NBA All-Time Dynasties Ranked (first to worst)... (playoffs, finals, win)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now that the Warriors have officially entered the dynastic realm, it's got me thinking of their place in history. By my count, they are the eighth dynasty the NBA has ever seen, and the first since the mid-00s Spurs. Obviously this dynasty could possibly still be in progress, or for all we know, this could be the last championship the franchise ever wins....but as it stands, they are the 8th dynasty, so where does that rank them among the other 7 dynasties in League history?
Here are just some quick footnotes to consider while evaluating dynasties, and you guys can feel free to add dynastic criteria:
50s Lakers (1948-49 to 1953-54) featured Mikan, Pollard, and Mikkelsen and were The League's first dynasty. They won 5 chips in 6 years, including a back-to-back and a 3peat. They were 5-0 in Finals in this era, and one of only two dynasties ('00s Lakers) to have a higher postseason win% than regular season during their run...
.676 regular season win percentage (8th among dynasties)
.694 postseason win percentage (t-4th among dynasties; 43-19)
50s/60s Celtics (1956-57 to 1968-69) dominated the weakest era in NBA history but was also arguably the most stacked team ever: Cousy, Sharman, Russell, Heinsohn, Havlicek, Jones. They won 11 chips in 13 seasons, a feat that will never be rivaled, and were 11-1 in Finals in their era. They were less dynastic in the playoffs, though, which is a huge knock for me...
.767% regular season (2nd)
.651% playoffs (6th; 108-58)
80s Lakers (1979-80 to 1987-88) won five championships in nine seasons, with a 5-2 Finals record. Both Magic and Kareem are Top 10 GOATs, the only dynasty that can claim two players In the Top 10. They dominated the weaker conference in this era, and dominated The League. The Showtime Lakers get a ton of hype but seemingly only fall somewhere in the middle of the pack of the eight League dynasties...
.724% regular season (t-6th)
.694% playoffs (t-4th; 100-44)
80s Celtics (1980-81 to 1985-86) went 3-1 in four Finals appearances in this era. This is also the only time that the NBA had two dynasties running at the same time, led by Bird, Archibald, Parish. The Celtics barely made consideration for me, as they were the weakest playoff team, and 3 chips in 6 years is barely dynastic. That said, in the regular season only two teams were more dominant, and they played in the dominant conference...
.758% regular season (3rd)
.593% playoffs (7th; 64-44)
90s Bulls (1990-91 to 1997-98) were widely considered the most dominant dynasty ever, and because of the longevity of dominance, still probably are, but the 2010s Warriors are challenging that throne. The greatest player ever, another All-Timer (Pippen), and one of the most complete basketball teams ever assembled. Six in eight years, with a 6-0 Finals record, and most people feel they could have won eight in a row had Jordan not taken that time off (I challenge that thought because of how the dynamics around the NBA would have changed had Jordan not left, but it's a fruitless exercise)...
.747% regular season (4th)
.745% playoffs (3rd; 102-35)
00s Lakers (1999-00 to 2001-02) put together a 3peat with Kobe and Shaq. It was arguably a dynasty that could have lasted longer had egos been tempered. This Lakers squad had the most dominant playoff runs of any dynasty...
.736% regular season (5th)
.776% playoffs (1st; 45-13)
00s Spurs (2002-03 to 2006-07) immediately followed the Lakers and like the 80s Celtics, can be questioned as a legitimate dynasty, but I think they qualify with 3 rings in 5 years and a perfect 3-0 Finals record in this run. Duncan established himself as an All-Timer in this era. They weren't nearly as dominant as most of these other dynasties during this time, but they had a 5-year run where nobody else was consistently better. Their regular season win% is equal to the Showtime Lakers, but the 00s Spurs played in a tougher conference, so there's a real question as to which team was actually better...
.724% regular season (t-6th)
.678% playoffs (6th; 61-29)
2010s Warriors (2014-15 to present) has a case as most dominant team ever, most stacked team ever, most complete team ever. They've broken a TON of records, the only thing that keeps me from putting them #1 is that four of these dynasties won more rings, and six of them lasted longer from first title to last title. So right now longevity is against them, but they have a case. They've dominated the most athletic era ever, and snatched The League from arguably the greatest player (certainly Top 3 ever) ever in Lebron James. They were mired in futility for years before their breakthrough; they deserve this...
