It's so hard to rank teams based on single seasons. After the '96 Bulls, the '97 Bulls, and the '00 Lakers, I find it hard to rank the rest of the teams over the last twenty years (basically since I started watching basketball). Those three are clearly the best single season teams, and then it's just a toss-up.
Like, would these Warriors have beaten last years Spurs? Who knows. They gave the Spurs the year before a run for their money. But teams change so much from year to year and players themselves change so much its just hard to say.
A bottom 100 team. Look at how weak the west was:
-OKC being hurt
-Trailblazers being hurt
-Grizzlies lose Conley/Allen games 1/5. lose both. I doubt GS beats MEM at full stength.
-Clippers have no bench
-Rockets were hurt+play zero defense
-Spurs getting tired from 2 finals runs
-Mavs play no defense+internal problems
Every other team either got hurt or had a fatal flaw.
Not to mention PG going down, Bosh, and all the othr bad teams in the East.
These Warriors simply feasted on weak competition. They will be back to a 6 seed next year.
They wouldn't even beat the 2014 Spurs or 2012 Heat in a series. much less any older teams in history.
The 2001 Lakers were better than the 2000 Lakers despite their inferior record, IMO. If you remember the '00 Lakers shouldn't have even reached the Finals- Portland had them beat in Game 7 of the WCF and choked it away. Whereas the '01 Lakers (who didn't get rolling until fairly late in the season thanks to Shaq and Kobe feuding) went 15-1 in the playoffs, including a four-game annihilation of Tim Duncan and the Spurs in the WCF. I'd put the '01 Lakers right up with the late '90s Bulls teams in terms of how dominant they were when the chips were down.
Kyrie Irving !Who is the second best player in the East?
First being Delly?Kyrie Irving !