Discussion about Super Teams

[celticsclay]

There has been a lot of discussion of super teams lately. It came up when Lebron said he never played for a super team following the game 5 loss.

https://sports.yahoo.com/lebron-james-said-dont-believe-ive-played-super-team-funny-184625120.html

Draymond came back and made fun of him yesterday at the rally saying "bro you started the super team"

Lebron continued this with another response today arguing about some teams that were superteams before him. This is where he got really bizarre calling the team with a super old Barkley, Drexler and Olajuwon in 96-97 the first super team (it is really strange because that team finished 3rd in their conference, Drexler was a year away from retirement and they only made the Conference Final)
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19653204/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers-says-start-superteam-era-nba

Do others agree with Lebron's assessment that this was the first super team?
My take would be that the Heat really were the first super team with 3 in their prime all stars joining together in free agency to play multiple years. However, some do it feel it was the Celtics getting Allen, KG and Pierce together for the back end of their career.

[Moranis]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

[Who]

The 1997 Rockets were not a super team.

[KGs Knee]

NBA history is littered with super teams going all the way back to the 60's.

It's nothing new. That's just the way the NBA works. I don't understand why people feel like this is some new phenomenon. Does no one pay attention to the history of the game anymore?

[celticsclay]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

So then the 2 teams James mentions are not superteams? None of Hakeem, Barkley or Drexler was in their prime on that team. Drexler certainly was not a year away from retirement and averaging 18 a game. The Lakers team he mentioned Malone was a year away from retirement (though he was still good) and Payton was obviously not in his prime.

It is tough to say Ray Allen was in his prime as a Celtics. He was still a very good player, but he was coming off a season with surgeries on both his ankles and a lot of people thought he was kind of cooked? Does it also matter that KG was 32 or so and had played 12 seasons already?

Wade was the only one nearing the back end of his career when the heat formed. Bosh and Lebron were at their absolute apex.

Good point about the 69 Lakers, that seems like it would certainly qualify. I think most people are kind of restricting this to the modern era though because the rules, free agency, and numbers of teams and everything else are kind of impossible to compare.

[celticsclay]

NBA history is littered with super teams going all the way back to the 60's.

It's nothing new. That's just the way the NBA works. I don't understand why people feel like this is some new phenomenon. Does no one pay attention to the history of the game anymore?

I mean the players themselves have all talked about it being a very different NBA. I believe Magic and Bird said something about, despite being good friends off the court, they never considered joining up and really wanted to beat each other. I don't have the list of all of them, but there is a long list of players that have come out and made similar remarks. Isiah Thomas and Jordan never wanted to join up etc.

The concept of friends like Wade and Lebron and Bosh joining together through free agency is in fact a new phenomenon. Carmelo, Paul and Wade and James wishing to play together because they are friends off the court is a new phenomena.  I believe they have also commented on things being different because now people play on these AAU teams together (which bird, magic,  I believe did not, correct me i am wrong). So this has led to some guys being friends and wanting to team up that previously did not have those ties and friendships and viewed them more as rivals. Do you really not believe this is a change?

By the way KG Knee, I enjoyed the Warriors parade  yesterday . I got some pretty nice pictures of the event. Kind of weird I was at it since you seem to think I hate them so much.

[KGs Knee]

I don't think the manner in which super teams are formed has much of any bearing on what constitutes a super team.

They have occurred before, and they will in the future. That much is certain.

[Moranis]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

So then the 2 teams James mentions are not superteams? None of Hakeem, Barkley or Drexler was in their prime on that team. Drexler certainly was not a year away from retirement and averaging 18 a game. The Lakers team he mentioned Malone was a year away from retirement (though he was still good) and Payton was obviously not in his prime.

It is tough to say Ray Allen was in his prime as a Celtics. He was still a very good player, but he was coming off a season with surgeries on both his ankles and a lot of people thought he was kind of cooked? Does it also matter that KG was 32 or so and had played 12 seasons already?

Wade was the only one nearing the back end of his career when the heat formed. Bosh and Lebron were at their absolute apex.

Good point about the 69 Lakers, that seems like it would certainly qualify. I think most people are kind of restricting this to the modern era though because the rules, free agency, and numbers of teams and everything else are kind of impossible to compare.

The Rockets weren't, but as I said the 00 Lakers were arguable because Shaq and Kobe were both top 5 players in the league (like Jordan and Pippen).  Unlike the Bulls though which added Rodman who was still in his prime Malone and Payton were older, which is where the arguable part enters the discussion. 

