RealGM

This is a fun read, courtesy of John Hollinger:

link

The Pacers come in at #11 all-time; unfortunately, only the top ten are available to those of us without ESPN Insider. If someone wanted to tell me what it says about the Pacers...

Of course the fun of this is in arguing about it. Here's MY all-time top ten:

1. Boston. How can they be behind the Lakers when (1) they've won more championships and (2) they are 9-3 all-time against LA in the finals?
2. Lakers
3. Chicago. Come on now, SIX championships.
4. San Antonio, although you could make a case here for Philadelphia.
5. Philadelphia
6. Detroit. Come on now, I hate the Pistons with a passion, but they have two different championship eras.
7. New York. Two NBA championships, and almost always among the league's best teams until recent years.
8. Houston
9. Indiana, on the basis of its ABA championship history.
10. Portland. Beats out Phoenix, because the long string of competitive teams included a championship.

Just missed the cut: Phoenix, Seattle/Oklahoma City, Utah

Last question: how in hell can Hollinger put Orlando in the top ten? They've only been around for about 20 years, and they've never won a championship! Boooooo!!!!

This is sorta old news. I was glad Indy got to 11, and I was baffled at first by some of the standings he supplied.

Pacers wouldve had a NBA championship if we couldve gotten by Chicago that one year in the ECF. Cause we couldve beaten the Jazz in the finals

Coulda shoulda woulda. It is what it is, I'm glad we're that high despite some years of pure suck.

this came out a while ago didn't it? and he had a statistical way of doing it right? anyway, I think #11 is a very fair ranking considering we have only been to one NBA championship and didn't win it. Portland and Phoenix should be ahead of us I would say, and Utah can make an argument. (I take a lot of points away from Seattle since they moved).

Pretty remarkable that Celtics and Lakers combined have won 33 of the 64 NBA titles...especially in a league with a salary cap and in the sport of basketball where just 2-3 great players can make you a dynasty.

Yeah, I guess it came out a while ago...I missed it somehow and hadn't seen it until this week. And yeah, Hollinger is heavy on the statistical formulas.

I put Indiana ahead of Portland and Phoenix because of three ABA championships and three other finals appearances (two in the ABA, one in the NBA). The ABA was a legit league--the first year after the merger, nearly half of the players in the All-Star game were former ABAers, and Denver and San Antonio were immediately successful in the NBA. And historically, the Pacers were the best ABA franchise.

IrishLuck31 wrote:Pretty remarkable that Celtics and Lakers combined have won 33 of the 64 NBA titles...especially in a league with a salary cap and in the sport of basketball where just 2-3 great players can make you a dynasty.

You'd think the cap and the draft would create some parity. But on the flip side, it's easier in basketball to create a dynasty, because it only takes those 2-3 great players to start one. I'd guess that's one of the main reasons why so few of the NBA's 30 franchises have won an NBA championship.

Another main reason is probably the sheer incompetence of a number of NBA franchises.

It sucked for the Pacers going from the ABA to the NBA, because we lost George McGinnis to the 76ers. With McGinnis and Buse (the most unknown crazy-good PG of Pacers history, if not NBA history), the Pacers could've been contenders for a few NBA years. The year after McGinnis retired, the Pacers drafted the 20-10 guy Clark Kellogg. Then he got injured. It wold be 4 more years before Reggie would hit the scene.