RealGM

Slightly different project that I still think would be informative.

Just gathering interest now, I'm open to letting people drop in to vote, but would like to have a couple of dedicated posters who know a lot more about NBA History than me.

Curious to see how Cleveland and Toronto rank with their lone championships.

The plan is just ranking all 30 franchises.

Criteria - This is going to be intentionally open-ended, but try to be hollistic and consider everything other than just championship rings - players, organization, front office, fan base, media impact, consistency, etc., just to name a few.

For the sake of this project I will use the lineages of

Sonics -> Thunder

Charlotte Hornets -> Charlotte Bobcats -> Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Hornets -> New Orleans Pelicans

Unless anyone has super strong disagreements.

If you are interested in joining just respond and cast your vote, I imagine most people will be deciding between the Celtisc and Lakers. Feel free to throw out a nomination for the next team as well.

For #1 I'd have to go Lakers. I think you can't go wrong with Celtics either, but what pushes the Lakers over the edge is more top-loaded all-time talent and bigger brand recognition worldwide.

I'm keeping this post pretty brief since I don't think there's a lot to be argued, but I'm ready to read some of those longer more informative posts.

Does NBL or ABA count? I imagine BAA does.

giordunk wrote:Charlotte Hornets -> Charlotte Bobcats -> Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Hornets -> New Orleans Pelicans

?

giordunk wrote:Slightly different project that I still think would be informative.

Just gathering interest now, I'm open to letting people drop in to vote, but would like to have a couple of dedicated posters who know a lot more about NBA History than me.

Curious to see how Cleveland and Toronto rank with their lone championships.

The plan is just ranking all 30 franchises.

Criteria - This is going to be intentionally open-ended, but try to be hollistic and consider everything other than just championship rings - players, organization, front office, fan base, media impact, consistency, etc., just to name a few.

For the sake of this project I will use the lineages of

Sonics -> Thunder

Charlotte Hornets -> Charlotte Bobcats -> Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Hornets -> New Orleans Pelicans

Unless anyone has super strong disagreements.

If you are interested in joining just respond and cast your vote, I imagine most people will be deciding between the Celtisc and Lakers. Feel free to throw out a nomination for the next team as well.

Fwiw, and I'm guessing I wouldn't participate, at least not as a regular, I don't like like the original Hornets as split lineage. It makes the "Charlotte" lineage wonky "and then they disappeared, and then they came back and were bad to mediocre for an age, and nobody cared about them and then they took on their cool old brand, but were still meh". I think it was smart for the Charlotte to change brand and want the association. It's just messy when an entire roster, front office, organization etc apparently switches notional franchises.

Also that starts to mess with other things. The justification for keeping it in one town is a location-based (fanbase?) lineage. But then do the early Lakers go to the Timberwolves? Early Jazz go to the Pelicans? NO/OKC years Hornets shared history or OKC? Royals/Kings as multiple distinct entities. Ditto Braves/Clippers. Seattle/OKC. Bullets/Wizards. Hawks.

I understand that it's effectively "official" in that the Bobcats franchise got the Hornet's Charlotte history, and as before it makes sense for business and nostalgia. And because of this things like basketball-reference line up histories like this so that's probably easier. Just not my preference, fwiw.

I'd go with the official lineages myself. And agreed that the 2 top contenders are Lakers/Celtics, will have to think about that one for a bit.

I think #1 is the Lakers. The Celtics are certainly #2 but if you are counting the lineages, you have the Lakers winning titles in the 40s, 50s, 70s, 80s, 00s, and 2010. They also have long stretches of competitiveness in the 60s where they were the consistent runnerup to the Celtics. The Celtics have 1 more title but far less years of truly competitive play and the great majority of their titles were in their ATG run under Bill Russell where they won 11 in 13 years, outside of that they "only" have 6 more.

1. Lakers (Celtics success a little to heavily weighted towards the 60's, Lakers were always contenders).
2. Celtics (Sort of a 1b with most rings of all-time, had some bad stretches in there)

Can we start discussing #3 already? It's between the Bulls, Spurs & Warriors.

1.Lakers
2.Celtics
3.Spurs
4.Warriors maybe?
5.???

RoyceDa59 wrote:Can we start discussing #3 already?

I'm guessing the goal of the OP is not simply to compile a list. And rushing past Boston and LA feels like missing a great deal of value in the project.

Imagine doing the top 100 players project and just being like okay Lebron 1, Russell 2, now let's debate Mike, Duncan, and Kareem for 3. Sure you'd have the right two guys but so much would be missed.

I'm still curious if I should include ABA/NBL in my evaluations?

But anywho, my vote for #1 is going to the Lakers. I value more smaller dynasties than the one dynasty to rule them all. Close though. Lakers have traditionally had more success in years they didn't win the title as well (more playoffs/finals runs), though that's a bit due to conference imbalance. Star power probably goes in the Lakers favor, but that'll be a very very small factor for me throughout this project.

