Ranking the NBA Finals Teams:1-10

Fredsmooth21

New member
Joined:
Jun 1, 2010
Posts:
97
Liked Posts:
15
Location:
Chicagoland
It's interesting hollinger picks the 72-10 team as the greatest. Jordan himself said he thought the first 3 peat teams were better than the last three. And leave it up to Hollinger to come up with some ridiculous formula to come up with the answer. Everything is numbers to this guy. He needs to get laid.
 
Last edited:

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
35,968
Liked Posts:
44,533
Kind of hard to argue with the best record ever to go along with a dominant post season that resulted in a championship. There was a great article a couple years back on how that team is without a doubt the greatest ever. Ill try to look for it later.
 

FedEx227

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
508
Liked Posts:
148
Location:
Downers Grove, IL
Here's what he said:

John Hollinger said:
My premise was to look at three factors in rating greatness: regular-season performance, postseason performance and, finally, whether the team won a championship.

In greater detail:

John Hollinger said:
For both the regular season and playoffs, I looked at two factors: win-loss record and average scoring margin. Every regular-season win was worth two points, with the 1999 participants having their wins prorated to an 82-game season. Similarly, every playoff win was worth four points, but each playoff loss docked a team four points -- this helped differentiate between champions who went 15-2 (like the 1991 Bulls) and those who went 15-9 (like the 1988 Lakers).

For scoring margin, I took the team's season scoring margin and divided by 15; basically, a one-point-per-game increase was worth 5.47 points in this formula. For playoff scoring margin, I did the same thing but multiplied by four -- since most teams played about four times as many regular-season games as playoff games, this made the two virtually equal.

Finally, I added 15 points to the score of each team that won a championship. Why 15? First, because that amount meant that every champion rated ahead of the runner-up from the same season, and second, because the valuation seemed about right -- the same as 7.5 regular-season wins.

From there, only one other tweak was necessary: adjusting for those teams in the earlier years that didn't have as many early-round playoff games in which to rack up points. Teams that didn't play a first-round series got 12 extra points; teams that played a best-of-three got six points; teams that played a best-of-five got three points. That's an approximation, obviously, but it mirrored what other teams in their situation actually did.

So again, people do this a lot with Hollinger articles, he's not necessarily giving his opinion but rather creating a formula and using that to judge and rank.
 

FedEx227

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
508
Liked Posts:
148
Location:
Downers Grove, IL
And leave it up to Hollinger to come up with some ridiculous formula to come up with the answer. Everything is numbers to this guy. He needs to get laid.

Yes, who would've thought the forefather of APBRmetrics, writer of Basketball Prospectus and the man who created the Player Efficiency Rating would be asked by ESPN to use numbers in his basketball writing.

He has a wife and kids, pretty sure he's been laid before.

A far cry from the 99.9% of others (including myself) who use statistics thus obviously have never known a woman's touch.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
35,968
Liked Posts:
44,533
I hate Hollinger and his ridiculous formulas to calculate whats good or bad. We can all work equations to our liking to support our opinions...Though some of us dont get paid to bull shit.
 

Fredsmooth21

New member
Joined:
Jun 1, 2010
Posts:
97
Liked Posts:
15
Location:
Chicagoland
Yes, who would've thought the forefather of APBRmetrics, writer of Basketball Prospectus and the man who created the Player Efficiency Rating would be asked by ESPN to use numbers in his basketball writing.

He has a wife and kids, pretty sure he's been laid before.

A far cry from the 99.9% of others (including myself) who use statistics thus obviously have never known a woman's touch.
I was being sarcastic in my response.

With that said, you actually take his PER seriously? Do you think it accurately measures how good a players is? Kobe Bryant is 15th in her per, with guys like David Lee and Greg Oden ahead of him. Sorry but not everything can be measured by stats. That's part of the problem I have with most of his formulas. At times he seems to over think things.
 

FedEx227

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
508
Liked Posts:
148
Location:
Downers Grove, IL
Yeah, what an asshole. He should probably just kill himself.

Let's all go read Bill Simmons articles now.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
35,968
Liked Posts:
44,533
Simmons may be a huge Boston homer, but he's given us some love as of late from what ive read.
 

Fredsmooth21

New member
Joined:
Jun 1, 2010
Posts:
97
Liked Posts:
15
Location:
Chicagoland
Bill Simmons, at times is entertaining, but for the most part he's gone stale. At least Hollinger's articles make for great discussion regardless of what you think of his formulas.
 

FedEx227

New member
Joined:
Apr 19, 2010
Posts:
508
Liked Posts:
148
Location:
Downers Grove, IL
I was being sarcastic in my response.

With that said, you actually take his PER seriously? Do you think it accurately measures how good a players is? Kobe Bryant is 15th in her per, with guys like David Lee and Greg Oden ahead of him. Sorry but not everything can be measured by stats. That's part of the problem I have with most of his formulas. At times he seems to over think things.

It shouldn't be used as a be-all, end-all. I think it's okay...I'm not a giant fan of it overall though.

The reason Kobe suffers is because missed shots and turnovers. Like +/- it's not entirely meant to rank the players exactly to their skill level. It's about the efficiency of their play throughout the course of a team. Of course Kobe is legendary, but because of his very high volume of missed shots he isn't really the most efficient scorer.
 

CODE_BLUE56

Ded
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Apr 18, 2010
Posts:
19,727
Liked Posts:
4,700
Location:
Texas
yea i dont like bill simmons sometimes he has some good stuff

like when he pwned rasheed

but he is a big celtics homer

plus he has a blind hate for duke for some reason
 

RamiTheBullsFan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
9,505
Liked Posts:
1,745
1. 96 bulls
2. 97 bulls
3. 92 bulls
4. 91 bulls
5. 98 bulls
6. 93 bulls
7. 87 lakers
8. 86 celtics
9. 01 lakers
10. 08 celtics

xD
 

Chi-Town Brahma

New member
Joined:
Jun 2, 2010
Posts:
2,376
Liked Posts:
264
Location:
1407 Graymalkin Lane
Ranking NBA Finals teams, from best to worst - ESPN

1. 1996 CHICAGO BULLS
4. 1991 CHICAGO BULLS
5. 1997 CHICAGO BULLS
7. 1992 CHICAGO BULLS

Not to be biased or anything but i think we should have ranked 1-6, with the next 4 years w/ Lebron filling out 7-10.

Bulls '92, '96 & '97 are my top 3 for our team. Outside of any phenomenal Celtics & Lakers title teams the Bulls are a no brainer.
 

Top