RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #3

[trex_8063]

Seems there's a consensus (pretty much unanimous, I think) on who this spot goes to. I'd suggest we move on to #4 (where the debate should get more interesting).

[trex_8063]

This one has been open for just over 24 hours now and the vote is 10 for the Spurs (plus ThaRegul8r, though not voting, seems to be implying [if I'm correctly interpreting subtext] that he thinks it's the Spurs as well), 0 votes for anyone else; and the most recent vote was 4 hours ago.

I'll check back in a little while; if giordunk hasn't opened the #4 thread, I'll go ahead and do it just to keep things moving.

[ThaRegul8r]

(...consistency is something I've talked about for at least two Top 100 projects ago now.)

Only twice before? Really?

Well, no, obviously I haven't only done it twice.

By "two Top 100 projects ago" I was measuring by years.

The most recent Top 100 project was in 2017. The one before that was in 2014. So "at least two Top 100 projects ago" is "since 2014 at least," meaning it's something I've been talking about for at least the last five years.

This one has been open for just over 24 hours now and the vote is 10 for the Spurs (plus ThaRegul8r, though not voting, seems to be implying [if I'm correctly interpreting subtext] that he thinks it's the Spurs as well)

Correct.

I'm not a voter, but for me, the top three franchises in NBA history are the Lakers, Celtics, and Spurs in that order. After that is when it starts to get interesting. Though I posted what I did not to argue for the Spurs (I don't discredit people for the era in which they played, so that wouldn't have been part of an actual case I was trying to make) but because giordunk said #3 wasn't so clear, which was inconsistent with the stance he'd already shown when it came to other teams.

[penbeast0]

(...consistency is something I've talked about for at least two Top 100 projects ago now.)

Only twice before? Really?

Well, no, obviously I haven't only done it twice.

By "two Top 100 projects ago" I was measuring by years.

The most recent Top 100 project was in 2017. The one before that was in 2014. So "at least two Top 100 projects ago" is "since 2014 at least," meaning it's something I've been talking about for at least the last five years.

I would say you have been pretty consistent talking about consistency both in and out of the top 100 projects.

[JordansBulls]

I would probably say the Sixers. They had been more relevant for multiple decades. Spurs really were only relevant the last 3 decades. Sixers were relevant in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 2000's, and now.

[Dr Positivity]

I was confused by JB's vote, then I realized it was some next level reverse psychology of the Bulls franchise being bad making Jordan look better

[Sublime187]

I was confused by JB's vote, then I realized it was some next level reverse psychology of the Bulls franchise being bad making Jordan look better

Lmao.

[trex_8063]

I would probably say the Sixers. They had been more relevant for multiple decades. Spurs really were only relevant the last 3 decades. Sixers were relevant in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 2000's, and now.

This one has already been called for the Spurs, fwiw, in unanimous fashion in fact (10 votes for Spurs [11 if counting ThaRegul8r] vs 0 for anyone else prior to you).

And the above is a little factually inaccurate:

The Sixers were very relevant in the 50's, too.
And while they're relevant "now", they really haven't been terrible relevant in the 10's in general (mention this since you grouped all other time periods by decade). In the 10's, the Sixers had just three winning records and one .500 season in 10 years. Their cumulative rs win% in this past decade was .392, making the playoffs just four times (and not advancing as far as the CF in any of them).

And to say the Spurs have only been relevant for the last three decades (while simultaneously declaring the Sixers were relevant to the 70's and the "now"/10's) is sort of bizarre. I mean, the Spurs have missed the playoffs five times EVER (in 52 years of existence). The Sixers missed the playoffs six times in the 10's ALONE, and seven times in the 90's ALONE. They fell just one season short of the Spurs all-time total with four missed playoffs in the 70's (a decade in which they were "relevant").


To the specifics of the decades you claim the Spurs/Chaparrals were NOT "relevant".....

70's (7 ABA seasons, 3 NBA seasons)
Had just two losing seasons [neither of which was as bad as the Sixers were in either '73 or '74] and one .500 season in the decade.
And all of those were in the ABA, btw; all three NBA seasons were winning years. Had a cumulative .522 win% (.585 in the NBA) in the decade, made the playoffs nine of 10 years, reaching the conference finals in the NBA once.
That seems relevant to me.

80's
They certainly petered out late in the decade. Overall, they had five losing years (though none as bad as the Sixers were in '73) and two .500 years. They still made the playoffs seven times (one more than the Sixers did in the 70's, btw), and went to the conference finals TWICE. Their cumulative rs win% in the decade was just negligibly superior to that of the 70's Sixers too.
Not a great decade but that seems more or less as relevant as the Sixers were in the 70's (especially noting the 80's are a tougher era).


And then when we also note the Spurs won more titles in those three decades you give them credit for than the Nats/Sixers have in their 70 years of existence....