ESPN's Hollinger rates NBA Finals teams of past 30 yrs.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Spurs have 3 of the top 19? That's interesting. (There's no way that the 1999 Spurs were better than the 2005 Spurs. And I doubt they were better than the 2003 Spurs.)

[/ QUOTE ]

In all of the spurs championships, have they ever beat a team that won it all?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Pistons may have won before, I can't remember.

[blindside]

"In 97 the Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 with winning margins of 2,12,2 and 4 points. Bulls beat the Jazz 4-2 in 98 playoffs with 3 of their wins coming by 5,4 and 1 point respectively. Not exactly "rolled". "

well game 3 against the jazz they did roll them by like 40 points... they were up 3-1.. jazz won a must win... and the bulls closed out in salt lake...

i'll admit i used the term 'rolled' loosely... but there weren't many instances where it was in doubt that the bulls were going to win... maybe during the closing minutes of game 6...

[oe39]

kobe/shaq teams get screwed for tanking during the season

[DrewDevil]

I've always thought the '83 Sixers (Fo', Fo', Fo') were the greatest team I'd ever seen, and they're ranked 9th in this poll. Hard to argue against the 72 win Bulls, I admit, but I think the league was tougher in '83.

[CarlSpackler]

Does this guy actually think any of those Bulls teams could beat the 80's Lakers or Celtics teams in a 7 game series? Because I've never met anyone IRL or online, who was old enough to have actually seen those Lakers/Celtics teams play (i.e. early 30's or older), who has ever claimed this. This includes Bulls fans that have conceded they would lose to those teams as well. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's old enough to have seen the 80's Lakers/Celtics play that both of those squads were better than the 90's Bulls teams. I mean Boston had significantly better matchups at 4 out of the 5 positions vs. the Bulls (SG was the exception).

Also, the 3 point line was moved in for the 72 win Bulls team, and the league was really watered down at that point (this was before the mass influx of foreign players which improved the talent in the league dramatically). Those teams definitely have an * by them, because the rules changes made it easier for them.

P.S. The '83 Sixers would definitely be a favorite over any of those Bulls teams too, ftr.

[secretprankster]

Spackler, rofl.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this guy actually think any of those Bulls teams could beat the 80's Lakers or Celtics teams in a 7 game series? Because I've never met anyone IRL or online, who was old enough to have actually seen those Lakers/Celtics teams play (i.e. early 30's or older), who has ever claimed this. This includes Bulls fans that have conceded they would lose to those teams as well. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's old enough to have seen the 80's Lakers/Celtics play that both of those squads were better than the 90's Bulls teams. I mean Boston had significantly better matchups at 4 out of the 5 positions vs. the Bulls (SG was the exception).

Also, the 3 point line was moved in for the 72 win Bulls team, and the league was really watered down at that point (this was before the mass influx of foreign players which improved the talent in the league dramatically). Those teams definitely have an * by them, because the rules changes made it easier for them.

P.S. The '83 Sixers would definitely be a favorite over any of those Bulls teams too, ftr.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 37 and it's an interesting question.

Obv. Jordan would be a tremendous matchup problem for anyone. The Lakers' 2 guard was Byron Scott/Michael Cooper, and certainly they would have put Coop on MJ. Cooper was an all-defensive player but nobody could stop Jordan at the peak of his powers.

The Celtics had Dennis Johnson at the 2 and he was a good defensive player too, but MJ would still have lit them up.

Of course, the Bulls would have had all kinds of trouble defending either of those teams as well. Magic would run wild against whatever warm body the Bulls had at PG, and Kevin McHale would destroy anyone in the low post. I also tend to think Bird would get his, even against Pippen, whom I've always thought was an overrated defender.

So I would take either of those teams and the 83 Sixers over those Bulls teams.

[mattsey9]

[ QUOTE ]
If he just went back a few more years, Hollinger would've run into one of the worst NBA Finals teams ever - the 1975 Golden State Warriors, perhaps the least talented team to win an NBA title in the last 40-50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he could have included one of the best teams around that nobody remembers: the 1975 Kentucky Colonels.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
and Kevin McHale would destroy anyone in the low post.


[/ QUOTE ]
Even Dennis Rodman?

Hollinger's method isn't really intended to see which team was the best team ever, but what team did the best in a season. As others mentioned, the Lakers and Celtics teams of the 80s are punished for playing against tougher teams than the Bulls did.

[kidcolin]

Any great offensive player is going to "get his" against even the best defenders, but Pippen would do a great job versus Bird and Magic. In fact, taking Jordan off Magic and putting Pippen on him was a key step in the Bulls beating the Lakers. So sure, Pippen couldn't hold Magic to single figures in the stat column, but Magic wouldn't run wild either. If Pippen has to guard Worthy, Harper is no slouch.

Spackler, I think you're mostly full of 80s lovefest bias. I'm not saying the Bulls would cake walk over either team, but they wouldn't have "no shot". The 72 win Bulls had 4 great defensive players in their starting lineup, with MJ, Pippen, and Rodman all considered to among the greatest defensive players ever.

On top of that, they had Michael Jordan.

Crazy freakish stat: Rodman averaged 15 boards per game playing 33 mpg. Rodman would also make Kareem cry, guaranteed.