That said, I'm inclined to place both the 00's Lakers and the various Spurs teams as super teams.  I just think Shaq and Kobe were just so good that it is hard to not call them a super team.  I mean each won titles without the other after those teams.  The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili (or swap Robinson for Leonard) also seem to fit that bill.  So I would put both of them in that category. 

So for me the super teams are

60's - Boston, Los Angeles
80's - Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
90's - Chicago
00's - Los Angeles, San Antonio, Boston
10's - Miami, San Antonio, Golden State

And these are the teams I'd listen to arguments on but I don't have as super teams
60's - Philadelphia
70's - Milwaukee
80's/90's - Detroit
10's - Cleveland

[celticsclay]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

So then the 2 teams James mentions are not superteams? None of Hakeem, Barkley or Drexler was in their prime on that team. Drexler certainly was not a year away from retirement and averaging 18 a game. The Lakers team he mentioned Malone was a year away from retirement (though he was still good) and Payton was obviously not in his prime.

It is tough to say Ray Allen was in his prime as a Celtics. He was still a very good player, but he was coming off a season with surgeries on both his ankles and a lot of people thought he was kind of cooked? Does it also matter that KG was 32 or so and had played 12 seasons already?

Wade was the only one nearing the back end of his career when the heat formed. Bosh and Lebron were at their absolute apex.

Good point about the 69 Lakers, that seems like it would certainly qualify. I think most people are kind of restricting this to the modern era though because the rules, free agency, and numbers of teams and everything else are kind of impossible to compare.

The Rockets weren't, but as I said the 00 Lakers were arguable because Shaq and Kobe were both top 5 players in the league (like Jordan and Pippen).  Unlike the Bulls though which added Rodman who was still in his prime Malone and Payton were older, which is where the arguable part enters the discussion. 

That said, I'm inclined to place both the 00's Lakers and the various Spurs teams as super teams.  I just think Shaq and Kobe were just so good that it is hard to not call them a super team.  I mean each won titles without the other after those teams.  The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili (or swap Robinson for Leonard) also seem to fit that bill.  So I would put both of them in that category. 

So for me the super teams are

60's - Boston, Los Angeles
80's - Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
90's - Chicago
00's - Los Angeles, San Antonio, Boston
10's - Miami, San Antonio, Golden State

And these are the teams I'd listen to arguments on but I don't have as super teams
60's - Philadelphia
70's - Milwaukee
80's/90's - Detroit
10's - Cleveland

Wait how are the Spurs super teams? Ginobli only made 2 all-star games his entire career (and they were 6 years apart). The 98-99 Spurs team the 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs was Mario Elie with 11 points. I don't think anyone would call that anything close to a super team.

Their next championship team in 2003 Robinson was a role player. Their second best player was Tony Parker averaging 15.5 points as a 20 year old. Nobody in the world would call that a super team right?

Their next championship in 2005 their second leader scorers were Parker and Manu. But Parker did not make the All star team and those guys were topping out at 16 points a game. They had one superstar in Duncan and that is it.

Their next in 2007 it was again Parker, Manu and Duncan. Are you arguing Parker averaging 20 points and 6 assists was now a superstar? Ginobli did not make the all-star team and was a good role player averaging 16 points a game (similar to like Avery Bradley).

Finally your 2014 spurs champions didn't have one single superstar on it. They had 6 guys averaging between 10 and 16 and are usually used as an example of the a team winning without a single superstar (which is the opposite of your entire definitely).

So where in the world did you get the Spurs when they were the complete opposite of what you were talking about this whole time. You are saying Cleveland wasn't this year, but they had 3 all stars, which none of those other teams for the Spurs even had... very perplexing.

I got to say Moranis I am completely baffled

[Moranis]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

So then the 2 teams James mentions are not superteams? None of Hakeem, Barkley or Drexler was in their prime on that team. Drexler certainly was not a year away from retirement and averaging 18 a game. The Lakers team he mentioned Malone was a year away from retirement (though he was still good) and Payton was obviously not in his prime.

It is tough to say Ray Allen was in his prime as a Celtics. He was still a very good player, but he was coming off a season with surgeries on both his ankles and a lot of people thought he was kind of cooked? Does it also matter that KG was 32 or so and had played 12 seasons already?

Wade was the only one nearing the back end of his career when the heat formed. Bosh and Lebron were at their absolute apex.

Good point about the 69 Lakers, that seems like it would certainly qualify. I think most people are kind of restricting this to the modern era though because the rules, free agency, and numbers of teams and everything else are kind of impossible to compare.