.808% regular season (1st)
.759% playoffs (2nd; 63-20)
Just to add here, I've been watching the NBA for 19 years, so I've seen three of these dynasties. The 10s Warriors are easily better than the 00s Spurs to me, and probably better than the 00s Lakers as well, though I think that margin is closer...
Also, both Curry and Durant have solidified their place as Top 25 players ever. Curry has tied Lebron with most rings in this era, and it's obviously plausible he surpasses him in ring count. So we can have a side convo in here on the legacies of the current players...
I've been fortunate enough to watch the entire careers of Lebron, Steph, Durant, and if my girls are basketball fans, i can't wait to share what I've witnessed with them. I'm on record as saying I don't think the Warriors dynasty will last much longer (maybe one more win in the next two years), and I hold tight to that. One, because of the threat of injury to the two biggest stars, but more importantly, because we have evidence that the gap has closed between the Warriors and everyone else. This is typically what happens with dynasties anyway--either injuries or ego kill them, or everybody else gets better after being destroyed for a few years. Rest assured, the gap has closed: obviously not between the Dubs and the Cavs, but the Rockets proved they aren't far from Golden State; the Celtics are one more All-Star, or maybe just a year of experience, a way from being Warriors East, etc...
So I'm predicting one more win for them in the next two years, tops, but I won't cry if this is their last championship. I'm holding to this prediction, and of course I could be wrong and they reel off several more...
My eyes can't deceive me, neither can the empirical statistical evidence. Lebron James is the best basketball player I've ever seen, and it isn't particularly close. Curry didn't break out until Year 5, and their are signs that he could be susceptible to injury that ends his run as an elite player, so he's the one with the littlest to gain on GOAT leaderboards (late bloomer, injury history, declining numbers). He also has the least to lose...
KD is never going to enter a Top 5 convo, and at best may barely touch Top 10, because he was a 9-year vet before he joined the Warriors. He was a 4-time WCF finalist before joining the Warriors, with some great teams--he only won the WCF once. The evidence is 9 years deep that he couldn't lead a team to a championship as the sole #1, and of course going to the team that beat you, after having a squad ('16 Thunder) that could have retooled and challenged the Warriors, is a significant piece to the Kevin Durant story. He is an All-Timer; I've always been a fan and respected his game. His beating Lebron twice in The Finals now is more indicative of the teams around both than either individually; Lebron at his best is still better than Durant at his best, though maybe not for much longer...
On these dynasties, the All-Timers Finals records (only Top 25 players or so):
Jordan 6-0
Russell 11-1
Duncan 5-1
Curry 3-1
Kobe 5-2
Shaq 4-2
Durant 2-1
Bird 3-2
Kareem 6-4
Magic 5-4
Listed in order of Finals win%. Obvi ok ugly context would be needed because Magic is not 10th of these 10 players by any stretch, but I thought this was fun to note anyway...
50s Lakers (1948-49 to 1953-54) featured Mikan, Pollard, and Mikkelsen and were The League's first dynasty. They won 5 chips in 6 years, including a back-to-back and a 3peat. They were 5-0 in Finals in this era, and one of only two dynasties ('00s Lakers) to have a higher postseason win% than regular season during their run...
.676 regular season win percentage (8th among dynasties)
.694 postseason win percentage (t-4th among dynasties; 43-19)
50s/60s Celtics (1956-57 to 1968-69) dominated the weakest era in NBA history but was also arguably the most stacked team ever: Cousy, Sharman, Russell, Heinsohn, Havlicek, Jones. They won 11 chips in 13 seasons, a feat that will never be rivaled, and were 11-1 in Finals in their era. They were less dynastic in the playoffs, though, which is a huge knock for me...
.767% regular season (2nd)
.651% playoffs (6th; 108-58)
80s Lakers (1979-80 to 1987-88) won five championships in nine seasons, with a 5-2 Finals record. Both Magic and Kareem are Top 10 GOATs, the only dynasty that can claim two players In the Top 10. They dominated the weaker conference in this era, and dominated The League. The Showtime Lakers get a ton of hype but seemingly only fall somewhere in the middle of the pack of the eight League dynasties...
.724% regular season (t-6th)
.694% playoffs (t-4th; 100-44)
80s Celtics (1980-81 to 1985-86) went 3-1 in four Finals appearances in this era. This is also the only time that the NBA had two dynasties running at the same time, led by Bird, Archibald, Parish. The Celtics barely made consideration for me, as they were the weakest playoff team, and 3 chips in 6 years is barely dynastic. That said, in the regular season only two teams were more dominant, and they played in the dominant conference...
