Best Sports Team Ever

[Juror#8]

Having a little debate hear at work. The question:

 

"What was the Best Sports Team of ALL TIME"

 

Answers around the water cooler:

 

1. 4 for 1992 Dream Team

 

2. 1 for 2001 Miami Hurricanes

 

3. 1 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers

 

4. 1 for 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers or 1996 Gators

 

5. 1 for 1998 Yankees

 

6. 2 for 1980 U.S. Hockey Team (to which I laughed hysterically - but I admittedly know nothing about hockey)

 

7. 3 who abstained because they don't feel as if you can compare teams from different sports

 

8. 1 for 2001 Redwings

 

9. 2 1972 Dolphins

 

 

My vote was for the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls. Period. I think that they were the best team to step foot on a hardwood floor and couldn't be beat by any of the NBA champions who preceded or followed them. They won 72 games and against a more discplined style of team play that was less regulated by refs and more contact oriented. Jordan or Pippen missed a couple of games that they ultimately lost so those wins could have been 75+.

 

Do I feel that you can compare teams from different sports? Yes, because there are factors that they have in common or that can be used as a point of comparison - players, depth, competition, domination of competition, creativity, culture, scoring output, coaching, margin of victory, injuries, record, number of games played and corresponding win percentage, etc...

 

Just interested in your thoughts and why.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Juror#8

[boyst]

A bunch if Iowa Hawkeye and OK State Wrestling teams. I will look it up later but OK state, I think has won more then the Yankees.

 

96 Hawkeyes had 5 of 11 win their weight class.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jboyst62

[Chef Jim]

Was the question the best team EVER or in your short lifetimes? Because you missed a few.

[The Poojer]

Afa & Sika, The Wild Samoans...then a distant second would be the 1992 Dream Team, 3rd is the 2012-13 Buffalo Bills

 

Having a little debate hear at work. The question:

 

"What was the Best Sports Team of ALL TIME"

 

Answers around the water cooler:

 

1. 4 for 1992 Dream Team

 

2. 1 for 2001 Miami Hurricanes

 

3. 1 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers

 

4. 1 for 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers or 1996 Gators

 

5. 1 for 1998 Yankees

 

6. 2 for 1980 U.S. Hockey Team (to which I laughed hysterically - but I admittedly know nothing about hockey)

 

7. 3 who abstained because they don't feel as if you can compare teams from different sports

 

8. 1 for 2001 Redwings

 

9. 2 1972 Dolphins

 

 

My vote was for the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls. Period. I think that they were the best team to step foot on a hardwood floor and couldn't be beat by any of the NBA champions who preceded or followed them. They won 72 games and against a more discplined style of team play that was less regulated by refs and more contact oriented. Jordan or Pippen missed a couple of games that they ultimately lost so those wins could have been 75+.

 

Do I feel that you can compare teams from different sports? Yes, because there are factors that they have in common or that can be used as a point of comparison - players, depth, competition, domination of competition, creativity, culture, scoring output, coaching, margin of victory, injuries, record, number of games played and corresponding win percentage, etc...

 

Just interested in your thoughts.

[erynthered]

 

6. 2 for 1980 U.S. Hockey Team (to which I laughed hysterically - but I admittedly know nothing about hockey)

 

 

You really should look that up.

 

 

Maybe try Google.

[BillsPride12]

Chalk up another vote for the 96 Chicago Bulls. That was a once in a lifetime team

[KD in CA]

'76-'77 Montreal Canadians

[Juror#8]

Was the question the best team EVER or in your short lifetimes? Because you missed a few.

 

I'm in my mid-30s. I've been watching sports since the early to mid-80s. I've been a Bills fan since 1984.

 

I'll get grilled here but I just don't believe that the quality of sport was as good in the 40s, 50s, 60s, than in the 80s - current.

 

I base that on archived footage of influential sporting moments. The hits weren't as big. They weren't as fast. They didn't jusp as high. They weren't as quick.

 

Case-in-point: check out this level of athleticism, mechanics, and body control (a 720 Dunk):

 

 

Now compare that against the quintessential "dunk" of the 60s and 70s:

 

Dr. J three step cradle jam (link on the way)

 

Players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic today. They can hit farther and and are more agile than their counterparts from 3 decades ago. Those traits have impacted the game for the better. A college football team from the 50s could never compete with the 2011 Crimson Tide. Similarly, West's Laker's would be lost against Durant's Thunder.

 

Butkus would be petrified of a Michael Vick.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Juror#8

[Taro T]

'76-'77 Canadiens. Went 60-8-12 in the regular season for 132 points. Next best were the Phlyers at 112 points. (Equivalent to 10 fewer wins, they actually had 12 fewer wins but had a few extra ties.) Had 64 more goals than the 2nd best goal scoring team and gave up 18 fewer goals than the 2nd best defensive team. Went 12-2 in the playoffs and 1 of those 2 losses was in OT. Only 1 of their 12 wins was in OT. Had about 8 HoFers on the roster and the winningest coach of all time and one of the best GM's of all time. Had the 1st All-Star at 4 positions and the 2nd team AS at another. The only position they didn't have an AS at was center (LA's Marcel Dionne and Buffalo's Gil Perreault took those honors) and Jacques Lemaire and Pete Mahovolich were solid at that spot as well.

