RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #4

[trex_8063]

Just to keep things moving at a decent pace, I'm jumping in for giordunk this one time to start the next thread.....

1. Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers
2. Boston Celtics
3. Dallas Chaparrals, San Antonio Spurs

[Dr Positivity]

Vote - Chicago Bulls

- Higher peak: With 6 titles, the MJ Bulls era was more dominant than the Curry Warriors era has been to date, in part due to winning all their finals. The single greatest season belongs to the Bulls due to finishing the job in 96 unlike the Warriors

- The Warriors have 6 titles and 11 finals however I treat 4 of their rings as on the lower end impressiveness wise. 47 and 56 are very early, 75 is a weak year competition wise (I value it less than any year in the 60s for example) and one of the weakest champions of the shot clock era, and 15 was an all time fortunate year in terms of injuries.

- The Warriors have a greater nadir with a near two decade stretch as one of the worst franchises in the league, and go over 35 years without being a real contender in between the Barry and Curry eras.

- My argument for the Warriors would be they built 3 separate contenders (Wilt, Barry, Curry) and won with 2, while the Bulls built 2 (Jordan, Rose) and won with 1. But I'm not sure how much higher we should rate Barry era than Rose era just because they faced easier competition in 75 than playing the Heatles

[eminence]

The Heat deserve some love in this thread. I think they have the highest finals appearance rate of any team remaining (finals/seasons - higher than the Spurs too). Playoff appearance rate compares to any but the top 3 as does championship rate. Think it may be more difficult to get competitive as an expansion team in the more recent years as well. For me it's between them and the Bulls for this spot, Warriors have had too many poor stretches though history imo.

[penbeast0]

Now it gets interesting:

Highest winning percentages (team): #4 OKC/Seattle, #5 Utah/NO Jazz, #6 Portland, #7 Phoenix . . . total of one healthy Bill Walton season for a ring among the 4 of them

Most titles (6): Chicago and GS/SF/Philly Warriors. Chicago has all it's titles in one stretch, the Warriors titles are spread out (1950s with Arizin/Gola/Johnston, 1975 with Barry, recent) but Chicago at least has an above .500 RS record while the Warriors are below .500 for their history.

Others above .500 for their history: Rockets (2 rings), Heat (3 rings), Sixers (2 rings but also the worst team in history), Mavs (1 ring), Pacers (3 rings in ABA). I don't see any of them getting play yet.

Now we can see people's criteria start to make a key difference. Vote: Chicago (RS record is reasonably competitive with the no title teams and rings matter, if the Warriors hadn't been such a poorly run franchise for so long, the spread out nature of their rings would lead me to favor them)

[freethedevil]

6-5 is>>>>6-0.

I vote warriors.

[Dr Positivity]

The Heat deserve some love in this thread. I think they have the highest finals appearance rate of any team remaining (finals/seasons - higher than the Spurs too). Playoff appearance rate compares to any but the top 3 as does championship rate. Think it may be more difficult to get competitive as an expansion team in the more recent years as well. For me it's between them and the Bulls for this spot, Warriors have had too many poor stretches though history imo.

I'll consider the Heat vs the Warriors, but can't take them over the Bulls who have twice the titles of the Heat since they've been in existence and had a solid decade of success in the 2000s

[Jaivl]

Now it gets interesting:

Highest winning percentages (team): #4 OKC/Seattle, #5 Utah/NO Jazz, #6 Portland, #7 Phoenix . . . total of one healthy Bill Walton season for a ring among the 4 of them

Hey, how dare you?

[trex_8063]

I think the major players are:

Bulls
Warriors
Nationals/76'ers
Heat

Can make some weak-sauce [imo] cases maybe for teams like the Blazers, Rockets, Pistons, or Sonics/Thunder; but really I don't think they compare [well] just yet.

I'm going to vote for the Chicago Bulls.

I'd posted a variety of numbers (which included most of the above-mentioned teams) in the last thread anyone can review, but I'll try a slightly different angle to support the pick (will help me organize my thoughts for my own benefit, too):

The Bulls have been a franchise for 53 seasons (not counting '20). They made the playoffs in 35 of those seasons, giving them a Playoff Appearance% of .660. That's ranked 7th all-time. Of the six teams with a higher PoA%.......

