NBA's Greatest Teams (Sporting News)

Sporting News named the NBA's top ten greatest teams of all time, with the 1996 Bulls coming in at number one. The full top ten were as follows:

1. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
2. 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers
3. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
4. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
5. 1964-65 Boston Celtics
6. 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers
7. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
8. 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks
9. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
10. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons

As always, one can dispute the order but at a glance that looks like a pretty solid top ten to me. Off the top of my head, the 2001 Lakers perhaps at least deserve an honourable mention for the way they stormed through the Playoffs.

I guess they're only allowing one team for an "era"? I wonder how they decided any of this.

2008 Celtics, 2007 Spurs, 2000 Lakers, 1970 Knicks are notable omissions. All of them better than the 1989 Pistons.

If you don't care about if a team won a title, the 1986 Bucks, 1991 Blazers, 1994 Sonics, 1997 Jazz and 2009 Cavaliers all just completely beat up on people during the regular season.

The 1971 Bucks are way, way, way too low, they completely vaporized everyone that season AND during the playoffs. They would have won 70 too but they rested everyone before the playoffs.

Seems they stuck with championship teams but I think that's about it, since they included both the 1992 and 1996 Bulls.

But not the 1991 or 1997 Bulls.

True. I suppose they made some cuts when there were repeat champions with similar rosters. Otherwise I'm guessing you could probably argue in favour of a few of the Celtics teams from the 60s rather than picking just one.

No mention of any of the Spurs teams. The 2000 do Lakers deserve a mention. I find it funny how there are no modern era teams on that list. This list has to be biased.

I think 1985-86 Boston Celtics should be no. 2

I find it funny how there are no modern era teams on that list. This list has to be biased.

There are some pretty damn good teams on that list though. That's not to say you couldn't argue for more recent teams but it's some tough competition.

I think it's a fair notion though. Can we say, of the 1986 Celtics or 1965 Celtics or 2008 Celtics who was really the best of them? You just wind up with the silly era debate. And there is no reason to assume the current era is worse than the past or that the 2008 Celtics would not beat every team on list.

We can't even argue with their support for the picks, it's just a list. (Although a Bulls fan in the comments is glad it's now official the Bulls are the best team ever.)

You can discredit almost every team on the list in some manner, the Bulls played in the expansion/Hell Draft era, the 65 Celtics and 67 Sixers played in the run and chuck era and the Celtics were below average offensively for THAT era, the 70s teams played in a divided league, the Pistons came after the Lakers/Celtics died off and before the Bulls ascended.

I mean even if you took the teams and transplanted them in a hypothetical time-traveling matchup, you can make a case the 2008 Celtics would have crushed the 1965 Celtics. The 2008 Celtics are one of the best defenses of all time, the 1965 Celtics are likely the best defense of all time. Yet the 2008 Celtics would be vastly more superior on the offensive end and have all sorts of athletic, size and technological advantages. And that's not even asking if we give the 2008 Celtics a three point line, which the 1965 Celtics never had to defend against, or which defensive rules we're going with, and so on.

I mean even if you took the teams and transplanted them in a hypothetical time-traveling matchup, you can make a case the 2008 Celtics would have crushed the 1965 Celtics. The 2008 Celtics are one of the best defenses of all time, the 1965 Celtics are likely the best defense of all time. Yet the 2008 Celtics would be vastly more superior on the offensive end and have all sorts of athletic, size and technological advantages. And that's not even asking if we give the 2008 Celtics a three point line, which the 1965 Celtics never had to defend against, or which defensive rules we're going with, and so on.

But 1986 Celtics can Crush 2008 Celtics look at it:Bird threw world class entry passes and doubled as a dead eye shooter.McHale had World Class,One of the best low post moves,He commanded Double and Triple Teams.Ainge,a Shooter.DJ,one of the best Defending Guard Ever.Throw in the Walton/Parish Combo and they be dominating.

i would love to see the 86 vs 08 celtics, would be a great match up but benji is right, there are way to many "what ifs". like he said what rules do you use? who is to say given the advances in todays tech that the 86 team would not have been just as athletic as the 08 team?

best way i guess is to just compare what they were then give a rule set. in todays game bird could probably get to the line 20 times a game so there is 18 points you are sure to give up at least. kevin was an amazing post player but kg was an amazing defender.

personally i think the 86 team was better but i say that because they had bird who is head and shoulders above anyone else on either roster imo. the bird/pierce match up would be the biggest mismatch of the 5 imo though rondo would run circles around the 86 team.

rondo would run circles around the 86 team.

Possibly, though they had a pretty good shot blocker waiting at the rim in Parish. They could probably contain Rondo much the same way teams currently do, daring him to shoot or putting him at the line.

rondo would run circles around the 86 team.

DJ can contain Rondo in '86.
I think McHale/Garnett is the best match up there.

I'd put Wilt's Lakers first, and sub the '69-'70 Knicks for the Pistons.

rondo would run circles around the 86 team.

Possibly, though they had a pretty good shot blocker waiting at the rim in Parish. They could probably contain Rondo much the same way teams currently do, daring him to shoot or putting him at the line.

i am sure thats how they would handle him. besides what ever advantage he might have on offense would be overshadowed by birds advantage over pierce

rondo would run circles around the 86 team.

DJ can contain Rondo in '86.
I think McHale/Garnett is the best match up there.

depends on what rules you use. by todays standards you cant breathe on rondo or its a foul. back in 86 he would have eaten the floor on more than one occasion


i also think something that gets over looked far too often is the coaching. this years mavs should remind us all what good coaching can do. i always liked rivers as a coach

2008 Celtics, 2007 Spurs, 2000 Lakers, 1970 Knicks are notable omissions. All of them better than the 1989 Pistons.

...or the '72-'73 Celtics. I believe they won 68 games that season, but were upset by the Knicks in the playoffs.

Also, the '95-'96 Bulls may have won more games, but the first three-peat Bulls were better top-to-bottom and faced tougher competition. Id say the '91-'92 Bulls were the best.

depends on what rules you use. by todays standards you cant breathe on rondo or its a foul. back in 86 he would have eaten the floor on more than one occasion

Rondo could probably survive back then. He showed in the recent playoffs that he can still play despite having only one arm.

What about Cavaliers 2010-11 or Bulls 98-99?

The Cavs from 08-10 whopped almost every team(except Boston or Orlando) by 20 plus points..I think they should be somewhere on the list.

What about Cavaliers 2010-11 or Bulls 98-99?

LeBron's last couple of Cavs teams certainly had great regular seasons, but in terms of the talent on their roster and their modest playoff success, I'm not sure I'd rate them top ten. I'm guessing you mean the Bulls of 1997 and 1998, because the 1998/99 (lockout season) Bulls were cellar dwellers.

the 1998/99 (lockout season) Bulls were cellar dwellers.

So were the 10-11 Cavs, what with LeBron being in Miami and all. No idea what Badger's on about.

I figured he was talking about the 2009 and 2010 Cavs teams and wrote last season by mistake. In regards to the Bulls, I'm guessing he mixed up the second two championships of the latter threepeat.

Or he's making a joke.

That too, I guess. Kind of uninspired if so.

It is Badger.