 

And in baseball, to not even mention the '75 Reds or '27 Yanks seems strange. My vote would go to the Reds but I'd expect most would go w/ the Babe's team.

[Juror#8]

Dr. J Cradle Jam:

 

 

Afa & Sika, The Wild Samoans...then a distant second would be the 1992 Dream Team, 3rd is the 2012-13 Buffalo Bills

 

Have to look them up. Never heard of the Wild Samoans.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Juror#8

[Buftex]

For me, I would have to say the 1986 Boston Celtics, one of the Showtime Lakers teams (would have to think a little more about which specific team from those years, they were all awesome), and the 1985 Chicago Bears. I am sure there are others.

[The Poojer]

while some of what you say is accurate, keep in mind how much technology has helped, in both equipment(hell even in sneakers..chuck taylors vs. air jordans)...training and injury recovery....you have to be able to separate the different era's and judge them within themselves...while Butkis may be terrified by Vick(which i kind of doubt but i get your point)....EVERYONE that played against Butkis was terrified of him.

 

I'm in my mid-30s. I've been watching sports since the early to mid-80s. I've been a Bills fan since 1984.

 

I'll get grilled here but I just don't believe that the quality of sport was as good in the 40s, 50s, 60s, than in the 80s - current.

 

I base that on archived footage of influential sporting moments. The hits weren't as big. They weren't as fast. They didn't jusp as high. They weren't as quick.

 

Case-in-point: check out this level of athleticism, mechanics, and body control (a 720 Dunk):

 

youtube.com/watch?v=Z840KrgBrPc

 

Now compare that against the quintessential "dunk" of the 60s and 70s:

 

Dr. J three step cradle jam (link on the way)

 

Players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic today. They can hit farther and and are more agile than their counterparts from 3 decades ago. Those traits have impacted the game for the better. A college football team from the 50s could never compete with the 2011 Crimson Tide. Similarly, West's Laker's would be lost against Durant's Thunder.

 

Butkus would be petrified of a Michael Vick.

[KD in CA]

Players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic today. They can hit farther and and are more agile than their counterparts from 3 decades ago. Those traits have impacted the game for the better. A college football team from the 50s could never compete with the 2011 Crimson Tide. Similarly, West's Laker's would be lost against Durant's Thunder.

Silly argument. That's like saying the Vikings weren't tough warriors because they'd get their asses kicked by the USMC. Team can only be measured against their contemporaries, not against presumed inferiority against modern day athletes.

 

 

 

Butkus would be petrified of a Michael Vick.

Actually, Butkus would probably spear Vick and break 3 ribs on the first play because Vick wouldn't be wearing the suit of armor he has on today. Remember that your modern day prima donnas won't be protected by the modern rules, refs and equipment any longer.

Edited June 6, 2012 by KD in CT

[Buftex]

I'm in my mid-30s. I've been watching sports since the early to mid-80s. I've been a Bills fan since 1984.

 

I'll get grilled here but I just don't believe that the quality of sport was as good in the 40s, 50s, 60s, than in the 80s - current.

 

I base that on archived footage of influential sporting moments. The hits weren't as big. They weren't as fast. They didn't jusp as high. They weren't as quick.

 

Case-in-point: check out this level of athleticism, mechanics, and body control (a 720 Dunk):

 

youtube.com/watch?v=Z840KrgBrPc

 

Now compare that against the quintessential "dunk" of the 60s and 70s:

 

Dr. J three step cradle jam (link on the way)

 

Players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic today. They can hit farther and and are more agile than their counterparts from 3 decades ago. Those traits have impacted the game for the better. A college football team from the 50s could never compete with the 2011 Crimson Tide. Similarly, West's Laker's would be lost against Durant's Thunder.

 

Butkus would be petrified of a Michael Vick.

 

 

With all due respect, and since we are talking in hypotheticals, this is kind of a silly argument. If you want to time-travel Jordan's Bulls back to the 50's, 60's or 70's, sure they woould be more athletic, and probably dominate. But you are giving the 96 Bulls all the advantages of playing in the era that they played (better training conditioning for all athletes in all sports, "Jordan rules") against teams that played under much different circumstances. It is just pointless to try to compare teams from totally different eras.