Texas Chuck wrote:

RoyceDa59 wrote:Can we start discussing #3 already?

I'm guessing the goal of the OP is not simply to compile a list. And rushing past Boston and LA feels like missing a great deal of value in the project.

Imagine doing the top 100 players project and just being like okay Lebron 1, Russell 2, now let's debate Mike, Duncan, and Kareem for 3. Sure you'd have the right two guys but so much would be missed.

What? Trolling obviously.

RoyceDa59 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

RoyceDa59 wrote:Can we start discussing #3 already?

I'm guessing the goal of the OP is not simply to compile a list. And rushing past Boston and LA feels like missing a great deal of value in the project.

Imagine doing the top 100 players project and just being like okay Lebron 1, Russell 2, now let's debate Mike, Duncan, and Kareem for 3. Sure you'd have the right two guys but so much would be missed.

What? Trolling obviously.

It's trolling to suggest that if we discuss NBA franchises that skipping past the Celtics and Lakers would mean we missed a lot? Seems crazy.

Oh you are are talking about Russell and Lebron at the top? Kinda proves my point about skipping steps then doesn't it? I might think they are the clear top 2. You don't so you don't want me writing them in pen and starting with number 3. So let's not do so here.

Especially since depending on criteria I'm not sure the Spurs don't have an argument here. Not making the playoffs something like 5 times in 50 years?

wojoaderge wrote:

giordunk wrote:Charlotte Hornets -> Charlotte Bobcats -> Charlotte Hornets

New Orleans Hornets -> New Orleans Pelicans

?

These are just the 'official' lineages of the NBA, how records are kept, and just seems to be the easiest and most straightforward. Otherwise we get in the grey area that Owly has shown.

eminence wrote:Does NBL or ABA count? I imagine BAA does.

Where does this come in? Off the top of my head I know the Pacers have some significant history, not sure what other franchises it would turn the needle for.

giordunk wrote:

eminence wrote:Does NBL or ABA count? I imagine BAA does.

Where does this come in? Off the top of my head I know the Pacers have some significant history, not sure what other franchises it would turn the needle for.

Nets/Pacers/Nuggets/Spurs are the ABA teams, Nets/Pacers pretty significant accomplishments (multiple titles), but the Spurs/Nuggets were also highly successful.

NBL wouldn't do much to be honest, just curious.

Ooo, I'm definitely interested in participating. Cool idea!

I'm also all for just using the official team lineages (as shown on bbref).

For my #1, I guess I gotta go with the Lakers. The only real contender in an all-time sense [imo] is the Celtics (EDIT: upon review, I think a dark-horse case can be made for the Spurs; at the very least they've got to be 3rd). But here are some of the numbers:

Total Seasons (not counting '20)
Lakers - 71
Celtics - 73

Playoff Appearances
Lakers - 60 (84.50% of all seasons--->that's ridiculous when you think about it)
Celtics - 56 (76.71% of all seasons)

rs Win%
Lakers - .594
Celtics - .590

Championships
Lakers - 16
Celtics - 17

Total Finals Appearances
Lakers - 31
Celtics - 21


I know that's not the complete record, but I feel all of the above collectively favours the Lakers by a little.

Texas Chuck wrote:

RoyceDa59 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
I'm guessing the goal of the OP is not simply to compile a list. And rushing past Boston and LA feels like missing a great deal of value in the project.

Imagine doing the top 100 players project and just being like okay Lebron 1, Russell 2, now let's debate Mike, Duncan, and Kareem for 3. Sure you'd have the right two guys but so much would be missed.

What? Trolling obviously.

It's trolling to suggest that if we discuss NBA franchises that skipping past the Celtics and Lakers would mean we missed a lot? Seems crazy.

Oh you are are talking about Russell and Lebron at the top? Kinda proves my point about skipping steps then doesn't it? I might think they are the clear top 2. You don't so you don't want me writing them in pen and starting with number 3. So let's not do so here.

Especially since depending on criteria I'm not sure the Spurs don't have an argument here. Not making the playoffs something like 5 times in 50 years?

I'll concede your point is valid, we shouldn't skip the first two, I was just anxious to see who locks down 3. But that said, I don't think your example is comparable.

Celtics have 17 Championships, Lakers have 16.

The next closest team has 6.

Whereas, the overall stats + achievements of guys like Russell, Jordan, Kareem and James are much closer.

In. Doing a thread for #1 is a must, but #2 can be skipped in my opinion

This thread got ended too quickly, but I agree with #1 being the Lakers. 31 finals to 21 means more than Celtics having one more title. The only argument against the Lakers would be to devalue the shot clock era which I'm not comfortable with. Plus if you made that argument you could as easily say the Lakers being more successful from 80s to now means more than dominating 50s-70s

Oh, btw, sign me up if you need to formally request it.