RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #3

[giordunk]

I don't think anyone will mind that we're moving to #3 pretty fast, so let's just keep this moving along where it's starting to get interesting.

1. Los Angeles Lakers
2. Boston Celtics

[giordunk]

To me #3 isn't as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be.

Some arguments for other teams...

Warriors and Bulls both have more championships, more history, and higher peaks.

Curious to see how we compare Spurs/Warriors/Bulls as franchises if we look at their franchise outside of the Jordan/Duncan/Curry eras.

All-Time Top 12s (not definitive, just based on win shares on Basketball Reference)

Spurs
1. Tim Duncan
2. David Robinson
3. Tony Parker
4. George Gervin
5. Manu Ginobili
6. James Silas
7. Kawhi Leonard
8. Sean Elliott
9. Avery Johnson
10. Artis Gilmore
11. LaMarcus Aldridge
12. Larry Kenon

Bulls
1. Michael Jordan
2. Scottie Pippen
3. Chet Walker
4. Artis Gilmore
5. Horace Grant
6. Luol Deng
7. Joakim Noah
8. Jimmy Butler
9. Bob Love
10. Jerry Sloan
11. Kirk Hinrich
12. Toni Kukoc

Warriors
1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Paul Arizin
3. Stephen Curry
4. Neil Johnston
5. Rick Barry
6. Chris Mullin
7. Nate Thurmond
8. Jeff Mullins
9. Klay Thompson
10. Draymond Green
11. Tom Gola
12. Purvis Short

Quick Franchise Overviews of non-peak years. I'm grossly oversimplifying because a lot of this was before my time, so people feel free to supplement your own information, let me know if I'm selling some things too much or too short.

Warriors
Early success as Philadelphia Warriors (2 in first 10). Had a lot of the early white greats (Joe Fulks, Arizin, Neil Johnston), and had Wilt for a little bit. Transitioned into the Rick Barry Era where they won a championship in 75, then a LONG era of mediocrity - had a few fun but unsuccessful Run TMC years, the 07 We Believe run, then really nothing outside the Curry era. Currently in a down year but there's no reason they aren't competitive and continue the next few seasons with the same nucleus.

Spurs
Early ABA years as Dallas Chaparrals. Many seasons hovering around 50 win seasons under Gervin with okay playoff runs. Rode that wave a little until they got David Robinson. Became a perennial pretty good team, further they got was the 62 win team that lost in the WCF in the memorable Hakeem/David Robinson series. Duncan/Pop took over then the rest is history. Post Duncan Spurs are still a competitive playoff team. Probably the strongest front office and coach culture in NBA history.

Bulls
Early decent teams with Bob Boozer and Chet Walker. Bulls only went to the playoffs twice with Gilmore. They get Jordan for the 84-85 season, and we get 6 seasons of hungry young Jordan before the 6 rings.

Post Jordan Bulls had some of the most fun young teams but most of them did not amount to anything until this Hinrich/Deng/Gordon era that was pretty continuous and introduced guys like Rose, Noah, and Butler into a team with pretty good continuity. The highlight is Rose's MVP season where the Bulls won 62 games, and yea if injuries never happened who knows what could have been.

[Fadeaway_J]

Warriors were garbage basically from the late 90s to the early 2010s, apart from that brief flash from 2006-08 with the We Believe team (which still only amounted to one playoff berth). Bulls haven't been as feast-or-famine, but don't stand out much outside of the Jordan/Jackson era. Spurs remained relevant at the top of the West over three decades, and were solid enough before then.

Vote: Spurs

[Homer38]

Spurs is my vote.

The Spurs have rarely been a bad team and they have often been a contender ... They have the best winning percentage in NBA history too and only 6 losing season in 43 seasons.

The Bulls did nothing in their history when they did not have Jordan in their roster ... There are 12 teams with a higher winning percentage than the Bulls and that includes the Jordan's years.

The Warriors had a period with only 1 playoffs appearance in almost 20 years, so no way they are in front of the spurs.They also have a losing record in their history (.484)

[Dr Positivity]

Spurs - another easy vote in my opinion. They have sustained success over multiple eras, while Bulls and Warriors have spent too long being irrelevant.

[trex_8063]

I'll throw in my vote for the San Antonio Spurs.

Really there are probably only a few [if even that] franchises that are remotely close: the Chicago Bulls, the Philadelphia/S.F./G.S. Warriors, and maybe the Syracuse Nationals/Philly 76'ers; and maybe a real long-shot [just HM's, really] for the Indiana Pacers [depending on how you value ABA successes], the Portland Trailblazers, or the Fort Wayne/Detroit Pistons......maybe the Heat, too???

I'll again show a few of the numbers (not including '20)....