 

Also, this may sound dumb, but nowhere in your equation do you factor in the intangibles that make some players who may not be the greatest athletes of all time, simply great. Modern athletes may have a physical edge, but you could make an argument that they have a mental disadvantage, as far as intangibles go. Just look at the old Celtics this year, as opposed to the young guns of the Miami Heat...on paper Miami should have run Boston off the court by now...but 20 quarters and two OT's into a series, Boston is up 3 games to 2, and have outplayed Miami in about 16 of the 20 quarters of basketball they have played. Boston isn't better physically, but they are superior mentally.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Buftex

[shrader]

'76-'77 Canadiens. Went 60-8-12 in the regular season for 132 points. Next best were the Phlyers at 112 points. (Equivalent to 10 fewer wins, they actually had 12 fewer wins but had a few extra ties.) Had 64 more goals than the 2nd best goal scoring team and gave up 18 fewer goals than the 2nd best defensive team. Went 12-2 in the playoffs and 1 of those 2 losses was in OT. Only 1 of their 12 wins was in OT. Had about 8 HoFers on the roster and the winningest coach of all time and one of the best GM's of all time. Had the 1st All-Star at 4 positions and the 2nd team AS at another. The only position they didn't have an AS at was center (LA's Marcel Dionne and Buffalo's Gil Perreault took those honors) and Jacques Lemaire and Pete Mahovolich were solid at that spot as well.

 

I have a hard time picking any hockey team ahead of those early 80s Oilers. None of the numbers may match up to what you posted, but it is all pretty close. I can't picture anything that can balance out the pure fire power that those teams had.

[The Poojer]

actually i doubt they would dominate at all....i bet jordan, pippen et al probably couldn't even walk or were just learning to walk in the 60's....they'd have gotten clobbered!

 

With all due respect, and since we are talking in hypotheticals, this is kind of a silly argument. If you want to time-travel Jordan's Bulls back to the 50's, 60's or 70's, sure they woould be more athletic, and probably dominate. But you are giving the 96 Bulls all the advantages of playing in the era that they played (better training conditioning for all athletes in all sports, "Jordan rules") against teams that played under much different circumstances. It is just silly to try to compare teams from totally different eras.

[Taro T]

I have a hard time picking any hockey team ahead of those early 80s Oilers. None of the numbers may match up to what you posted, but it is all pretty close. I can't picture anything that can balance out the pure fire power that those teams had.

Those Euler teams always get an asterisk in my book. The teams out west let them play their firewagon brand of hockey and never made them actually have to play hockey. In '83, they thought they could just run around the ice and not work for it and got their lunches handed to them by the Isles. Heck, I'd've expected them to learn their lesson the previous year when they allowed the 'Miracle on Manchester' to happen; but they didn't.

 

They learned their lesson after '83, but it never changed the fact that they didn't have to play anybody real until the Finals. They couldn't get it done against the Flames in '86 and they only played a 'real' hockey team on their way to the Finals one other time - in '88 against the Flames (and they still had the memory of '86 fresh in their minds; that and the chip on their collective shoulders of showing they WERE more than just Gretzky).

 

By the time the Eulers got to the Finals, they got to face a team that had to fight to get to the Finals. The teams from the East had always gone through a much tougher slog to get to the show. I will give the Eulers credit, in that after '83 they were willing to play a Wales Conference type of game when they got to the Finals and were able to do it (at least for 1 round). They were very good, but I won't rank them with the all time greats.

 

That '77 Habs squad had offense and defense. They were all around solid. And they had better than 1 GPG goals against than the next best team that playoff year. They only lost 1 game at home the entire season. No team ever dominated a season from start to finish like they did that year.

[shrader]

I'd be tempted to throw an asterisk on the Habs as well since they were essentially handed that pipeline to all the elite talent for so many years, always getting the first pick. I guess most of that was gone by '77, but there were still pieces.

 

And now that I have Ken Dryden on the mind, it's making me think of the 1970 Cornell hockey team. If we want to name a best team relative to their league/competition, they should be mentioned. They're the only college hockey team to go undefeated... and all this AFTER Dryden left.

[apuszczalowski]

No votes for the 2010-2011 (or 2011-2012) Miami "Dream Team" Heat or the 2011 Philly "Dream Team" Eagles?

[Juror#8]

Silly argument. That's like saying the Vikings weren't tough warriors because they'd get their asses kicked by the USMC. Team can only be measured against their contemporaries, not against presumed inferiority against modern day athletes.

 

I agree with you and you are correct - it is silly to say one team would beat another team from a different generation because it kinda goes without saying.

 

The original question surrounded the greatest team based on their impact during the generation in which they played so we'll stick to that.

 

With all due respect, and since we are talking in hypotheticals, this is kind of a silly argument. If you want to time-travel Jordan's Bulls back to the 50's, 60's or 70's, sure they woould be more athletic, and probably dominate. But you are giving the 96 Bulls all the advantages of playing in the era that they played (better training conditioning for all athletes in all sports, "Jordan rules") against teams that played under much different circumstances. It is just pointless to try to compare teams from totally different eras.

 

Agreed.