Say OKC wins the title

[Moranis]

So lets just say the Thunder win the NBA Title this year.  Not totally out of the question, but to do so the Thunder would almost certainly have to beat the Spurs or Warriors in the WCS, the other one in the WCF, and then the Cavs in the Finals. 

That would have to be the greatest playoff run ever, and if the Thunder are able to do it, would you then put them among the greatest teams of all time?

[Donoghus]

So lets just say the Thunder win the NBA Title this year.  Not totally out of the question, but to do so the Thunder would almost certainly have to beat the Spurs or Warriors in the WCS, the other one in the WCF, and then the Cavs in the Finals. 

That would have to be the greatest playoff run ever, and if the Thunder are able to do it, would you then put them among the greatest teams of all time?

Having one of the greatest playoff runs ever doesn't necessarily make you one of the greatest teams of all time.

We've seen teams get hot at the right time in sports and tear off amazing playoff runs.   Doesn't necessarily put them in the annals of greatest teams ever, though.  You have to look at the whole body of work which includes the regular season.  Also, if OKC beats a dinged up SA or GSW and beats them, that most likely would diminish the view of things.

[Moranis]

Well I used OKC because they are currently 31-12 which is a 72.1%, which equates to 59.122 wins (actually slightly better than Cleveland right now who is 28-11 or 71.8%).  So, they would have a very strong win total and then have a playoff run like one no one has seen.

[Donoghus]

Well I used OKC because they are currently 31-12 which is a 72.1%, which equates to 59.122 wins (actually slightly better than Cleveland right now who is 28-11 or 71.8%).  So, they would have a very strong win total and then have a playoff run like one no one has seen.

That regular season win total; 59-60 wins wouldn't even put them in the top 50 all-time best regular season records in NBA history.

Greatest playoff runs? Yes.

One of the greatest teams ever? No.

[Vox_Populi]

Yeah, I think so. Context isn't always applied when critiquing teams, but to overcome two, maybe three, 60 win teams to win the title vaults you into elite status.

The '09 Cavs won 66 games, the 07 Mavs won 67. How many people would put them over the 56 win '01 Lakers or 47 win '95 Rockets? Probably no one. Winning a title matters more when judging teams than record. A dominant run, like those Lakers, or an unexpected one, like those Rockets, helps even more.

[guava_wrench]

So lets just say the Thunder win the NBA Title this year.  Not totally out of the question, but to do so the Thunder would almost certainly have to beat the Spurs or Warriors in the WCS, the other one in the WCF, and then the Cavs in the Finals. 

That would have to be the greatest playoff run ever, and if the Thunder are able to do it, would you then put them among the greatest teams of all time?

Not at all. Upsetting better teams does not make you better. A single title with a pedestrian W-L is not among the greatest of all time.

[PhoSita]

OKC winning the title would require epic performances from Durant and Westbrook, and would also likely require winning playoff series against, in succession, the Warriors and Spurs and then the Cavaliers.


That would have to be one of the most impressive playoff runs ever, unless some major injuries are involved in their favor.

A great playoff run does not make a great team, though.

The 2010 Celts had a nice playoff run despite falling short of a title.  I'd say they were far from a great team, though.  Even the 2008 team probably falls short of being a "great" team just because they struggled so much to beat some lesser playoff opponents (e.g. Hawks), and benefited from a Bynum injury and the Lakers still getting used to playing with Pau.

The 2009 Celtics was the team in the KG era with a shot at being All-Time Great, but sadly KG hurt his knee and that was basically it for the KG Celts as a top title contender (though the improbable dark horse run in 2012 will always have a place in my heart).

[guava_wrench]

Well I used OKC because they are currently 31-12 which is a 72.1%, which equates to 59.122 wins (actually slightly better than Cleveland right now who is 28-11 or 71.8%).  So, they would have a very strong win total and then have a playoff run like one no one has seen.

Lot's of teams have beat excellent teams in the playoffs. But, by definition, the team with the best record in the league can't beat the team with the best record (unless they have the same record). That is why the initial premise is so faulty. When the Bulls won 72 games, of course their competition in the playoffs wasn't as good as they were. They were that great.

Go undefeated in the playoffs, then we can talk. Score a string of upsets and you are just a dramatic Cinderella story, but not an all time great team.

[Donoghus]

Well I used OKC because they are currently 31-12 which is a 72.1%, which equates to 59.122 wins (actually slightly better than Cleveland right now who is 28-11 or 71.8%).  So, they would have a very strong win total and then have a playoff run like one no one has seen.

Lot's of teams have beat excellent teams in the playoffs. But, by definition, the team with the best record in the league can't beat the team with the best record (unless they have the same record). That is why the initial premise is so faulty. When the Bulls won 72 games, of course their competition in the playoffs wasn't as good as they were. They were that great.

Go undefeated in the playoffs, then we can talk. Score a string of upsets and you are just a dramatic Cinderella story, but not an all time great team.