.758% regular season (3rd)
.593% playoffs (7th; 64-44)
90s Bulls (1990-91 to 1997-98) were widely considered the most dominant dynasty ever, and because of the longevity of dominance, still probably are, but the 2010s Warriors are challenging that throne. The greatest player ever, another All-Timer (Pippen), and one of the most complete basketball teams ever assembled. Six in eight years, with a 6-0 Finals record, and most people feel they could have won eight in a row had Jordan not taken that time off (I challenge that thought because of how the dynamics around the NBA would have changed had Jordan not left, but it's a fruitless exercise)...
.747% regular season (4th)
.745% playoffs (3rd; 102-35)
00s Lakers (1999-00 to 2001-02) put together a 3peat with Kobe and Shaq. It was arguably a dynasty that could have lasted longer had egos been tempered. This Lakers squad had the most dominant playoff runs of any dynasty...
.736% regular season (5th)
.776% playoffs (1st; 45-13)
00s Spurs (2002-03 to 2006-07) immediately followed the Lakers and like the 80s Celtics, can be questioned as a legitimate dynasty, but I think they qualify with 3 rings in 5 years and a perfect 3-0 Finals record in this run. Duncan established himself as an All-Timer in this era. They weren't nearly as dominant as most of these other dynasties during this time, but they had a 5-year run where nobody else was consistently better. Their regular season win% is equal to the Showtime Lakers, but the 00s Spurs played in a tougher conference, so there's a real question as to which team was actually better...
.724% regular season (t-6th)
.678% playoffs (6th; 61-29)
2010s Warriors (2014-15 to present) has a case as most dominant team ever, most stacked team ever, most complete team ever. They've broken a TON of records, the only thing that keeps me from putting them #1 is that four of these dynasties won more rings, and six of them lasted longer from first title to last title. So right now longevity is against them, but they have a case. They've dominated the most athletic era ever, and snatched The League from arguably the greatest player (certainly Top 3 ever) ever in Lebron James. They were mired in futility for years before their breakthrough; they deserve this...
.808% regular season (1st)
.759% playoffs (2nd; 63-20)
How would you guys rank the dynasties 1-8?
The Warriors are the best team ever assembled.
The 50s/60s Celtics are the most enduring dynasty.
The 90s Bulls are the most mythical dynasty.
Kobe and Shaq are two top 10s as well, too bad the Eddie Jones for Tracy McGrady didn’t go through, and drama, injuries, and Shaq getting lazier each year started taking a toll in 2003.
The almost dynasties would be a neat list too
60s-early 70s Lakers with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and then Wilt Chamberlain
Bad Boy Pistons
60s Wilt Chamberlain
Big 3 Celtics plus Rondo
2008-2010+ Lakers
2010-14 Heat
2014-2017 Cavs
And some hypotheticals that almost happened
2010+ Bulls with Rose, Lebron, Wade, Bosh
1984+ Rockets with Olajuwon, Drexler, and MJ or even if Bowie still went #2
Just to add here, I've been watching the NBA for 19 years, so I've seen three of these dynasties. The 10s Warriors are easily better than the 00s Spurs to me, and probably better than the 00s Lakers as well, though I think that margin is closer...
Also, both Curry and Durant have solidified their place as Top 25 players ever. Curry has tied Lebron with most rings in this era, and it's obviously plausible he surpasses him in ring count. So we can have a side convo in here on the legacies of the current players...
I've been fortunate enough to watch the entire careers of Lebron, Steph, Durant, and if my girls are basketball fans, i can't wait to share what I've witnessed with them. I'm on record as saying I don't think the Warriors dynasty will last much longer (maybe one more win in the next two years), and I hold tight to that. One, because of the threat of injury to the two biggest stars, but more importantly, because we have evidence that the gap has closed between the Warriors and everyone else. This is typically what happens with dynasties anyway--either injuries or ego kill them, or everybody else gets better after being destroyed for a few years. Rest assured, the gap has closed: obviously not between the Dubs and the Cavs, but the Rockets proved they aren't far from Golden State; the Celtics are one more All-Star, or maybe just a year of experience, a way from being Warriors East, etc...
