Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Best NBA Team Round of 32

Tomorrow, the Sweet Sixteen starts, so I thought I'd narrow the Best Team in NBA History Tournament down to 16 teams too. Just in case anyway was wondering, I'm currently 8th out of 12 in my competition with my friends. Just got to love March Madness...

Group 1


8. 1996 Orlando Magic def. 1. 1996 Chicago Bulls, 109-106
5. 2006 Detroit Pistons def. 4. 1965 Boston Celtics, 106-92
6. 1998 Chicago Bulls def. 14. 2006 Miami Heat, 102-101
10. 1994 Houston Rockets def. 15. 1956 Philadelphia Warriors, 124-115

This simulation has just been full of upsets, hasn't it? I personally consider the 1996 Chicago Bulls as the greatest team in NBA History (partly to make myself feel better about how good the 1996 Seattle Sonics were), but in this tournament, they lose to the Orlando Magic of that same year. This was a huge upset considering Chicago beat Orlando three out of four times in the regular season and swept them in the playoffs. In 2006, the Miami Heat had to beat the Detroit Pistons to make it to the NBA Finals, but here, the Pistons make it to the Sweet Sixteen while Miami fizzles.

Group 2


1. 1972 LA Lakers def. 8. 1970 New York Knicks, 127-121
12. 1993 Chicago Bulls def. 4. 1997 Utah Jazz, 107-97
11. 2002 LA Lakers def. 3. 2008 Boston Celtics, 105-93
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs def. 2. 2000 LA Lakers, 94-86

Being a double-digit seed helped in this group, as the 10, 11, and 12 seed make it to the next round. Regardless of the year, it seems that the Stockton and Malone-led Jazz just cannot get past Michael Jordan's Bulls. In what I'll dub the rivalry match-up, the 2002 LA Lakers beat the 2008 Boston Celtics.

Group 3


9. 1963 Boston Celtics def. 16. 2001 Toronto Raptors, 112-110
5. 1993 Phoenix Suns def. 13. 1974 Boston Celtics, 98-97
11. 2007 San Antonio Spurs def. 3. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers, 107-96
15. 2002 Sacramento Kings def. 7. 2004 Indiana Pacers, 102-91

I was really interested to see how the 2001 Toronto Raptors were going to do, and they must have been better than I thought, because they were just edged out by the 1963 Boston Celtics. Nevertheless, their run is over. The 2002 Sacramento Kings, the substitute team, are making their way to the Sweet Sixteen. Were they, and not Los Angeles, the best team in the 2001-02 season?

Group 4


1. 1967 Philadelphia 76ers def. 9. 1959 Boston Celtics, 124-112
5. 1981 Boston Celtics def. 13. 2001 LA Lakers, 117-108
6. 1984 Boston Celtics def. 3. 1987 LA Lakers, 121-120
2. 1986 Boston Celtics def. 10. 1961 Boston Celtics, 113-90

I think what I called the Boston-Los Angeles Group has now become just the Boston group. It was a good night for the Celtics in this group, as they won both their match-ups against the Lakers. However, they couldn't get the sweep as the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers won their match-up. I think the one thing I like about this group is that the teams that we thought should have won, won.

Thoughts


When it comes to the NCAA Tournament, I usually feel the Sweet Sixteen is the round where teams can say they are really one of the best sixteen teams in the league. Just making it into the NCAA Tournament doesn't make a team top 68, as multiple teams who won their conferences probably aren't one of the 68 best teams in college basketball. In the round of 32, there were probably some flukes, so I don't call all the teams in that round the best 32 teams in basketball. However, I think once we get to the Sweet Sixteen, we really get to the point where we can say, Wow, these guys are good!

Looking at the teams that we have here, I can't say that any one team didn't deserve to be in the Round of 32. They're all great teams, but some, like the 1996 Orlando Magic and 2006 Detroit Pistons, aren't exactly teams we considers the greatest of all-time. Just to note, we only have two Los Angeles teams left, compared to four Boston ones. We still got two number one seeds remaining, and the worst team record-wise left in the tournament are the 1993 Chicago Bulls (57-25), though they did win the championship, and are led my Michael Jordan nonetheless.

No comments:

Post a Comment