Boom.  Nailed it.  I'm not sure I'd call OKC a Cinderella team, per se, but totally with you on the gist of your argument.

[PhoSita]

Uhm, if you beat this Warriors team and this Spurs team in some order, and then beat LeBron James in the Finals, I wouldn't downplay that as "a string of upsets."

The Warriors and Spurs are each historically great teams, and that Cavs team is talented enough that it might be the best team in the league in an average season.

Again, a great playoff run doesn't make a great team, necessarily, but that would be a huge mark on Durant's and Westbrook's resumes.

[Donoghus]

Uhm, if you beat this Warriors team and this Spurs team in some order, and then beat LeBron James in the Finals, I wouldn't downplay that as "a string of upsets."

The Warriors and Spurs are each historically great teams, and that Cavs team is talented enough that it might be the best team in the league in an average season.

Again, a great playoff run doesn't make a great team, necessarily, but that would be a huge mark on Durant's and Westbrook's resumes.

If you're a 59 win 3 seed and you go ahead and knock off SA, GSW, & CLE, that's one heckuva playoff run and, arguably, the greatest postseason run (resume) of all time.  Given the seeding, however, I can certainly see how people could downplay the "upset" factor, though.  This isn't exactly a sub .500 8 seed going on playoff tear, either.

But that's digressing a bit from the original post on the topic.

[guava_wrench]

Uhm, if you beat this Warriors team and this Spurs team in some order, and then beat LeBron James in the Finals, I wouldn't downplay that as "a string of upsets."

The Warriors and Spurs are each historically great teams, and that Cavs team is talented enough that it might be the best team in the league in an average season.

Again, a great playoff run doesn't make a great team, necessarily, but that would be a huge mark on Durant's and Westbrook's resumes.

I agree with your final line.

The earlier stuff is just spinning events.

[Endless Paradise]

No one really looks at the 2011 Mavs as one of the greatest teams ever. They sputtered into the postseason with a 4-3 record in April. They were a 4% favorite in Vegas to win the title, behind all of the Lakers, the Heat, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Thunder, and the Magic.

It'd be an amazing playoff run, but I think the distinction of "greatest teams ever" necessarily includes the entirety of the regular season and the postseason. You have your teams like the 2011 Mavs, who had a relatively pedestrian regular season (57-25, 3rd seed), but then had an amazing postseason marked by ridiculous comebacks in every single round. You have your other teams like the aforementioned 2007 Mavs, who flamed out in the first round after winning 67 games and having their best player win MVP. Truly great teams should show a consistent level of dominance throughout the entire year.

Short of OKC going on a Warriors or Spurs-like run and finishing the second half of the season something like 37-2, I think, at best, they'll have to settle for "one of the greatest playoff runs ever," much like how we look at the 2014 Spurs.

[Moranis]

Uhm, if you beat this Warriors team and this Spurs team in some order, and then beat LeBron James in the Finals, I wouldn't downplay that as "a string of upsets."

The Warriors and Spurs are each historically great teams, and that Cavs team is talented enough that it might be the best team in the league in an average season.

Again, a great playoff run doesn't make a great team, necessarily, but that would be a huge mark on Durant's and Westbrook's resumes.

If you're a 59 win 3 seed and you go ahead and knock off SA, GSW, & CLE, that's one heckuva playoff run and, arguably, the greatest postseason run (resume) of all time.  Given the seeding, however, I can certainly see how people could downplay the "upset" factor, though.  This isn't exactly a sub .500 8 seed going on playoff tear, either.

But that's digressing a bit from the original post on the topic.

Yeah that is the point, the Thunder are on pace for right around 60 wins and then would have to beat 3 teams right around or above 60 wins. 

Last year only two teams won at least 60 games (the Hawks and Warriors).  Year before that only the Spurs won 60 games.  08/09 was the last time three teams won at least 60 games. 

So it isn't like 60 win teams happen a lot and if that 60 win team ends up beating three 60 win teams on the way to a title, I'm not sure how anyone wouldn't put them in the all time great category. 

[Donoghus]

So it isn't like 60 win teams happen a lot and if that 60 win team ends up beating three 60 win teams on the way to a title, I'm not sure how anyone wouldn't put them in the all time great category.

It's happened over 60 times in the history of the NBA.  We're talking 70 years now.  It doesn't happen a lot but its not like its a complete rarity, either.  Like I mentioned above, 59-60 wins isn't even in the top 50 best regular season records of all time.

Greatest team talk should encompass both regular season & playoff run.   A great playoff run by a 59/60 win team does not necessarily put a team in the "one of the greatest teams ever" conversation.  This isn't rocket science.

What you're proposing would be one of the greatest, if not, greatest playoff runs of all-time in regards to playoff resume.  However, a rather pedestrian regular season would probably keep them from any serious "greatest teams of all-time" conversations.