Total Seasons
Warriors - 73
Pistons - 71
Bulls - 53
Spurs - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)
Pacers - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)
Trailblazers - 49
Heat - 31

rs Win%
Spurs - .602 [GOAT] (.622 in NBA [GOAT], .508 in ABA)
Trailblazers - .538
Heat - .519
Pacers - .514 (.502 in NBA, .574 in ABA)
Bulls - .513
Pistons - .487
Warriors - .485

Playoff Appearances
Spurs - 47 (39 NBA, 8 ABA)
Pistons - 42
Bulls - 35
Trailblazers - 35
Warriors - 35
Pacers - 35 (26 NBA, 9 ABA)
Heat - 20

% Frequency in Playoffs
Spurs - .904 [GOAT] (.907 in NBA [GOAT], .889 in ABA)
Trailblazers - .714
Pacers - .673 (.605 in NBA, 1.000 in ABA)
Bulls - .660
Heat - .645
Pistons - .592
Warriors - .479

Titles
Bulls - 6
Warriors - 6
Spurs - 5
Pistons - 3
Heat - 3
Pacers - 3 (all in ABA)
Trailblazers - 1

Finals Appearances
Warriors - 11
Pistons - 7
Bulls - 6
Spurs - 6
Pacers - 6 (1 NBA, 5 ABA)
Heat - 5
Trailblazers - 3

Looking at all of the above, I gotta go with the Spurs. It's the most well-rounded resume of them, especially considering the era (and conference) in which most of their best successes occurred).

EDIT: Sonics/Thunder maybe not far off with the bottom end of the above field, too.

[ThaRegul8r]

To me #3 isn't as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be.

Some arguments for other teams...

Warriors and Bulls both have more championships, more history, and higher peaks.

Literally the sole reason people would choose the Bulls for this spot is based an 8-year period out of over 50 years of existence. Let's not kid ourselves or pretend the argument consists of anything else.

"All-time" means "all-time."

The Spurs have the same amount of Finals appearances that the Bulls have, so then you take a look outside of that and the Spurs >.

Looking at your vote in particular, you voted the Lakers #1 despite having one less title than the Celtics. (I also have the Lakers #1 in my own personal rankings.) They won one title in the ’40s, four in the ’50s, went to six Finals in the ’60s, went to three Finals in the ’70s and won in ’72 when they set the single-season win record—and the 33 consecutive games they won that year is still the longest winning streak in pro sports history, went to eight finals in the ’80s and won five, won four titles in the 2000s, and one in 2010. One more title by the Celtics doesn't offset that, because "all-time" takes everything into account.

However, if you would now argue # of championships and highest peak, then the Celtics have more titles than the Lakers and had the highest peak, 8-peating and winning 11 in 13 (the highest peak in the entirety of North American professional team sports). To be consistent, you would have had to cast your vote for the Celtics in order to make this argument now, but you didn't. If one title didn't put the Celtics over the Lakers, it doesn't put the Bulls or Warriors over the Spurs.

If a higher peak didn't put the Celtics over the Lakers, it doesn't put the Bulls or Warriors over the Spurs.

Consistency.

[ProcessDoctor]

Spurs

[GeorgeMarcus]

I'll go Spurs. 22-year playoff run for a small market team is almost unfathomable. Not to mention they were elite through most of the 90s as well.

[Fadeaway_J]

.

How many votes before you call each spot in the rankings?

[penbeast0]

Spurs pretty easily. Not only within 1 title of the Warriors and Bulls, but the highest regular season win % in NBA history including the Lakers and Celtics.

[giordunk]

.

How many votes before you call each spot in the rankings?

I think I'll leave each one open for at least a day or two. I just sped past the Lakers and Celtics although it may have been nice to open it up to discussion. I imagine once we're past 3 there will be a lot more interesting cases to be made.

[Dr Positivity]

.

How many votes before you call each spot in the rankings?

I think I'll leave each one open for at least a day or two. I just sped past the Lakers and Celtics although it may have been nice to open it up to discussion. I imagine once we're past 3 there will be a lot more interesting cases to be made.

I think you can call this one for the Spurs

[giordunk]

To me #3 isn't as clear cut as some of you are making it out to be.

Some arguments for other teams...

Warriors and Bulls both have more championships, more history, and higher peaks.

Literally the sole reason people would choose the Bulls for this spot is based an 8-year period out of over 50 years of existence. Let's not kid ourselves or pretend the argument consists of anything else.

"All-time" means "all-time."

The Spurs have the same amount of Finals appearances that the Bulls have, so then you take a look outside of that and the Spurs >.

Looking at your vote in particular, you voted the Lakers #1 despite having one less title than the Celtics. (I also have the Lakers #1 in my own personal rankings.) They won one title in the ’40s, four in the ’50s, went to six Finals in the ’60s, went to three Finals in the ’70s and won in ’72 when they set the single-season win record—and the 33 consecutive games they won that year is still the longest winning streak in pro sports history, went to eight finals in the ’80s and won five, won four titles in the 2000s, and one in 2010. One more title by the Celtics doesn't offset that, because "all-time" takes everything into account.