So I'm predicting one more win for them in the next two years, tops, but I won't cry if this is their last championship. I'm holding to this prediction, and of course I could be wrong and they reel off several more...
My eyes can't deceive me, neither can the empirical statistical evidence. Lebron James is the best basketball player I've ever seen, and it isn't particularly close. Curry didn't break out until Year 5, and their are signs that he could be susceptible to injury that ends his run as an elite player, so he's the one with the littlest to gain on GOAT leaderboards (late bloomer, injury history, declining numbers). He also has the least to lose...
KD is never going to enter a Top 5 convo, and at best may barely touch Top 10, because he was a 9-year vet before he joined the Warriors. He was a 4-time WCF finalist before joining the Warriors, with some great teams--he only won the WCF once. The evidence is 9 years deep that he couldn't lead a team to a championship as the sole #1, and of course going to the team that beat you, after having a squad ('16 Thunder) that could have retooled and challenged the Warriors, is a significant piece to the Kevin Durant story. He is an All-Timer; I've always been a fan and respected his game. His beating Lebron twice in The Finals now is more indicative of the teams around both than either individually; Lebron at his best is still better than Durant at his best, though maybe not for much longer...
On these dynasties, the All-Timers Finals records (only Top 25 players or so):
Jordan 6-0
Russell 11-1
Duncan 5-1
Curry 3-1
Kobe 5-2
Shaq 4-2
Durant 2-1
Bird 3-2
Kareem 6-4
Magic 5-4
Listed in order of Finals win%. Obvi ok ugly context would be needed because Magic is not 10th of these 10 players by any stretch, but I thought this was fun to note anyway...
Couple comments.
1) Lakers\Spurs 00's both struggled with injuries through that era and also had each other to contend with. I think had either been healthier and not had to get past each other they'd go up a notch.
2) IMO Curry is not a top 25 all-time player. That's some incredibly rare air. He's a great scorer but a marginal defender and as you correctly noted he started late and had a short peak and injury hampered seasons. He has only TWO 1st team all-nba selections. When you start talking top 25 you're getting into names like Magic, Olajuwon, Wilt, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron and you run out of space pretty quickly. Just look at Durant who is the same age and has SIX 1st team and TWO 2nd team selections....just not all the rings. Durant is a top 25 player.
1) Lakers\Spurs 00's both struggled with injuries through that era and also had each other to contend with. I think had either been healthier and not had to get past each other they'd go up a notch.
2) IMO Curry is not a top 25 all-time player. That's some incredibly rare air. He's a great scorer but a marginal defender and as you correctly noted he started late and had a short peak and injury hampered seasons. He has only TWO 1st team all-nba selections. When you start talking top 25 you're getting into names like Magic, Olajuwon, Wilt, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron and you run out of space pretty quickly. Just look at Durant who is the same age and has SIX 1st team and TWO 2nd team selections....just not all the rings. Durant is a top 25 player.
This is more than a fair counter. I would only argue Curry as Top 25 because the style of play in the NBA has morphed around his game, and that 2016 season was truly legendary, probably one of the best individual years ever. But you make a great assessment here---it took 5 years for Curry to become an elite talent, and when we talk All-Timers and have to split hairs, this is not in his favor. Most of the other All-Timers entered The League setting it on fire as a rookie (Magic, Jordan, Lebron) or were clearly elite by Year 2 or 3. Curry's prime is not gonna be anywhere near as long as some of these guys and peak-for-peak, arguments can be made that other guys were better at their peaks than Curry (though again, his peak in '16 holds up well)...
He's had a slight decline since the '16 year. Not a steep one, but noticeable and a decline nonetheless...
This is more than a fair counter. I would only argue Curry as Top 25 because the style of play in the NBA has morphed around his game, and that 2016 season was truly legendary, probably one of the best individual years ever. But you make a great assessment here---it took 5 years for Curry to become an elite talent, and when we talk All-Timers and have to split hairs, this is not in his favor. Most of the other All-Timers entered The League setting it on fire as a rookie (Magic, Jordan, Lebron) or were clearly elite by Year 2 or 3. Curry's prime is not gonna be anywhere near as long as some of these guys and peak-for-peak, arguments can be made that other guys were better at their peaks than Curry (though again, his peak in '16 holds up well)...
He's had a slight decline since the '16 year. Not a steep one, but noticeable and a decline nonetheless...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
