rank the franchises

[M.Balla]

I didn't know Nuggets were that bad. Ouch.

NBA Western Conference virgins. Yet we're #15 on W/L percentage. Something similar happens to PHX. That's what run-n-gun and uptempo style does to your team.

[chocodog]

SherronShabazz wrote:
1. celtics- 20 finals, 17 rings
2. lakers- 29 finals, 14 rings
3. bulls- 6 finals, 6 rings
4. spurs- 4 finals, 4 rings
5. pistons- 7 finals, 3 rings
6. 76ers- 9 finals, 3 rings
7. knicks- 8 finals, 2 rings
8. rockets- 4 finals, 2 rings
9. warriors- 6 finals, 3 rings
10. blazers- 3 finals, 1 ring
11. oklahoma- 3 finals, 1 ring
12. bucks- 2 finals, 1 ring
13. heat- 1 final, 1 ring
14. wizards- 3 finals, 1 ring
15. hawks- 3 finals, 1 ring
16. kings- 1 finals, 1 ring
17. jazz- 2 finals, 0 rings
18. suns- 2 finals, 0 rings
19. nets- 2 finals, 0 rings
20. pacers- 1 finals, 0 rings
21. magic-1 finals, 0 rings
22. mavericks-1 finals, 0 rings
23. cavaliers-1 finals, 0 rings
24. nuggets-19 playoff births, 7 series wins
25. hornets-10 playoff births, 5 series wins
26. timberwolves-8 playoff births, 2 series wins
27. clippers- 7 playoff births, 2 series wins
28. raptors- 5 playoff births, 1 series win
29. grizzlies- 3 playoff births, 0 games won
30. bobcats-0 playoff births


This actually sorts it out pretty nicely in a somewhat non biased way (there still is a system of favoring finals and titles as a measuring stick, so that is a chosen bias, although not a large one and very reasonable). We could go further and break it down to ECFs and WCFs, other rounds as well, but I think this quick analysis has made a very decent preliminary breakdown, which doesn't deviate too much from the original.

Your list is pretty close to mine. I agree that titles/finals appearances followed by playoff births then series wins are the main factors to consider but it is still not accurate enough. While our lists are rather close, there are a few glaring differences. The jazz and suns are way to low, i have them much higher because they have proven to be much more stable/competetive/succesful (on the court) franchises than say the hawks, warriors, wizards and have quite a bit more history than, say the heat. I don't necessary think it's bad if a team relocates but i definitely think it is a plus if for its entire history the team has remained in one location, or at least played in their current location for nearly all of their existance, i.e. rockets. I would have put the sonics a bit higher, possibly, if not for the recent move. And while it should not be nearly as significant, ABA success should be factored as well.