However, if you would now argue # of championships and highest peak, then the Celtics have more titles than the Lakers and had the highest peak, 8-peating and winning 11 in 13 (the highest peak in the entirety of North American professional team sports). To be consistent, you would have had to cast your vote for the Celtics in order to make this argument now, but you didn't. If one title didn't put the Celtics over the Lakers, it doesn't put the Bulls or Warriors over the Spurs.

If a higher peak didn't put the Celtics over the Lakers, it doesn't put the Bulls or Warriors over the Spurs.

Consistency.

I'm going to start sounding like an ignorant young guy but I simply don't weigh some of the early league as much so although the Bill Russell dominance is cool, I just don't count it that much, and that's going to be my stance. I agree there is some talent that's timeless - most of the elite players back then would still be elite today, but the league on average is just such a different league. The talent pool of a league that pays millions and millions of dollars simply cannot compare to the talent pool of an obscure league that's been on the brink of collapse. It's my bias as a relatively younger fan and that's the only thing that has been consistent.

[trex_8063]

A simple ring-count (which revolves around the 8-year period ThaRegul8r referred to) would have to be the primary reason to give them serious consideration for this spot, yes. Although I think they become a very viable candidate as soon as the #4 spot. Not only is there that stint in the Jordan era, but they have a handful of very good years in the early-mid 70's built around that Walker/Sloan/B.Love/NVL core, another few very good years in the early-mid 10's built mostly around Noah/Deng/Rose [when healthy]/Boozer. The also had a few decent years in the mid-late aughts built around Kirk Hinrich/Luol Deng/Ben Gordon.

So even with all the horrid years in between these various eras, they've got plenty of clout (in an "all-time" sense) to vie for the #4 spot.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm going to start sounding like an ignorant young guy but I simply don't weigh some of the early league as much so although the Bill Russell dominance is cool, I just don't count it that much, and that's going to be my stance. I agree there is some talent that's timeless - most of the elite players back then would still be elite today, but the league on average is just such a different league. The talent pool of a league that pays millions and millions of dollars simply cannot compare to the talent pool of an obscure league that's been on the brink of collapse. It's my bias as a relatively younger fan and that's the only thing that has been consistent.

Not atypical by any means, but my point about consistency still remains.

You say the Warriors have an argument because they have more championships than the Spurs, yet now say that you don't weigh the early league much. Which means then, to be consistent, you would have to weigh the Warriors' titles in 1947 and 1956 less, since they both came before "the Bill Russell dominance," which I now see you said "hold the least weight in NBA history." Six minus two leaves four, which is less than the Spurs' five, which invalidates your argument about the Warriors having more championships. (Considering the start of your own post, it would be safe to say that you had no idea when all of the Warriors' six titles were won.) The Warriors' title in 1975 wouldn't hold as much weight to you since it came just six years after the last title of the Russell Era, which then leaves the Warriors with three titles "in the modern era" versus the Spurs' five. And three titles in five years is no better than the Spurs did in their best stretch. No matter how you shuffle and rearrange it, 3/5 = 3/5. So based on what you've said, you can't actually argue the Warriors above the Spurs without some more arbitariness.

And if "more recent" > "less recent", the talent pool of the league was greater during the Spurs' titles than the Bulls', more international players, superior medical knowledge, bigger, stronger, etc., athletes, which is the usual argument for more modern players over past players, correct? (Obligatory disclaimer that this represents the typical argument commonly made, and not my own views.) Unless that halted for some reason so that it only applies to anyone who came before them yet doesn't apply to anyone who came after. Plus players making more money than they did during the Bulls' titles. So the Spurs same amount of Finals appearances in a more modern league with better athletes, more money, better medical knowledge, and more of the world's available talent and only one less title would > the Bulls' titles, and then you add in the fact that the Spurs in their history did more outside those cherrypicked seasons than the Bulls did in their title-winning cherrypicked seasons in addition to titles won in an earlier era < titles won in a later era, and there's no argument.

There's still no consistency any way you slice it. People typically form rankings based on whatever their particular biases/emotional attachments are, then ad hoc a reason for it afterwards. Then a new reason is found when and where it no longer holds up.

I have no vested interest in the results and my days posting on internet basketball forums will soon come to an end, but one thing that hasn't changed from when I first began posting on internet basketball forums is that most posters are rarely consistent.

(In order to be proactive, I suppose another obligatory disclaimer is necessary, that I am not picking on you, consistency is something I've talked about for at least two Top 100 projects ago now.)

[udfa]

Spurs

[bballnet100]

1. Celtics
2. Lakers
3. Spurs

[penbeast0]

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

Only twice before? Really?

[xinxin]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Warriors
Bulls


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk