Amazing Spurs stat that deserves its own thread

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Prime Duncan wouldn’t be effective in to modern game

[Ballings7]

As an extension of my 21st century thread, I added up total wins (RS+PS) for every NBA team over the last 20 seasons. Mind you the Spurs won the Finals in 99 and were dominant throughout the 90s, none of which was included in the following data.

It probably won't surprise many people to learn that the Spurs came out on top in this experiment. What might/probably will surprise people is the margin of victory. To put things into perspective, the gap between the Spurs and #2 Mavs is greater than the gap between the Mavs and last place Knicks It's hard to even wrap my mind around that.

FWIW I excluded the Bobcats/modern Hornets because they only played 15 of the 20 seasons. If you extrapolate their average win total over that span it's actually less than the Knicks, but then this thread would be slightly less mind blowing.

Full results:

Spoiler:

1. SAS - 1387
2. DAL - 1038
3. LAL - 1016
4. MIA - 1008
5. BOS - 985
6. HOU - 981
7. OKC - 958 (includes SEA teams)
8. IND - 947
9. UTA - 922
10. GSW - 915
11. POR - 913
12. DET - 903
13. CLE - 881
14. DEN - 870
15 (tie). PHO - 860
15 (tie). TOR - 860
17. NOP - 813 (includes pre-Bobcat CHA teams)
18. LAC - 803
19. ORL - 798
20. MIL - 797
21. PHI - 786
22. CHI - 784
23. SAC - 775
24. MEM - 765
25. ATL - 760
26. BKN - 759
27. WAS - 719
28. MIN - 714
29. NYK - 690
30. CHA - 488 (over 15 seasons)

And yet they could never repeat.

Regular season stuff is close to worthless.

Doesn't take away from their greatness, legacy, or elite and extensive success that is highly unique in sports and the NBA.

[GeorgeMarcus]

And yet they could never repeat.

Regular season stuff is close to worthless.

I disagree with that, especially in a stacked WC where playoff seeding was especially important. They won the most playoff games during that span anyway.

[Pennebaker]

As an extension of my 21st century thread, I added up total wins (RS+PS) for every NBA team over the last 20 seasons. Mind you the Spurs won the Finals in 99 and were dominant throughout the 90s, none of which was included in the following data.

It probably won't surprise many people to learn that the Spurs came out on top in this experiment. What might/probably will surprise people is the margin of victory. To put things into perspective, the gap between the Spurs and #2 Mavs is greater than the gap between the Mavs and last place Knicks It's hard to even wrap my mind around that.

FWIW I excluded the Bobcats/modern Hornets because they only played 15 of the 20 seasons. If you extrapolate their average win total over that span it's actually less than the Knicks, but then this thread would be slightly less mind blowing.

Full results:

Spoiler:

1. SAS - 1387
2. DAL - 1038
3. LAL - 1016
4. MIA - 1008
5. BOS - 985
6. HOU - 981
7. OKC - 958 (includes SEA teams)
8. IND - 947
9. UTA - 922
10. GSW - 915
11. POR - 913
12. DET - 903
13. CLE - 881
14. DEN - 870
15 (tie). PHO - 860
15 (tie). TOR - 860
17. NOP - 813 (includes pre-Bobcat CHA teams)
18. LAC - 803
19. ORL - 798
20. MIL - 797
21. PHI - 786
22. CHI - 784
23. SAC - 775
24. MEM - 765
25. ATL - 760
26. BKN - 759
27. WAS - 719
28. MIN - 714
29. NYK - 690
30. CHA - 488 (over 15 seasons)

And yet they could never repeat.

Regular season stuff is close to worthless.

Doesn't take away from their greatness, legacy, or elite and extensive success that is highly unique in sports and the NBA.

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

[lonzo_pelota]

& now derozan's gonna take them to the promise landfill

[GeorgeMarcus]

And yet they could never repeat.

Regular season stuff is close to worthless.

Doesn't take away from their greatness, legacy, or elite and extensive success that is highly unique in sports and the NBA.

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

[Pennebaker]

Doesn't take away from their greatness, legacy, or elite and extensive success that is highly unique in sports and the NBA.

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

That's a kind of success, but not the kind most would consider ideal. Losing in the first round is always a disappointment - doubly so for a contender and even worse for a defending champion.

