Originally Posted by Kblaze8855
I suspect that the Bucks alone had near as many 55 win seasons during Birds career as all those teams you mentioned combined did during Magics. If not its close.
The Twin Towers sure as hell never won that much. The Mavs...maybe one year...maaaaybe. The Jazz in maybe 88? The Blazers that year they won 63 and the Suns knocked the Lakers off and in 92 Magic was gone already.
The Spurs were never that good till Drob came later.
The Suns ill give 1 year with DJ and a couple with KJ at the end of the 80s...and they beat the Lakers.
It might end up 9-5 your 7 teams vs just the Bucks bigtime winning seasons wise and thats with me counting some versions of the team you were not talking about.
Its close enough your instinct is to look into it. Its close enough to be amusing you mentioned those 7 teams like they were powerhouses.
Some would beat up other eras.....but they just were not that good for 80s teams.
The west was on a platter for the Lakers for a decade. If todays east had TWO sub.500 conference finals teams in a season you would be laughing your ass off.
Lakers aside the west won 2 rings in the 20 years after Magic was drafted. The Lakers or the east won for like 15 years. There was nobody else to be taken serious for a good run there.......
Lets see if competition/attrition ever played a role later in the playoffs.
The first year in '80 Philly is just better than the Celtics and beats them handily. Magic makes all the correct adjustments to handle Philly. Magic shows that he is big league ready and has one of the best finals games ever.
In '81 Boston did have to play Philly and it cost them three loses. Boston wins it all. No attrition argument can be given here either.
In '82 they are eliminated by Philly in the second round, but Lakers beat Philly. Sorry no attrition argument can be given.
In '83 the Bucks sweep Boston. Philly was on a mission and beats the Bucks and the Lakers in big fashion.
In '84 Boston beats the Lakers who make a lot of mistakes like attrition affected them.
We are half way thru the decade and attrition doesn't play a role once.
In '85 Boston did lose 2 games to Detroit in the second round but it wasn't a grueling series. They played two more games than LA did before losing to them in the finals. Losing four games is about average on a trip to the finals. This year, I think every playoff team outside of Miami hit that mark 2 games into the second round. Not really an argument here.
In '86 Boston loses only 1 game before beating Houston.
Now in '87 the case can be made. A peaking Bucks team and an up-and-coming Detroit team take Boston to the max before the Lakers beat them.
However, in '88 the Lakers go the max route for the last three series before beating the Pistons that beat the Celtics. More games in the playoffs than the Celtics played in the decade.
Boston rarely played teams to long series. Philly twice and the Knicks once in the first 4 years. LA in '84. then that tough stretch in '87. The Hawks in '88.
It might be a question of attrition in one year. The same could be said for the Lakers except they won it that year. In nine years you might expect one to be really challenging. Most of the time the Lakers were beating the team that beat Boston pretty handily.
To me this conference strength argument is only a reality when its really taxing and maxing games to 6 or 7 extra games before the finals which happened once to that Celtic's team and once to the Laker's team in the OP's time period.