RealGM

So what are the results? Here are the top 10 in Hollinger's rankings.

No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets

http://blog.mlive.com/fullcourtpress/2009/06/john_hollinger_ranks_the_detro.html

Not bad considering we didn't make the playoffs. I don't think it means much considering we are ahead of the Magic. Hollinger just used a formula and we happened to be number 9 (all-time not current). When I first started to post this, I have to admit, I got excited but then read the rest of the article.

If not for the brawl, we'd be in the the top 5. The top two you can't possibly deny, but I'm sure Knicks fans are PISSED. Spurs at number 3 are also questionable. That fact that he arbitrarily added "intangible" points that made no sense and that his rankings are based on statistics to decide the greatest franchises...that ticks me off. Hollinger has some great statistical analysis, but you can't measure the greatness of a franchise by the number of wins and the hardware it has.

We were rated one of the worst franchises in sports by some other columnist recently.

I can name a BUNCH of teams off the top of my head that are worse franchises than that Pacers. I think that most people who are smart attribute the Brawl to Artest (and that columnist needs to get with 2009).

Here's my list of franchises that I can't possibly see beating the Pacers in terms of suckiness:

Clippers
Grizzlies
Raptors
Bobcats
Warriors
Thunder (even with the Sonics attached)
Hornets
Wizards (even with the Bullets attached)
Cavaliers
Timberwolves

Do I have to continue? Even now, we are a cut above the Clips, Wolves, Grizz, Whiz...

DGrangeRx33 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-worst-sports-franchises-slideshow-2009-6

Sigh.

Miller4ever wrote:If not for the brawl, we'd be in the the top 5. The top two you can't possibly deny, but I'm sure Knicks fans are PISSED. Spurs at number 3 are also questionable. That fact that he arbitrarily added "intangible" points that made no sense and that his rankings are based on statistics to decide the greatest franchises...that ticks me off. Hollinger has some great statistical analysis, but you can't measure the greatness of a franchise by the number of wins and the hardware it has.

But aren't those 2 things that we measure success by in sports? I never knew there was a special spot for the loveable losers or the team that tries really hard. It is all about the bottom line, especially in professional sports and it has been that way for some time now.

DGrangeRx33 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-worst-sports-franchises-slideshow-2009-6

Yeah, that list is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

Dunthreevy wrote:

Miller4ever wrote:If not for the brawl, we'd be in the the top 5. The top two you can't possibly deny, but I'm sure Knicks fans are PISSED. Spurs at number 3 are also questionable. That fact that he arbitrarily added "intangible" points that made no sense and that his rankings are based on statistics to decide the greatest franchises...that ticks me off. Hollinger has some great statistical analysis, but you can't measure the greatness of a franchise by the number of wins and the hardware it has.

But aren't those 2 things that we measure success by in sports? I never knew there was a special spot for the loveable losers or the team that tries really hard. It is all about the bottom line, especially in professional sports and it has been that way for some time now.

I agree. How else do you measure success in sports? Fan loyalty and brand name maybe? There are lots of factors in the equation, but when you get down to it, I think wins and hardware are the most important.

cdash wrote:

Dunthreevy wrote:

Miller4ever wrote:If not for the brawl, we'd be in the the top 5. The top two you can't possibly deny, but I'm sure Knicks fans are PISSED. Spurs at number 3 are also questionable. That fact that he arbitrarily added "intangible" points that made no sense and that his rankings are based on statistics to decide the greatest franchises...that ticks me off. Hollinger has some great statistical analysis, but you can't measure the greatness of a franchise by the number of wins and the hardware it has.

But aren't those 2 things that we measure success by in sports? I never knew there was a special spot for the loveable losers or the team that tries really hard. It is all about the bottom line, especially in professional sports and it has been that way for some time now.

I agree. How else do you measure success in sports? Fan loyalty and brand name maybe? There are lots of factors in the equation, but when you get down to it, I think wins and hardware are the most important.

So you disagree?

No...I simply acknowledged that they aren't the ONLY determining factors in the equation, but they are the most important.

They do factor in, but I've always thought that the number of MVP's or rings determines the greatness of a player, they just factor in. The Pacers have been a model NBA franchise for so long until the Brawl, and while we've never been able to capture a title, we've had memorable teams come through and some outstanding moments. While we don't have a ring to show for it, we've seen 8 points chalked up in 8.9 seconds, a three over Michael Jordan to clinch a Game 4 victory, 25 points by one player in a 4th quarter, front teeth knocked out, a choking gesture at a great filmmaker, a Memorial Day Miracle...but these weren't just exclusive memories for the Pacers...the entire league was watching, too. You add one of the greatest GM's in Donnie Walsh and a line of good coaches, plus the ABA greatness, and you can see that it's not ALL about banners.