoff SRS of about +15. Do we really expect the Cavs to tangle with these Warriors? … Maybe?
So what happens? LeBron averages a triple double (34-12-10) and the Warriors still win in five, with an average MOV of 6.8. So if we're counting the Cavs SRS as being only +2.87 then this is still the second best playoffs ever. But if we're treating the Cavs like they're a +10 or +12.5 (which they would be after the Finals) then this playoffs might actually be as good or better than that of the 00-01 Lakers.
When you take a 73 win team and add a superstar like Durant, you get a team like the 16-17 Warriors. They vaporized every single non-great team. And when they played a really, really good Cavs team they still won in five with a strong margin of victory.
I get why people say the 95-96 Bulls. But I think the 16-17 Warriors were better.