*Three of them are the three teams already voted in.

**One is the Portland Trailblazers, who have been in the playoffs the same number of times (35) though did so in fewer years existence (49, giving them a PoA% of .714); they also have a little better rs win% (.538 to the Bulls' .513). However, they've won just a single title to the SIX that the Bulls have [and the Blazer one in a slightly weaker era, imo], along with only half the number of finals appearances (3). They also have just 7 seasons where they made it to the conference finals, vs 11 for the Bulls.
Conclusion: that slightly better rs success does not outweigh the notably better history the Bulls have in terms of deep playoff runs (particularly titles and finals appearances).
fwiw, the Blazers also don't have a team in their history necessarily worth mentioning in that top tier of all-time great teams.

***Another is the Nationals/76'ers, who have been a franchise for 70 years, making the playoffs 49 times (PoA% of .700). EDIT: that 49 playoff appearances is 3rd all-time, btw, behind only the Lakers and Celtics. Their rs win% is negligibly better than the Bulls'. They have made the finals 9 times (three more than the Bulls; and although it comes in a greater number of seasons, their % of seasons in the Finals is still marginally higher than that of the Bulls). However, they only won three titles to the Bulls' six. And perhaps the biggest consideration for me is that two of their three titles came pre-merger, and FOUR of their nine finals appearances were pre-merger (two of them even pre-shotclock)---->an era I personally place a little behind the 90's league.
They do have a couple of the all-time great teams ever assembled, imo ('67 Sixers and '83 Sixers), but then so do the Bulls ('96, +/- '97 and '92 in particular).
The Nats/Sixers do have far more total conference/division finals appearances, though again the majority of them are pre-merger. The Bulls edge them slightly (9 to 8) in post-merger conference finals appearances, fwiw.
[Tentative] Conclusion: I value the additional titles somewhat more than the additional finals appearances and marginally better rs/PoA% record, particularly considering the respective eras the finals runs all occurred in. However I will say this one is very very close for me. I think the Nats/Sixers have a fine case for this spot, especially considering their success has come over a longer span of time (which perhaps could be seen as a tie-breaker). idk, I'm willing to hear arguments to switch to them.

****And the last team with a [marginally] better PoA% is the Pacers, who have made the playoffs the same number of times (35), but in ONE less year existence (52, giving them a PoA% of .673). However, nine of their playoff appearances were in the ABA (which I weight lighter); their NBA-only PoA% is just .605. Additionally, their record of achievement in the finals is less impressive: they too have six finals appearances, but only ONE of those was in the NBA; and they have just half the number of titles (all three occurring in the ABA).
Conclusion: well, I think this one is fairly self-explanatory.


I'll also address the Warriors and the Heat, as a case could be made for them.....

Re: Warriors
They have six titles (same as Bulls), but five additional (11 total) finals appearances. Although they've been in existence for 20 additional seasons, that still makes their % frequency of Finals appearance a little better than that of the Bulls.
HOWEVER, three of their six titles and six of their 11 finals appearances occurred pre-merger; heck, one of the titles and two of the appearances occurred even before the FIRST "merger" [of the NBL and BAA].
Additionally, their rs win% is just .485, and their PoA% is just .479 (they've made the playoffs the same number of times (35) as the Bulls, despite being in existence for two additional decades).
Pretty much everything after the word "however" I think adequately justifies putting them a peg beneath the Bulls all-time.

Re: Heat
The Heat I think perhaps have a better case than the Warriors, actually. They are not far behind the Bulls in PoA%, at .645, having made the playoffs 20 times in 31 years existence.
eminence is indeed correct that they have the highest % Frequency in Finals of any team still on the board (.161), having made the finals five times in their 31 seasons (and all of those in the "modern" era). The strike against them (in relation to the Bulls) is that they've won only half as many titles. Even with the 22 fewer years existence, their % of seasons as champions is still a little behind the Bulls btw [Bulls are actually 3rd all-time in this regard, behind only the Celtics and Lakers; Heat are 4th, fwiw].
So for now I'm placing them behind the Bulls, but I must admit a compelling case can be made. Like with the Nats/Sixers, I'm willing to hear some arguments on them.

I've pretty much made up my mind wrt the Warriors, Pacers, or Blazers though.