The Rockets weren't, but as I said the 00 Lakers were arguable because Shaq and Kobe were both top 5 players in the league (like Jordan and Pippen).  Unlike the Bulls though which added Rodman who was still in his prime Malone and Payton were older, which is where the arguable part enters the discussion. 

That said, I'm inclined to place both the 00's Lakers and the various Spurs teams as super teams.  I just think Shaq and Kobe were just so good that it is hard to not call them a super team.  I mean each won titles without the other after those teams.  The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili (or swap Robinson for Leonard) also seem to fit that bill.  So I would put both of them in that category. 

So for me the super teams are

60's - Boston, Los Angeles
80's - Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
90's - Chicago
00's - Los Angeles, San Antonio, Boston
10's - Miami, San Antonio, Golden State

And these are the teams I'd listen to arguments on but I don't have as super teams
60's - Philadelphia
70's - Milwaukee
80's/90's - Detroit
10's - Cleveland

Wait how are the Spurs super teams? Ginobli only made 2 all-star games his entire career (and they were 6 years apart). The 98-99 Spurs team the 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs was Mario Elie with 11 points. I don't think anyone would call that anything close to a super team.

Their next championship team in 2003 Robinson was a role player. Their second best player was Tony Parker averaging 15.5 points as a 20 year old. Nobody in the world would call that a super team right?

Their next championship in 2005 their second leader scorers were Parker and Manu. But Parker did not make the All star team and those guys were topping out at 16 points a game. They had one superstar in Duncan and that is it.

Their next in 2007 it was again Parker, Manu and Duncan. Are you arguing Parker averaging 20 points and 6 assists was now a superstar? Ginobli did not make the all-star team and was a good role player averaging 16 points a game (similar to like Avery Bradley).

Finally your 2014 spurs champions didn't have one single superstar on it. They had 6 guys averaging between 10 and 16 and are usually used as an example of the a team winning without a single superstar (which is the opposite of your entire definitely).

So where in the world did you get the Spurs when they were the complete opposite of what you were talking about this whole time. You are saying Cleveland wasn't this year, but they had 3 all stars, which none of those other teams for the Spurs even had... very perplexing.

I got to say Moranis I am completely baffled

Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Leonard (if he continues) are all first ballot HOFers.  They would all have much better stats if they weren't playing together for all those years.  I mean Manu went for 21/6/4 during the 05 playoffs.  That is what his talent always was, he was just a 16/4.4/4 guy during the regular season that year.  I mean Bosh was a 18.3/7.5 guy the 4 seasons in Miami (with James), but that doesn't mean Bosh wasn't really a 24/11 type player.

Duncan is the greatest PF in history.  He was paired with multiple other 1st ballot HOFers in his and their primes.  That is a super team, but because it was Duncan, who is quiet, and the Spurs who just weren't exciting no one thinks of them that way, but you don't have a dynasty if you aren't a super team. 

[celticsclay]

Basically I consider a super team a team that would be considered among the best of all time that has multiple first ballot HOFers in their prime.

I'd say the first super team that involved a core where not everyone was drafted was the 69 Lakers, which added Wilt to Baylor and West.  I mean the 68 Lakers lost to the Celtics in the Finals and then they added Wilt (only to lose again to the Celtics in 69). The Celtics of the 60's were also obviously a super team, but they drafted all of the main pieces.  The Sixers of the 60's were a great team with Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, and despite that 68 win season and title, I wouldn't call them a super team as only Wilt really had the cache.  The 70 Bucks led by Kareem added Oscar and won the 71 title, but I struggle to put them as a super team with really just 2 HOFers (Kareem and Oscar). 

The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers in the 80's were all super teams.  The Pistons are arguable as they had 3 HOFers, but I wouldn't ever consider them in the greatest of all time discussion.  The Bulls were likely a super team with the best player and a top 5 player of the day on the same team (which is where a team like the 70 Bucks can enter the discussion).  That also creates a bit of a gray area on the early 00's Lakers and the Spurs.

The Celtics with KG, PP, and Ray probably have to be considered a super team.  The Heat were.  The Warriors are.  The Cavs are in that gray area with the Bucks, 00 Lakers, Pistons, Spurs.  Great teams, title winners, but just not sure they hit that super team level.

So then the 2 teams James mentions are not superteams? None of Hakeem, Barkley or Drexler was in their prime on that team. Drexler certainly was not a year away from retirement and averaging 18 a game. The Lakers team he mentioned Malone was a year away from retirement (though he was still good) and Payton was obviously not in his prime.

