Rankings: Top 5 Dynasties Ever
1. 90's Bulls. Tough to put them over the 60's Celtics. A couple reasons I did. They never lost in the finals. They have the greatest player ever. Greatest coach ever. And they were possibly the greatest defensive team ever, especially for the final three. 6 appearances, 6 rings.
2. 60's Celtics. Yeah, they reached the finals more than the Bulls, and have more ships, but I feel it was easier back then for a team to win. The competition the Bulls had to deal with was greater than what the Celtics had to deal with. Close, but I'm putting the Celtics behind the Bulls. 12 appearances, 11 rings.
3. 80's Lakers. Lead by Magic and Kareem, this team was special. The best PG ever, and arguably the greatest center ever. Throw in Worthy and Pat Riley as coach, you've got something special. 9 appearances, 5 rings.
4. 00's Lakers. When I first thought about the top 5, I really wasn't thinking the 00's Lakers. When I went back and looked at their accomplishments, they're pretty outstanding. With two top 10 players ever, and the greatest coach ever (again), they deserve their spot. 7 appearances, 5 rings.
5. 80's Celtics. Tough one here. I thought it was a tossup between them and the 00's Spurs. Greatest SF ever, a very well rounded team that complimented each other well, and I had to give them the edge over the Spurs. 5 appearances, 3 rings.
Thoughts? Your rankings?
Not in my top 5 but an underrated team is the Pistons in 89 and 90. Thomas, Dumars, Agguire, Mahorn, Lambier then Rodman and the Microwave Vinnie Johnson. Just a team based on defense and won as a team. Chuck Daly deserves a lot of credit.
I agree. Had I done a top 10 they would have made it, probably somewhere in the 7-9 range. Had they played in a different era they probably would have more ships, but they had to deal with a very talented Eastern Conference during those years.
You consider the 5 rings of Kobe one dynasty? Considering that he one the first three with a totally different team than the last two...
You can look at it from both sides, I decided to include them even with different players. Kobe, Phil, and Derek Fisher were a part of both. Even if you take the later ones out, they had 4 appearance and 3 ships. In doing so I'd move them down a slot to 5th while putting the 80's Celtics 4th.
I would put the spurs in my top 5 but just me. You can argue either way.
i would go:
1 - magic's lakers (longevity makes the lakers on top of the rival.)
2 - bird's celtics (magic vs bird saved basketball, but imagine how many rings either would have if they didn't have to go through each other!)
3 - jordan's bulls (mass majority puts this at the top. hard to argue, but hard to argue the 2 above to.)
4 - phil jackson's lakers (phil jackson goes back to back on this list.)
5 - tim duncan's spurs (pretty close to lakers, and still going)
6 - russell's celtics (as stated, great team but the era wasn't as strong.)
7 - early 80s 76ers (maybe the most talented group of individuals on a team.)
8 - miami heat right now (still going strong with a chance to move up, this team is definitely among the greatest.)
9 - olajuwon's rockets (yeah they didn't beat jordan, but jordan never beat them either, while they both beat the suns, blazers and knicks to win it all before.)
10 - isiah's pistons (solid back to back champions, but never beat the lakers with magic in the lineup.)
Have you actually looked at the teams that Russell's Celtics faced? The quality of basketball may not have been as good, but in a smaller league, the teams were much more loaded. Six Lakers teams with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor lost to the Celtics in the Finals (and Baylor lost one other time before West entered the league). The Hawks teams they beat had Pettit, Hagan, and other good players. The SF Warriors team had Chamberlain and Thurmond. And that is just the Finals matchups. They also contended with Chamberlain with the Phil. Warriors (with Arizin and Gola) and Phil. 76ers (with Hal Greer) and Royals teams with Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas. Again, the quality of basketball may not have been as good, but the teams were stacked.
disagree that they were "loaded" at all. not many players even had great shooting percentages (by then the nba was just cracking +.400 percent field goals on every average player which we would laugh at today), there was only one real coach, and yeah you can name hall of famers, but every team had there best players, best players are going to load stats. the evolution of basketball wasn't even close to the rapid movement that came through the merger. the percentage of hall of famers in an 8 or 10 team league should be high. i put the celtics at 6 generously, as i ranked my rankings (remember my list was my rankings as his is his and yours is yours, so i'm not saying anyone's wrong which is why negging a list or an idea is ludacris to me) according to what team i think would be the best match up against the other dynasty. if russell's celtics faced the lakers dynasty for example, they would get beat in a playoff series. that's the criteria i went off of. while i get your point, based off the criteria i was going off, i disagree.
I agree with your original list. As an honorable mention I would include the Minneapolis Lakers who won 4 of the first 5 championships from 1950 to 1954 as well as the last championship in the previously existing BAA in 1949. They were led by George Mikan, the most dominant player in the league at the time but also had two other hall of famers in the frontcourt Jim Pollard and Vern Mikkelson and a hall of fame PG in Slater Martin in the backcourt. They might not be the best but they were without a doubt the league's first dynasty.
would you include the globe trotters if they were eligible?
1. Russell's Celtics. 11 rings in 13 years.
2. Jordan's Bulls. 6 rings in 8 years. 72 wins and two 3 peats.
3. Magic and Showtime. 5 rings in a dominant decade.
4. Bird and the celtics: 3 rings in the decade and went to the Finals seemingly every year. Great team in '86.
5. Shaq/Kobe Lakers: 3 straight and four finals appearances in five years. Looked dominant too.
I too thought the 2000s Lakers wouldn't crack the top 5. You can make a case for the Spurs replacing them (either one seems fine). They didn't have a "meh" season like the Lakers did from 2005 to 2007, but the 2001 Lakers were so dominant in the postseason.
Does that and two extra rings overtake a decade of the Spurs winning 50+ games every season and being so close to getting to the Finals in 2004 and 2006? Either side has a good case IMO. Regardless, whenever they play each other I still think of the Twin Towers taking on Shaq and Kobe.