The Best Dynasty in NBA History

[Andrew]

Of all the dynasties the NBA has seen in the 58 years of its existence, which is the greatest? In my opinion, three teams stand out. The Celtics of the 60s, the Lakers of the 80s and the Bulls of the 90s.

While other teams such as the 2000-2002 Lakers and the Celtics of the 80s have established themselves as great teams, they just don't seem to qualify as an NBA dynasty. The Shaq-led Lakers achieved rare status by three-peating and the Celtics were a perennial contender that won three titles in five appearances in the NBA Finals making them two extremely significant teams. But they did not dominate a decade the way Russell's Celtics, the Showtime Lakers or Jordan's Bulls did.

Each of those three teams have set their own marks and make their own case for being the greatest dynasty in the history of the NBA. The Showtime Lakers defeated tough competition in Bird's Celtics, Dr J's Sixers and the Badboy Pistons. The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 seasons including eight in a row. The Bulls are the only team to win three titles in a row, twice; they're also undefeated in the NBA Finals.

And then there's the usual counter arguments. The Celtics were loaded with talent; one only has to look at how many numbers they have retired and how many of those players are now enshrined in the Hall of Fame. The Lakers lost in the NBA Finals three times and weren't exactly short of talent themselves. And the Bulls are often said to have played in a watered down league and at times it has been suggested that their success came as a result of their popularity (ie the league helped them achieve their success).

I think one thing that nearly everyone will agree upon is that these were all special teams that were the best of their era and were indeed three of the best teams in NBA history. But who is the best?

The Celtics will no doubt be a popular choice due to the number of titles they won. The Lakers will be picked for the way they managed to account for half of the championships in the 80s. And we're not too far removed from the era of the Chicago Bulls whose accomplishments combined with the popularity of the NBA during the 90s might persuade most people to vote for them.

My instincts as a Bulls fan tell me to pick Chicago. And why not? They won six titles during the 90s, they established a new record for the most wins during the regular season, twice won three titles in a row and established themselves as a team for the ages. But my bias as a fan leads me to neglect the accomplishments of the Celtics and Lakers, which is why I need to take a more objective point of view.

The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 seasons. That's an amazing feat, a mark that hasn't been touched in the NBA and I believe most other American professional sports. If I recall correctly, their eight titles in a row is a record not only in the NBA but also in professional sports as well. For more than a decade they were the team to beat in the NBA. Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals, their final title, was one of the best performances the Finals has ever seen.

But I keep coming back to the fact they had such a deep roster. The 1961 championship team boasted nine players who would be elected to the Hall of Fame. Only twice did they play more than two rounds in the Playoffs. From 1957-1966 they received a bye in the first round every year, which meant they only had to win a total of 8 games out of a possible 14 to win the championship. These were luxuries that teams no longer received after 1967.

Would they fare as well today with a salary cap in place? With players like Brian Cardinal signing six year deals worth $39 million, what kind of salaries could role players such as Don Nelson and a super sub such as John Havlicek demand? Would they all sacrifice to win titles with so much money up for grabs? Could they survive a longer playoff run 11 times?

Maybe, maybe not. But these are challenges they never had to deal with. And perhaps it is unfair to hold them to these standards. But while we're being fair, perhaps we shouldn't hold future teams to the same standards as the Celtics. With all the changes that have taken place, is it really possibly to duplicate their accomplishments? It seems highly unlikely.

What about the Showtime Lakers? Five titles during the 80s, fending off some of strong competition. Dr J's Sixers were not unlike Wilt's teams in the 60s. They were always contenders, making appearances in the Conference Finals and NBA Finals, pushing their opponents to the brink but mostly being forced to settle for "bridesmaid" status; of course they captured the title in 1983. Bird's Celtics were much the same. They won three titles in five trips to the Finals and were only once first round fodder (1989, the year Bird missed all but six games).

The Lakers had a strong team and three perennial All-Stars at their disposal including two of the greatest players we've ever seen, but teams like the Sixers and Celtics could compete. The other criticism one could make would be inconsistency. While the Lakers won five titles in eight NBA Finals appearances, they are scattered over the decade. The Lakers lost two years in a row between winning their second and third titles of the decade.

The presence of such strong foes prevented them from truly dominating the decade in the way the Celtics did before them and the Bulls did after them. While it does not diminish their accomplishments - if anything, it makes their five titles seem much more hard-earned - it doesn't suggest the dominance that a sports team dynasty should exhibit.