[scrabbarista]

Definitely Chicago Bulls. A positive win% (.513), six championships, and the same number of playoff appearances as the Warriors (35) in twenty fewer seasons. Also have the GoAT.

[trex_8063]

Definitely Chicago Bulls. A positive win% (.513), six championships, and the same number of playoff appearances as the Warriors (35) in twenty fewer seasons. Also have the GoAT.

Agree with everything here [well, except possibly the "GOAT" statement], but why do you (and everyone else) only mention their case vs the Warriors? Why aren't the Nats/Sixers getting more consideration? See my notes on that comparison above, as even though I too have tentatively voted for the Bulls, I cannot see how anyone could simply brush the Sixers aside without a moment's thought.

For that matter, the Heat too.


EDIT: Speaking for myself, noting that the Warriors have had so many bad and mediocre seasons (they've missed the playoffs more often than they've participated, for example), and also noting that the majority of their finals history occurred pre-merger (some of it even in the BAA) puts them outside of my top 5 franchises (probably not even in my top 6, actually).

[scrabbarista]

Definitely Chicago Bulls. A positive win% (.513), six championships, and the same number of playoff appearances as the Warriors (35) in twenty fewer seasons. Also have the GoAT.

Agree with everything here [well, except possibly the "GOAT" statement], but why do you (and everyone else) only mention their case vs the Warriors? Why aren't the Nats/Sixers getting more consideration? See my notes on that comparison above, as even though I too have tentatively voted for the Bulls, I cannot see how anyone could simply brush the Sixers aside without a moment's thought.

For that matter, the Heat too.


EDIT: Speaking for myself, noting that the Warriors have had so many bad and mediocre seasons (they've missed the playoffs more often than they've participated, for example), and also noting that the majority of their finals history occurred pre-merger (some of it even in the BAA) puts them outside of my top 5 franchises (probably not even in my top 6, actually).

I didn't mean to imply that I would vote Warriors second to the Bulls.

Re: Philly, I guess it's a question of timing. Titles in '55 (in New York), '67, and '83 versus titles in '91, '92, '93, '96, '97, and '98.

With the Heat, the Bulls have twice as many titles and 35 playoff appearances versus 20, while their respective win percentages aren't too far off (.513 to .520).

Whenever I play 2K all-time leagues, there's a consistent top four of LAL, BOS, SAS, and CHI.

[eminence]

I still haven't really decided how to weight longevity in this sort of thing, anybody have any strong feelings one way or another?

Still up in the air on my vote here largely due to that as well.

Expanding on a brief point I made earlier - just looking at when franchises entered the league it seems like the 8 teams to come in post-merger have really struggled to find their footing in the league for a significant period of time, minus the Heat, so it's extra impressive to me what they've accomplished (the other 7 have a combined 5 finals and 2 titles vs the Heat with 5 finals and 3 titles on their own).

[giordunk]

Going to make my initial points first before looking at the other posts (I recommend every voter do this as well).

Since I think this is where there's a case to be made, I like to look at overall impact to the game of basketball, so this is between the Warriors and the Bulls.

With the Bulls - starts and ends with Michael Jordan. Derrick Rose era is a missed opportunity, but if that team ran its course I think they would have been like any other East team - you just keep running into LeBron. Maybe they would have won that sneak 2019 Raptors Championship. Pre-Jordan I feel is okay but not the most relevant. I don't know what guys like Jerry Sloan or Bob Love have done better than other comparable franchise legends for less known franchises.

With the Warriors - The 100 point game was done in a Warriors jersey. Early Championships and one in the 70s. Curry/KD Warriors are an all-time team.

Yes they just had a LOT of mediocre years, but the Warriors I think are only going to be a solid franchise going forward. A down year for the Warriors would be like a down year for the Heat or the Spurs - still pretty competitive.

The Warriors today (again, we're ignoring this down year because I think they bounce back) are what the Bulls were in the 90s. Sure Jordan was the first, but the game is so much bigger today than it used to be, and I think it's possible that Steph has a bigger draw on kids today than Jordan did on kids in the 90s.

I'm really just letting my hometown bias kick in because they had a few different periods of success which outweighs that long period of mediocrity. Chicago would be a great pick as well.

Warriors!