Most teams/fans/coaches/owners/GMs would rather three peat than have a spotty playoff record for 20 years with an inability to defend your title.

[Cartuse]

Doesn't take away from their greatness, legacy, or elite and extensive success that is highly unique in sports and the NBA.

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

You shouldn't even bother. Some people's standards of excellence are always gonna be whatever no one ever achieved, so their demands get more and more idiotic as the bar gets higher.

You could have a team win 10 straight championships and people are gonna point out that one time they went to 7 games ...

[JVC1011]

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

Most teams/fans/coaches/owners/GMs would rather three peat than have a spotty playoff record for 20 years with an inability to defend your title.

Nope, they’d all pick 5 championships during that span.

[CIN-C-STAR]

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

That's a kind of success, but not the kind most would consider ideal. Losing in the first round is always a disappointment - doubly so for a contender and even worse for a defending champion.

Most teams/fans/coaches/owners/GMs would rather three peat than have a spotty playoff record for 20 years with an inability to defend your title.

So you'd rather have one 3-peat over a 20 year period with seasons of tanking and missing the playoffs thrown in, rather than make the playoffs all 20 seasons AND win 4 championships?

I don't think I'm in the minority in saying I'd rather have more titles AND more playoff appearances.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Its illusory. They were never as good as you thought they were. One year they win it all, the next year they're out in the first round.

Those teams had many first round exits. Hardly an example of excellence.

They made the playoffs all 20 years and made it out of the 1st round in 14 of them. They made 9 appearances to the WC Finals. They made 5 Finals appearances, and won 4 of them. (Again this is excluding the ring they won in 99)

If that ain't success then I don't know what is.

That's a kind of success, but not the kind most would consider ideal. Losing in the first round is always a disappointment.

Most teams/fans/coaches/owners/GMs would rather three peat than have a spotty playoff record for 20 years with an inability to defend your title.

It seems like you're penalizing them for 1st round exits when every other team racked up multiple seasons in the lottery. They made it to the 2nd round 70% of the time over 20 years. They were looking at a repeat Championship if not for Ray Allen's miracle shot in 2013.

[Usual Suspects]

Spoiler:

As an extension of my 21st century thread, I added up total wins (RS+PS) for every NBA team over the last 20 seasons. Mind you the Spurs won the Finals in 99 and were dominant throughout the 90s, none of which was included in the following data.

It probably won't surprise many people to learn that the Spurs came out on top in this experiment. What might/probably will surprise people is the margin of victory. To put things into perspective, the gap between the Spurs and #2 Mavs is greater than the gap between the Mavs and last place Knicks It's hard to even wrap my mind around that.

FWIW I excluded the Bobcats/modern Hornets because they only played 15 of the 20 seasons. If you extrapolate their average win total over that span it's actually less than the Knicks, but then this thread would be slightly less mind blowing.

Full results:

Spoiler:

1. SAS - 1387
2. DAL - 1038
3. LAL - 1016
4. MIA - 1008
5. BOS - 985
6. HOU - 981
7. OKC - 958 (includes SEA teams)
8. IND - 947
9. UTA - 922
10. GSW - 915
11. POR - 913
12. DET - 903
13. CLE - 881
14. DEN - 870
15 (tie). PHO - 860
15 (tie). TOR - 860
17. NOP - 813 (includes pre-Bobcat CHA teams)
18. LAC - 803
19. ORL - 798
20. MIL - 797
21. PHI - 786
22. CHI - 784
23. SAC - 775
24. MEM - 765
25. ATL - 760
26. BKN - 759
27. WAS - 719
28. MIN - 714
29. NYK - 690
30. CHA - 488 (over 15 seasons)

This is the kind of true fanatic stuff I come on this site for. Thank you for counting that stuff up, I enjoyed this post.

[Sofia]

Prime Duncan wouldn’t be effective in to modern game

This ain’t it, chief

[GeorgeMarcus]

Spoiler:

As an extension of my 21st century thread, I added up total wins (RS+PS) for every NBA team over the last 20 seasons. Mind you the Spurs won the Finals in 99 and were dominant throughout the 90s, none of which was included in the following data.