It is tough to say Ray Allen was in his prime as a Celtics. He was still a very good player, but he was coming off a season with surgeries on both his ankles and a lot of people thought he was kind of cooked? Does it also matter that KG was 32 or so and had played 12 seasons already?

Wade was the only one nearing the back end of his career when the heat formed. Bosh and Lebron were at their absolute apex.

Good point about the 69 Lakers, that seems like it would certainly qualify. I think most people are kind of restricting this to the modern era though because the rules, free agency, and numbers of teams and everything else are kind of impossible to compare.

The Rockets weren't, but as I said the 00 Lakers were arguable because Shaq and Kobe were both top 5 players in the league (like Jordan and Pippen).  Unlike the Bulls though which added Rodman who was still in his prime Malone and Payton were older, which is where the arguable part enters the discussion. 

That said, I'm inclined to place both the 00's Lakers and the various Spurs teams as super teams.  I just think Shaq and Kobe were just so good that it is hard to not call them a super team.  I mean each won titles without the other after those teams.  The Spurs with Robinson, Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili (or swap Robinson for Leonard) also seem to fit that bill.  So I would put both of them in that category. 

So for me the super teams are

60's - Boston, Los Angeles
80's - Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
90's - Chicago
00's - Los Angeles, San Antonio, Boston
10's - Miami, San Antonio, Golden State

And these are the teams I'd listen to arguments on but I don't have as super teams
60's - Philadelphia
70's - Milwaukee
80's/90's - Detroit
10's - Cleveland

Wait how are the Spurs super teams? Ginobli only made 2 all-star games his entire career (and they were 6 years apart). The 98-99 Spurs team the 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs was Mario Elie with 11 points. I don't think anyone would call that anything close to a super team.

Their next championship team in 2003 Robinson was a role player. Their second best player was Tony Parker averaging 15.5 points as a 20 year old. Nobody in the world would call that a super team right?

Their next championship in 2005 their second leader scorers were Parker and Manu. But Parker did not make the All star team and those guys were topping out at 16 points a game. They had one superstar in Duncan and that is it.

Their next in 2007 it was again Parker, Manu and Duncan. Are you arguing Parker averaging 20 points and 6 assists was now a superstar? Ginobli did not make the all-star team and was a good role player averaging 16 points a game (similar to like Avery Bradley).

Finally your 2014 spurs champions didn't have one single superstar on it. They had 6 guys averaging between 10 and 16 and are usually used as an example of the a team winning without a single superstar (which is the opposite of your entire definitely).

So where in the world did you get the Spurs when they were the complete opposite of what you were talking about this whole time. You are saying Cleveland wasn't this year, but they had 3 all stars, which none of those other teams for the Spurs even had... very perplexing.

I got to say Moranis I am completely baffled

Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Leonard (if he continues) are all first ballot HOFers.  They would all have much better stats if they weren't playing together for all those years.  I mean Manu went for 21/6/4 during the 05 playoffs.  That is what his talent always was, he was just a 16/4.4/4 guy during the regular season that year.  I mean Bosh was a 18.3/7.5 guy the 4 seasons in Miami (with James), but that doesn't mean Bosh wasn't really a 24/11 type player.

Duncan is the greatest PF in history.  He was paired with multiple other 1st ballot HOFers in his and their primes.  That is a super team, but because it was Duncan, who is quiet, and the Spurs who just weren't exciting no one thinks of them that way, but you don't have a dynasty if you aren't a super team.

i can't believe you are serious with this.

Ginobli is only making the HOF because of his play in Europe. He was not a hall of fame NBA player. He made two all-star games his entire Career. He never even made an all nba 1st or second team, and made the 3rd team twice.  So the most in their prime NBA hall of famer these Spurs team ever had was 2. When Duncan was still a star Parker was not a star yet. The Spurs are literally held up as an example of team winning with great teamwork and passing and NOT because of star power. I mean why not even get more ridiculous and point out they had Tracy McGrady a Hall of Famer as their victory cigar one year. Lol. Come on Moranis. Even for you. lol


PS: The only way you can make this argument funnier is if you call the Pistons championship team a super team.

[tarheelsxxiii]

The knowledge of basketball history in this thread...

[Moranis]

I just think a team that has won at least 61% of their games every season for the last 20 years, 13 of which were greater than 70%, that has 5 titles during that stretch and for most of that time were led by the greatest PF in league history is pretty much the definition of a super team.  I mean the Spurs were basically a 60 win team and then added Duncan to that team.