RealGM

1-Boston Celtics
2-L.A. Lakers
3-Detroit Pistons
4-Chicago Bulls
5-San Antonio Spurs
6-Portland Trailblazers
7-Houston Rockets
8-Phoenix Suns
9-Utah Jazz
10-New York Knicks
11-Philadelphia 76ers
12-Seattle Supersonics
13-Milwuakee Bucks
14-Golden State Warriors
15-Washington Wizards
16-Miami Heat
17-Indiana Pacers
18-Atlanta Hawks
19-New Jersey Nets
20-Denver Nuggets
21-Sacramento Kings
22-Dallas Mavericks
23-Orlando Magic
24-Cleveland Cavaliers
25-Toronto Rapters
26-New Orleans Hornets
27-Minnesota Timberwolves
28-Memphis Grizzlies
29-L.A. Clippers
30-Charlotte Bobcats



This is in no way an an indicator or prediction of every team's respective record for the upcoming season. This is my impression on where every franchise would be ranked, taking in to consideration lineage (years existed, titles), stability (remaining competitive throughout their tenure or at least diesplaying mutliple eras of success even if there are significant gaps and not being marred by poor ownership and/or management). Having a longer existance does not necessarily benefit a team. If a much newer team has an eual amount of competitive seasons then they get the edge for having a better percentage of success. The mavericks, for example, have been great for nearly the past decade but they were irrelevant for basically their entire previous existance and even now have little to show in terms of titles (which includes not only championships but other marks like divisonal crowns).

For the record I am not a lakers fan and I loathe boston sports in general. My favorite NBA Team is the Portland Trailblazers but my intention was to not not let that affect my ranking. The only section that gets grey to me is 13-20.

Pretty accurate list at first glance. Nice job.

Of course, some fans will give the typical "Um, [my fav team] should be above [insert team]!" response, but generally speaking, the list seems about right.

1)Suns (biased)
2)Knicks
3)Bulls
4)Celtics
5)Lakers
6)Pistons
7)76ers
8)Rockets
9)Blazers
10)Jazz
11)Spurs
12)Nets
13)Warriors
14)Wizards
15)Sonics
16)Nuggets
17)Heat
18)Magic
19)Kings
20)Pacers
21)Mavericks
22)Cavs
23)Hornets
24)Raptors
25)Bucks
26)Wolves
27)Clippers
28)Hawks
29)Grizzlies
30)Bobcats

Hmm....if anyone has the time to do it, I think a good statistic would be:

Number of quality seasons (good record, made playoffs - we can discuss criteria for this)
divided by
Number of total seasons in franchises existence

This would result in a percentage that would indicate how often a team has been good, and how often they've been bad. For example, Mavericks would probably be pretty low on this, Celtics pretty high.

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

^ I like this right here. Of course personally the most staggering number on there is the 29 Lakers finals, good lord.

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.

Do you count the record in ABA? I started a thread a while ago about their all time roster but no one replied...LOL

It's amazing how many finals we have attended, Jerry West alone participated in 9 of them, so is Magic!

And the Celtics is amazing too. Winning the final 17 out of 20. That's 85% right there!
Of course the Bulls and Spurs have 100%, however their sample size is relative small compare to Celtics.

And I didn't know the Kings won a ring before...

Phobo_Phile wrote:^ I like this right here. Of course personally the most staggering number on there is the 29 Lakers finals, good lord.

isn't that crazy? that includes minneapolis and los angeles. a lot of these championships took place in different cities (6ers, kings, warriors, etc)

andykeikei wrote:And the Celtics is amazing too. Winning the final 17 out of 20. That's 85% right there!
Of course the Bulls and Spurs have 100%, however their sample size is relative small compare to Celtics.

And I didn't know the Kings won a ring before...

the celtics dominance is amazing. they had a 21 year drought and won one more... it's crazy.

the kings won as the rochestor royals in 1951. i guess that's technically a ny championship.

as a bulls fan i'd be happy to just make it back to the finals one more time. to see the lakers go to 29 championships is outstanding.

If you want to rank them according to playoff appearance percentage, here you go:

1. Lakers 91.7%
2. Spurs 87.8%
3. 76ers 74.5%
4. Celtics 74.2%
5. Suns 70.0%
6. Blazers 68.0%
7. Jazz 64.7%
8. Hawks 64.3%
9. Bulls 64.3%
10. Bucks 62.0%
11. Rockets 61.8%
12. Knicks 61.0%
13. Pistons 60.8%
14. Heat 60%
15. Nuggets 59.4%
16. Pacers 56.25%
17. Oklahoma City/Sonics 53.6%
18. Wizards 53.2%
19. Magic 52.6%
20. Hornets 52%
21. Nets 50.0%
22. Mavericks 50.0%
23. Kings 48.3%
24. Warriors 45.2%
25. Cavs 42.1%
26. Timberwolves 42.0%
27. Raptors 35.5%
28. Grizzlies 23.0%
29. Clippers 18.4%
30. Bobcats 0.0%

This seems pretty tough to argue.

By all-time win percentage:

1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Spurs
4. Suns
5. Jazz
6. 76ers
7. Blazers
8. Bucks
9. OKC / Sonics
10. Pacers
11. Bulls
12. Rockets
13. Knicks
14. Pistons
15. Magic
16. Hawks
17. Nuggets
18. Mavericks
19. Hornets
20. Heat
21. Kings
22. Warriors
23. Wizards
24. Cavs
25. Nets
26. T-Wolves
27. Raptors
28. Clippers
29. Bobcats
30. Grizzlies

This is probably the best way to rank the teams.

^
That is a terrible ranking. Wins mean nothing- championships do, no reason for Detroit, Miami etc to be behind the Suns/Pacers etcs..

Personally if I was ranking franchises I would rank the teams with the most rings + their current standing in the NBA. So Boston, LA, San Antonio and Detroit would be at the top.

OKC has no history. Why is it so high?

TradeMachine wrote:OKC has no history. Why are they so high?

Because they were the Seattle Supersonic. They won title before.

Same for the Minneapolis Lakers that got 5 champions. Or else the LA Lakers won't have 14 champions in total.

andykeikei wrote:

TradeMachine wrote:OKC has no history. Why are they so high?

Because they were the Seattle Supersonic. They won title before.

Same for the Minneapolis Lakers that got 5 champions. Or else the LA Lakers won't have 14 champions in total.

It's not the same as the Lakers' move. Seattle keeps the Sonics' history; hence the name, color change, etc.,

In exchange for $45 million immediately, the possibility of an additional $30 million in 2013 if a new team has not been found for the city, and leaving behind the team's name and history, the city agreed to release PBC from the KeyArena lease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Supersonics

drew881 wrote:

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.

Can't really argue with this. Very well done.

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

TradeMachine wrote:

andykeikei wrote:

TradeMachine wrote:OKC has no history. Why are they so high?

Because they were the Seattle Supersonic. They won title before.

Same for the Minneapolis Lakers that got 5 champions. Or else the LA Lakers won't have 14 champions in total.

It's not the same as the Lakers' move. Seattle keeps the Sonics' history; hence the name, color change, etc.,

In exchange for $45 million immediately, the possibility of an additional $30 million in 2013 if a new team has not been found for the city, and leaving behind the team's name and history, the city agreed to release PBC from the KeyArena lease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Supersonics

But they did inherit the Sonics players......
I guess the poster should change OKC to Sonic then