Top 5 and Bottom 5 Franchises Post-Merger (1977)

[sp6r=underrated]

Who do you consider the top 5 and bottom 5 franchises post-merger?

Please provide an explanation for your picks. I'll give my picks later though their is 1 pick that is unquestionable. Los Angeles Lakers are the most successful franchise over this time period.

[penbeast0]

Bottom of the barrel

1. The Clippers. Probably the least successful franchise in terms of wins added to Donald Sterling's reputation. Ridiculous injury history too.
2. The Kings. Another long history of losing with the brief moment of relevance under Chris Webber and Sacramento is not exactly the big city in terms of destination or impact.
3. The Wizards. Even less relevance than the Kings as their Webber years never amounted to a single playoff victory (1 appearance where they were swept) and with nearly the bad injury history of the Clippers. Always cutting the rebuild short to ride the treadmill of just making the playoffs without real hope of winning a title.
4. The Knicks. How can the most storied city in the league have been this incompetent for this long despite being willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money.
5. Willing to listen to cases for the 5th. Charlotte would be my choice if they were still calling themselves the Bobcats just for the hackneyed repetition of the name but as the Hornets, they at least have some personality. I will go with Toronto (expecting the slam from the outstanding community of fans) for never being relevant as a contender, a free agent destination, and for that logo.

[Quotatious]

Top 5

1. Lakers - like you said, that's crystal clear. Won 10 championships, had two dynasties and one semi-dynasty (the Kobe/Pau led team that made three straight finals and won two titles).

2. Spurs - won 5 titles during the Duncan/Pop era, but were also relevant in the 90s with D-Rob and late 70s/early 80s with Gervin.

3. Celtics - dominated the 80s along with the Lakers, decent for a few years in the Pierce/Walker era, and then obviously during the Big 3 era between 2008 and 2013.

4. Bulls - dominated the 90s, but mediocre in the late 70s, most of the 80s, and most of the 2000s. Good in 2010s, but the Spurs and Celtics were relevant for more seasons.

5. Jazz - slightly ahead of the Suns. Utah just had less "down years" than Phoenix, and made two finals appearances to one for PHX. Both teams were strong in the 90s (Utah gets the edge there), and mid/late 2000s (I'd give the edge to Phoenix, but the late 80s/90s advantage for Utah is IMO more significant).

Penbeast's list for the worst franchises is OK.

[NyCeEvO]

1. Lakers - like you said, that's crystal clear. Won 10 championships, had two dynasties and one semi-dynasty (the Kobe/Shaq led team that made three straight finals and won two titles).

Kobe & Shaq won 3 straight titles and were in 4 out 5 Finals.

I think you mean the Kobe, Pau, & co. Lakers, right?

[Quotatious]

Kobe & Shaq won 3 straight titles and were in 4 out 5 Finals.

I think you mean the Kobe, Pau, & co. Lakers, right?

I count the Shaq/Kobe teams as a dynasty, and Kobe/Pau as semi-dynasty.

[NyCeEvO]

Kobe & Shaq won 3 straight titles and were in 4 out 5 Finals.

I think you mean the Kobe, Pau, & co. Lakers, right?

I count the Shaq/Kobe teams as a dynasty, and Kobe/Pau as semi-dynasty.

I thought that's what you meant but look at what you wrote.

Next to semi-dynasty, you wrote "Kobe & Shaq", not Kobe/Pau.

[Quotatious]

I thought that's what you meant but look at what you wrote.

Next to semi-dynasty, you wrote "Kobe & Shaq", not Kobe/Pau.

Damn, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

[NyCeEvO]

I thought that's what you meant but look at what you wrote.

Next to semi-dynasty, you wrote "Kobe & Shaq", not Kobe/Pau.

Damn, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

When I first read it I was like "Wait...if Shaq & Kobe are semi-dynasty, I wonder what he thinks a real dynasty is."