Which brings us back to Chicago. Continued league expansion was said to have watered down the league. Whether this is true or not, it is quite similar to the current assertion about the Eastern Conference. If all teams in the Eastern Conference are weak, then it's an even playing field within the conference and any team that prevails has done well. Similarly, if the whole league was watered down during the 90s, if the talent was spread more thinly, then that includes the Chicago Bulls. And after all, didn't the Celtics' imposing roster give them a similar advantage? More talent than their opponents?

Their repeat-threepeat is unique in NBA history, but it's still split by two Houston Rockets' championships. Popular opinion is that the Bulls might have eight straight titles had Michael Jordan not retired in 1993, but that is still speculation while the Celtics did win eight straight titles.

All things being equal, the Celtics could easily be considered the greatest by the number of titles. But the Bulls defied the standard. In a league with several great big men and frontcourt players, they were able to dominate a decade with role players in the frontcourt. They are not the only championship team to be led by a guard, but the fact they did not combine that guard with one of the game's great big men makes them an oddity, a deviation from the template.

To be completly objective, I find it really hard to pick between the Bulls and Celtics. Bias and the Bulls accomplishments tempt me to pick them, but it's difficult to argue against eleven NBA championships. I guess in the true sense of the word, eight straight titles is more of a Dynasty than two seperate three-peats.

Being completely objective, I would reluctantly pick Russell's Celtics given their dominance of the 60s. But I really, really wanted to pick Chicago.

OK, your turn.

[hmm]

....................................

[Micchy_boy]

yeah definitely the boston of 60's. and we can say that it's a "Team Dynasty".

Next were the bulls.6 trophy in 8 yearsand if and only if Jordan didn't retire (his first) then maybe that we can see 7 or maybe 8 in that 8 years span. plus if and if again he again didn't retire then maybe a dynasty in a decade in the making.

showtime lakers, 80's celtics and even detroit badboysand rockets are just grat team as andrew said.

thouhg lets not count out the possibility that detroit or the spurs will creat a dynasty in the coming future.

[Matthew]

To me, a team has to win 5 titles in 10 years to qualify as a dynasty. Which is the best? Man.. so hard to say. I think Boston, while it wasnt the best team, it did dominate better than any other team in nba history, or did it?

Boston did win 9 out of 11 championships, but is that the only determining factor to how dominant a team was? Maybe.. but imo, regular season winning is also a factor (not as big, but still a factor). The bulls had such a high level of winning throughout the regular season.. lets have a look at the records during their championship years:

90-91: 61- 21
91-92: 67- 15
92-93: 57-25

Now thats good, but look at the final 3 seasons.
95-96: 72-10
96-97: 69-13
97-98: 62-20

The Bulls won an incredible 203 out of 246 regular season games, which is over 82%. I can't imagine seeing that kind of dominance happenening again over 3 seasons.. The celtics did always seem to find a way to win... to me i'm tempted to say the bulls were the most dominant, becuase they seemed least vulnerable (as evident by the regular season dominance), so yeah, i think i'll stick with the bulls... even tho they were challenged by some great teams, and even sometimes looked like they would be beaten, their level of dominance didn't waver. They were still the best...

[Sauru]

first of all, great post andrew. and now my thoughts.

winning 8 in a row in unreal. being able to keep a team together without egos messing things up(hello shaq and kobe) is unheard of now. they also had other things to deal with. for one, thier best player was pretty much hated in boston. back then in boston blacks just were not welcome and that was that. this guy could have left to go where people wanted him around but he stayed with them(great relationship with red). thats gotta weigh alot on a mans shoulders, carry a team to a title then being told you cant eat with them after the game. imo Red is just the best man ever at putting a team together. correct me if i am wrong but didnt het get both mchale and the chief for carrol? maybe it was someone else but that was the most lopsided trade ever.

the bulls, 6 years they went to the finals. 6 years they walked away champs. if jordan never retired we would not even be haveing this conversation as it would be clear who the best was. to this day i tell people that olajuwon and drexler should be sending christmas cards to mike thanking him for takeing a 2 year vacation. you can say that the bulls did face lesser compitiotion than the celts and lakers did. i would agree. then i would tell you that aside from the big 3 the team was really junk. the players they had worked well within the system and jordan being there brought them to a higher level. like andrew said, sure the league is watered down, but the bulls are apart of that same league.