It probably won't surprise many people to learn that the Spurs came out on top in this experiment. What might/probably will surprise people is the margin of victory. To put things into perspective, the gap between the Spurs and #2 Mavs is greater than the gap between the Mavs and last place Knicks It's hard to even wrap my mind around that.

FWIW I excluded the Bobcats/modern Hornets because they only played 15 of the 20 seasons. If you extrapolate their average win total over that span it's actually less than the Knicks, but then this thread would be slightly less mind blowing.

Full results:

Spoiler:

1. SAS - 1387
2. DAL - 1038
3. LAL - 1016
4. MIA - 1008
5. BOS - 985
6. HOU - 981
7. OKC - 958 (includes SEA teams)
8. IND - 947
9. UTA - 922
10. GSW - 915
11. POR - 913
12. DET - 903
13. CLE - 881
14. DEN - 870
15 (tie). PHO - 860
15 (tie). TOR - 860
17. NOP - 813 (includes pre-Bobcat CHA teams)
18. LAC - 803
19. ORL - 798
20. MIL - 797
21. PHI - 786
22. CHI - 784
23. SAC - 775
24. MEM - 765
25. ATL - 760
26. BKN - 759
27. WAS - 719
28. MIN - 714
29. NYK - 690
30. CHA - 488 (over 15 seasons)

This is the kind of true fanatic stuff I come on this site for. Thank you for counting that stuff up, I enjoyed this post.

Don't mention it- I'm glad you enjoyed it

[CoP]

1. SAS - 1387
2. DAL - 1038
3. LAL - 1016
4. MIA - 1008
5. BOS - 985
6. HOU - 981
7. OKC - 958 (includes SEA teams)
8. IND - 947
9. UTA - 922
10. GSW - 915
11. POR - 913
12. DET - 903
13. CLE - 881
14. DEN - 870
15 (tie). PHO - 860
15 (tie). TOR - 860
17. NOP - 813 (includes pre-Bobcat CHA teams)
18. LAC - 803
19. ORL - 798
20. MIL - 797
21. PHI - 786
22. CHI - 784
23. SAC - 775
24. MEM - 765
25. ATL - 760
26. BKN - 759
27. WAS - 719
28. MIN - 714
29. NYK - 690
30. CHA - 488 (over 15 seasons)

This has Spurs at 1286 wins over the last 20 years, not 1387:
http://bkref.com/tiny/wZFwZ

Numbers from that link match most of the numbers from your list, so maybe you over-counted the Spurs' wins somehow or added 100 wins inadvertently.

[Capn'O]

Lol at using some first round exits over a twenty year span to discredit the Spurs. There is no impressive team if they aren't one.

The run has been amazing. Unbelievable. I remember saying that the run had been fun and incredible in its longevity and it was too bad it was coming to a close. That was 2008. UNCLE ALREADY!

[GeorgeMarcus]

This has Spurs at 1286 wins over the last 20 years, not 1387:
http://bkref.com/tiny/wZFwZ

Numbers from that link match most of the numbers from your list, so maybe you over-counted the Spurs' wins somehow or added 100 wins inadvertently.

Edited the OP. Figures the Spurs were the only teams I made a significant error on. Oh well.

[Cartuse]

So easily forgotten by people that this is also a business and for a small market like San Antonio this is truly excellent work.

[CoP]

This has Spurs at 1286 wins over the last 20 years, not 1387:
http://bkref.com/tiny/wZFwZ

Numbers from that link match most of the numbers from your list, so maybe you over-counted the Spurs' wins somehow or added 100 wins inadvertently.

Edited the OP. Figures the Spurs were the only teams I made a significant error on. Oh well.

You're welcome. No need to add that up manually when a simple bbref search will do.

[GeorgeMarcus]

This has Spurs at 1286 wins over the last 20 years, not 1387:
http://bkref.com/tiny/wZFwZ

Numbers from that link match most of the numbers from your list, so maybe you over-counted the Spurs' wins somehow or added 100 wins inadvertently.

Edited the OP. Figures the Spurs were the only teams I made a significant error on. Oh well.

You're welcome. No need to add that up manually when a simple bbref search will do.

Excel is hardly "manual", and every team has a franchise index that makes it easy to sort. Plus cumulative win totals don't offer the same insights on each dataset.