[Dr Positivity]

Best

1. Los AngelLakers - Easy pick

2. San Antonio Spurs - Close between them and Bulls who have one more title, but extra Spurs consistency is enough I think

3. Chicago Bulls - Six titles and a number of other successful years, including some good seasons pre title years with Jordan, getting to the top of the conference in Rose era and some playoff teams in late 70s/early 80s

4. Boston Celtics - If the top 3 are off the board this is an easy choice with a decade of dominance in the 80s and success in late 2000s/early 2010, 4 titles and 7 Finals overall, despite a very lean 90s

5. Miami Heat - Although they haven't been around as long incredibly successful in the time they have with 3 titles and 5 Finals and another team that got to the 1st of the conference in the 90s.

Worst

1. Toronto Raptors - One second round appearance, no 50 W seasons, 0-3 with home court advantage

2. New Orleans Pelicans - I think the Charlotte Hornets history belongs to the BobHornets now, so these guys are just 2003+ and it's basically the Raptors with less longevity but a higher peak in the 2008 Hornets season

3. Charlotte Hornets - Even if they own their 90s history I still think they're pretty weak with no conference Finals appearances and no playoff wins since 2002, but 4 second round appearances and some 50 W seasons overall

4. Minnesota Timberwolves - Some success with KG but only out of 1st round the one year and the post KG period has been a hot mess

5. LA Clippers - 4 2nd round appearances and some high peak contending years, but a whole lot of trash seasons. Memphis gets slight edge for making a CF

[sp6r=underrated]

RS Performance from basketball reference

Basketball Reference

Top 5

Lakers: Los Angeles dominates this list primarily because of their post-season. They are the clear best regular season franchise over the last 39 years but the advantage becomes massive when you look at the post season. Ten championships and sixteen final appearances over thirty nine years while only missing the playoffs four times is a staggering achievement when you consider the roster and management turnover that occurred over those many years. The nineties and tens are considered down decades for the lakers because in those sixteen years they only won one title and made the finals twice. For most franchises that is a crowning achievement. In laker land that is a failure.

massive gap

These three franchises raise the eternal debate between peak against consistency. I could see any order here depending on how you value different, reasonable factors for consideration.

Spurs: The 86 Celtics and 08 Celtics were probably better than the best Spurs title teams and the best Bull teams were definitely superior but San Antonio still ranks as marginally superior due to better consistency. Over this 39 year stretch, San Antonio won an average of just under 50 games in comparison to 45 for Boston and 42.4 for Chicago. They only missed the playoffs four times while Boston and Chicago missed 12 and 13 times respectively.

Celtics: They represent the middle point between San Antonio's sustained success and Chicago's mammoth peak.

Bulls: The Bulls franchise has the highest peak of any franchise and featured the most important player of this time period for the duration of his prime. It is possible to argue that the 92, 96 and 97 Bulls are the three best teams over the last thirty-nine years. With the sole exception of Russell's Celtics no franchise ever dominated the NBA for an extended period of time to the extent Chicago did throughout the nineties but were mostly irrelevant outside of that time period.

gap

Blazers: I gave more consideration to Houston here but ended up staying firm with my Portland pick. I feel very confident in stating the Blazers on average put together a better product than Houston and that they peaked higher than the best Houston clubs.

Considered but didn't make the cut

Rockets: Genuinely surprised by how much regular-season and post-season success Houston enjoyed.
Pistons: The most titles after the top 4 but for huge stretches of time they were among the worse clubs in basketball.
Suns: The Suns are to basketball what the Red Sox used to be to baseball: a franchise that has consistently put an excellent product on the court while find the Big Brass Ring elusive. They actually had less post-season success than I realized.
Heat: Tied for Detroit with the most titles.

I'll do the bottom five later.

[Hornet Mania]

Top 5:
1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Bulls
4. Celtics
5. Rockets

Bottom 5:
1. Clippers
2. Wolves
3. Raps
4. Kings
5. Wizards/Bullets

[JoeMalburg]

Pistons are top five for sure. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics all ahead of Detroit, probably Bulls too, but no one else. The Pistons have three titles and two more game sevens in the Finals they lost. They've had two teams in two different generations that epitomized the city. White people here don't care about basketball at all, but went nuts for the Bad Boys and Goin' to Work Pistons.