the lakers played probably the toughest compitition. the 80's was the golden age for basketball. someone mentioned you have to win 5 rings to be called a dynasty. i dont know about that. now if they played in the 80's. there were teams back thats never even got a ring but could have easily won 2-3 rings if they played in a different era. my celtics took 3 rings and i would say you can call them a dynasty. if not for a horrible strock of bad luck they would have won more than 3 imo(still upset on bias).

i would have to say that these 3 in the order i talked about them are the greatest teams. iw ould follow it with the 80's celtics in 4th and i am not too sure about 5th honestly. though the shaq/kobe lakers did well i would probably pick detroit over them just cause of who they had to play. i never liked him much but thomas was a warrior.

[magius]

id say boston. Boston was stacked because the league had only a few teams, but by that logic the other teams must've been fairly stacked too. They may not have faced the challenges of a salary cap, but maybe the players faced the challenges of discovering new territory in basketball while also getting paid less and having poorer training facilities and equipment. I think in 20 years people will look back at the bulls and underrate them because they think that maybe they had it easier, and in a way that will always be the case; the people of today generally will always naturally think that today is better than yesterday. They will say that their forebearers were not as smart or strong or wise. I don't think you can compare eras by strength, or intelligence, or wisdom; I think that every era displays its own unique challenges and adversity and that challenge and adversity is only as great as in the eye of the beholder. How can one rate difficulty between such different times and worlds accurately taking every minute factor into consideration? I think that doing anything worth anything is default difficult, and to say that one is more difficult than another is an impossibility (when we are comparing between different eras/times); more like one is a different difficult.

#2 is a lot tougher, cuz lakers had bird to contend with, while the bulls really didnt have an intimidating adversary, but maybe thats a testament to their greatness? i dont know.

[Drex]

#2 is a lot tougher, cuz lakers had bird to contend with, while the bulls really didnt have an intimidating adversary, but maybe thats a testament to their greatness? i dont know.

Maybe the Bulls were that great as a team, but, they did had competition.
There was Robinson, the Dream, Stockalone, Shaq, Mourning, Sir Charles, Reggie Miller, Grant Hill and a lot of other great players. But Jordan and the Bulls were better than them .
Any way, I'd pick the Celtics .

[Sauru]

i will give you that the list you just said has great players in it but none were larry bird. saying the lakers had it tougher cause of who they played is a perfectly good reason. the bulls had the list you gave but the lakers had a list like this, bird,thomas,olajuwon/sampson,drexler(prime),dr j. could really go either way with the second choice.

[Matthew]

But.. this is who was more dominant of a team, not who faced "tougher" competetion...
"cuz lakers had bird to contend with, while the bulls really didnt have an intimidating adversary, but maybe thats a testament to their greatness? i dont know."-Magius

Re read that and think about it... the bulls were that much more dominant over other great teams and athletes.. I still stand by my selection of the bulls.

[Sauru]

i can agree with that. the bulls were far and away the best team of the 90's. i dont really know of anyone who thought they would lose one of the finals they were in. like i said before they should have won 8 in a row but because they didnt i have to put them second on my list.

[FanOfAll]

Christ, get back from vacation that consisted of a lot of busing and reading some very dense literary material to read this post Andrew!...I lost all zeal I had to post. Great post .

I'll post anyways lol. I've never seen the 60s C's, only bits and pieces here and there. So I really can't comment on them. However, I would rank the Celtics and Lakers of the 80s right up there with the Bulls of the 90s. Why? Competition was better. Simple reason. Just to make everyone happy, I'll pick all 3 to be even.

[Matthew]

You think the competetion the celtics faced was the same that the bulls faced?

[FanOfAll]

You think the competetion the celtics faced was the same that the bulls faced?

I said it was better.

[Old School Fool]

Hmm...it's a cross between L.A. Lakers, Chicago and "DA CELTICS"

[Andrew]

The Bulls won an incredible 203 out of 246 regular season games, which is over 82%. I can't imagine seeing that kind of dominance happenening again over 3 seasons.. The celtics did always seem to find a way to win... to me i'm tempted to say the bulls were the most dominant, becuase they seemed least vulnerable (as evident by the regular season dominance), so yeah, i think i'll stick with the bulls... even tho they were challenged by some great teams, and even sometimes looked like they would be beaten, their level of dominance didn't waver. They were still the best...