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Bulls
5. Pistons

HM: Heat, Rockets, Blazers, Suns, Jazz, Pacers

Bottom Five (excluding Bobcats, Raptors and Grizzlies who only existed for half or less than half the time period allotted)
I - Clippers
II - Kings
III - Timberwolves
IV - Hornets/Pelicans (May be about to change)
V - Nuggets (Until this season it would have been Warriors)

[NO-KG-AI]

Honestly, the Clippers of the past few years has already eclipsed the Timberwolves.

How are the T-Wolves below anyone at all, especially the Kings and stuff? They have one season past the first round, and they've never made the playoffs either before or after Kevin Garnett.

The "Bobcat/Hornets" are really low with no success to speak of. Idk how teams that were contenders for about a half of a decade are ranking lower than teams that have never had any type of contendership or had one year with a contending team in the franchises history.

[sp6r=underrated]

Ranking the franchises (26-30)

26: Washington: They did win a title and make the finals twice but overall their performance has been horrible over the last 39 years with the 6th worse winning percentage. They missed the playoffs 22 times and made the playoffs with a losing record fives times. From 89 to 2004 they only made the playoffs one time.

27: New Jersey/Brooklyn: The Nets are the richer man's Clippers. I'm not even sure the Nets have ever built a legitimate title contender. Their best club was the 2003 team which looks similar to the best Memphis teams this decade: a dangerous playoff club but not really title caliber. In 2002 and 03 those clubs made the finals but that was mainly a product of the trainwreck East which somehow managed to have a field of 15 teams without a legitimate contender. Nets have the 4th worse winning percentage over any franchise over these 39 years.

28: Kings: Sacramento ranks 23 in PS wins and RS winning percentage. In 2002 they built a legit title contender that was better than some of the weaker title teams over the given years.

29: Minnesota: I give a slight pass to the expansion clubs at the bottom of the list while grading them harder at the top. A smaller sample size will lead to greater variance in performance. Minnesota's numbers across the board are all bad but that isn't why they are the third club.

Minnesota is the third lowest club because they somehow managed to waste almost the entire prime of a top 10 all-time caliber player. Players of this caliber are extremely hard to acquire and often times prefer to play in bigger cities. Luckily for them Garnett was comfortable in the Twin Cities but that didn't help and instead they weren't close to contention for most of his career. The 06 and 07 supporting casts were comically bad.

It should be acknowledged that the draconian penalty for the Joe Smith situation put Minnesota behind the 8 ball. Drafts are essential for building contenders and they lost their picks for several years. NBA teams have been punished less for worse and those type of deals occur on a semi regular basis.

In their entire history they've made maybe three correct decisions

1. Drafting KG
2. Drafting Love: The GM promptly alienated him with an all-time dumb contract which resulted in losing him early.
3. Hiring Flip as a coach: I am a lot higher on Flip as a coach than most people. He's not HOF but still a very good with an admittedly unbalanced skill-set. He did a very good job maximizing the performance of the Wolves during his first run and extending the shelf life of the Pistons after Flip left. I'll discuss this in another thread if people are interested.

30: Clippers: The Clippers have the worse winning percentage of any team over these 39 years. They have the worse SRS by far of any franchise. They rank 6th from the bottom in total number of playoff wins and the only teams below them are two clubs formed in 1990, two in 1996 and one in 2003. They have only managed to build a legitimate contender for three seasons out of 39 years despite having eight top two picks. Management was so ethically repulsive for most years that talent did everything possible to get out of there.

Playing in LA is an advantage over other teams and one completely squandered by the Clippers.

[Moonbeam]

Pistons are top five for sure. Lakers, Spurs, Celtics all ahead of Detroit, probably Bulls too, but no one else. The Pistons have three titles and two more game sevens in the Finals they lost. They've had two teams in two different generations that epitomized the city. White people here don't care about basketball at all, but went nuts for the Bad Boys and Goin' to Work Pistons.