Indeed, and like I said I really wanted to pick the Bulls. But in all fairness, the Celtics' accomplishments are probably more of a true Dynasty.

Consider the traditional definition of "dynasty:

1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

In the world of professional sports, we are a little more leniant in our use of the word. In terms of kings and royal families, dynasties are broken when the royal family is replaced by another. In the true definition of the word, Chicago's repeat threepeat seasons would be considered seperate reigns, seperate dynasties.

Mind you, when it comes to the sporting definition we allow for a team's "reign" to be broken up here and there by other champions. The Bulls were unquestionably a dynasty. Six titles in eight years and a majority of the titles decided during the 90s speaks for itself.

But the Celtics with their string of eight titles just seems to be the more accurate definition of a dynasty. And in that regard, it might be considered the "best" or the "greatest".

Chicago might be considered the most impressive or dominant, though. As you noted, they won 82% of their regular season contests and endured only a handful of six and seven game series outside of the NBA Finals. Their reign was shorter, but perhaps more spectacular.

Perhaps in that sense I've lost sight of the topic at hand. The Celtics' long reign is more true to the meaning of "dynasty", though the Bulls exhibited a different kind of dominance.

[Matthew]

Maybe it should be reffered to as the "Michael Jordan dynasty".. that will go down well . If the bulls dont qualify as a dynasty by default, neither to the lakers. Once again, imo, in the nba, a team has to win 5 titles in 10 years to qualify.

But the Celtics with their string of eight titles just seems to be the more accurate definition of a dynasty. And in that regard, it might be considered the "best" or the "greatest".

I still would rate the bulls more dominant.. becuase of the regular season success as well. 6 in 8 years is as close as any team will get to 11 in 13. Maybe it would be better to say the Celtics had the better dynasty, but the bulls had the better team? But all I can say is no team will come close to seeing the dominance displayed by the bulls, in terms of winning percentages combined with championships. That is, of course, all imo of course

[Andrew]

Maybe it would be better to say the Celtics had the better dynasty, but the bulls had the better team?

I would agree with that. As I said, the Celtics' dynasty is a better example of the classic definition, but Chicago's exhibited a different kind of dominance. If I let my bias influence my decision in any way, I'd pick Chicago hands-down.

[Sauru]

i gotta agree with the point that the celtics and lakers of the 80's player tougher teams than the bulls of the 90's did. the 80's was when basketball was at its peak. its been downhill ever since(dont give me rateing or popularity crap either, i am talking about compitition). like i said before though the bulls just dominated teams. they made 6 finals and walked away with 6 rings. right now the bulls are 100% in nba finals, and thats gotta say something.

[Drex]

Mind you, when it comes to the sporting definition we allow for a team's "reign" to be broken up here and there by other champions. The Bulls were unquestionably a dynasty. Six titles in eight years and a majority of the titles decided during the 90s speaks for itself.

But the Celtics with their string of eight titles just seems to be the more accurate definition of a dynasty. And in that regard, it might be considered the "best" or the "greatest".

Chicago might be considered the most impressive or dominant, though. As you noted, they won 82% of their regular season contests and endured only a handful of six and seven game series outside of the NBA Finals. Their reign was shorter, but perhaps more spectacular.

Perhaps in that sense I've lost sight of the topic at hand. The Celtics' long reign is more true to the meaning of "dynasty", though the Bulls exhibited a different kind of dominance.

I got to agree with Andrew here. If we were chosing the most dominant team ever, I would pick the Bulls of the 90's. But since the name of the topic is "The Best Dynasty in the History" my pick is the Celtics of the 60's, with 11 titles in 13 years.

[twolvezfanfoever]

96 bulls
no questions ask
they got the most wins ever
there was talent in 96
they destroyed that talent with a passion

[Jackal]

One season doesn't qualify as a dynasty.

I'd probably go with Boston & the entire Bulls' run in a close second.

[twolvezfanfoever]

sorry
I mean 90's bulls
Boston in the past didnt have no real competition in the olden days

[Sauru]

thats not true. infact there was alot less teams back then so every team was stacked with talent. the celtics faced plenty of compitition. haveing to go through wilt is not as easy as it sounds.

[twolvezfanfoever]

I get what you sayin but its the fact that everybody knew they would win every single year.

[Riot]

I have to agree with Sauru. 60's Celtics. Stacked.