1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Bulls
5. Pistons

HM: Heat, Rockets, Blazers, Suns, Jazz, Pacers

Bottom Five (excluding Bobcats, Raptors and Grizzlies who only existed for half or less than half the time period allotted)
I - Clippers
II - Kings
III - Timberwolves
IV - Hornets/Pelicans (May be about to change)
V - Nuggets (Until this season it would have been Warriors)

Yeah, it was insane how popular those Piston teams were. There was some excitement around the Grant Hill era as well. I was a Piston fan before they won anything, but changed allegiances before their first title.

I think the Red Wings are the most popular.

[Quake Griffin]

Always makes me wonder how awkward it would be if the Clippers put up ONE chip next to all the years of being terrible.

would it cancel all of it out?
would it make us not bottom 5?

Certainly want a championship. It would be a dream. But if it came on condition of sucking for 10 years straight after that. I'm not sure.

[Purch]

Spurs: The 86 Celtics and 08 Celtics were probably better than the best Spurs title teams and the best Bull teams were definitely superior but San Antonio still ranks as marginally superior due to better consistency. Over this 39 year stretch, San Antonio won an average of just under 50 games in comparison to 45 for Boston and 42.4 for Chicago. They only missed the playoffs four times while Boston and Chicago missed 12 and 13 times respectively.

I disagree with the sentiment that the 08 celtics were better than the Spurs best team. In fact I'd put the majority of Spurs championship teams ahead of them. People don't realize this but the 08 celtics had one of the worst championships runs of any team in this era. They went to 7 against a 37 win Atlanta team, 7 against a 45 win Cavs team , 6 against Detroit and 6 against the Lakers. Their major accomplishment was getting the 1st seed, because their playoff run is lackluster at best. Let me just compare them to the completly dominance of the 14 Spurs.

Compared to something like the 2014 Spurs I feel the 08 celtics run looks underwelming.

Even when people talk about their great regular season run, I actually think when you look at the two teams it's obvious that the spurs were better.

The celtics finished 66-16, whiles the spurs finished 62-20

What makes the spurs regular season even more impressive, is the fact that none of their players played an average of 30 minutes or more (first time in nba history) Not only that, but Parker sat out for a full two weeks just because Pop wanted him to rest. This is in the midst of one of the best western conferences of all time, yet the spurs were resting their players and still finished with the best record by 3 games, and had the best road record by 5 games (30 road wins). Not only that but the spurs played a total of 28'different lineups ( the second most behind the knicks). Not only that but at the same time they amounted a 19 game win game win streak(most in franchise history).

When I look at those factors it's hard for me to put Boston's regular season over them.

Then you talk about the Post season... Boston went 16-10 and had two series go to game 7 whiles they had home court. And their finals run as impressive as it was doesn't compare to what the spurs did at all.

The Spurs went 16-7 in the post season. 12 out of 16 of the Spurs wins came by 15 or more. In the finals they won in 5 games against the 2 time defending champs, and set the record for highest point differential even in a finals series.

Then when you consider the 2014 western conference> 2008 eastern conference significantly. The 8th seed in the west in 2014 was Dallas with 48 wins. The 8th seed in the east in 08 was Atlanta with 37, the 7th seed was Philly with 41 wins, and the 6th seed was Cleavland with 45 wins.

People talk about the 08 celtics dominance, but it really doesn't compare to the 2014 Spurs team, where Duncan had a very similar role to Garnett on the defensive end, and had the exact same Usage %.

I'm willing to listen, but I don't see how the 08 celtics dominance compares to the 14 spurs when you factor in the minutes played across the spurs roster, and the games their stars would literally sit out.

The only similarity In dominance these teams had was that their first round series both went to 7 games against an 8th seed. However the 8th seed in the west was a 48 win Daklas Maverick team. The 8th seed in the east was a 37 win Altanta Hawks team that was 8 games under .500.