RealGM

1. Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers
2. Boston Celtics
3. Dallas Chaparrals, San Antonio Spurs
4. Chicago Bulls
5. Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers

Vote is Warriors again.

Curious to hear the case against them. I do like Miami.

Yeah, this one's mostly between the Warriors and the Heat for me. Teams like the Pistons, Rockets, Pacers, Blazers (+/- Knicks or Thunder?) are not far behind though.

The Heat have the highest % of seasons in the finals of any team left (though it's only a little ahead of the Warriors: .161 vs .151). Although, if I look only at post-merger success as I kinda did in the last thread, it's worth noting that both teams have 3 titles on 5 finals appearances post-merger. The Warriors also have some notable eras of success pre-merger, too. One might claim that's only because the Heat didn't exist yet, but still, there it is (and I suppose there's no guarantee the Heat's history would have been good if they HAD existed).

The Heat have a higher rs win% and better % of seasons in playoffs (though again, their history is SO much shorter [less than half that of the Warriors]). The Warriors have a marginally higher proportion of years going as far as the division/conference finals, even with all their extra DECADES in the league: 17 CF appearances in 73 years (.233), vs. 7 CF appearances in 31 years (.226) for the Heat. Though tbh, several of the Warriors' appearances were pre-merger.

In terms of all-time great teams, I think teams like the '17 Warriors trump anything the Heat have ever had, fwiw.

So idk where that leaves me. I need to consider a bit longer, and am willing to be convinced either way by the best arguments.....

Going back to my Heat vote from the previous round. Prolonged periods of ineptitude like the Warriors have had are a big negative for me.

For me, it's the Warriors (spread out titles, most titles), Heat (stronger consistency than Warriors with 3 titles, though all are the Wade era), and Sonics/Thunder (only 1 title but most consistent regular season performer).

Tentative vote for Warriors. I hesitate because they were so incompetent for so long but winning in multiple eras is to me more important than a # of titles grouped together. Very willing to change off this.

Surprised at the 76ers vote. Their history from the Moses Malone trade on is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

Vote Warriors. Very high peak and have several contending eras and champions when the Heat didn't exist, in addition to 3 titles and 5 finals since then.

Spurs - 20 years of dominance + championships
Pistons - champs in 2 different eras
Rockets - 90s rings and continued success since
Warriors - 10s domination
Heat - wade + heatles rings

trex_8063 wrote:Yeah, this one's mostly between the Warriors and the Heat for me. Teams like the Pistons, Rockets, Pacers, Blazers (+/- Knicks or Thunder?) are not far behind though.

The Heat have the highest % of seasons in the finals of any team left (though it's only a little ahead of the Warriors: .161 vs .151). Although, if I look only at post-merger success as I kinda did in the last thread, it's worth noting that both teams have 3 titles on 5 finals appearances post-merger. The Warriors also have some notable eras of success pre-merger, too. One might claim that's only because the Heat didn't exist yet, but still, there it is (and I suppose there's no guarantee the Heat's history would have been good if they HAD existed).

The Heat have a higher rs win% and better % of seasons in playoffs (though again, their history is SO much shorter [less than half that of the Warriors]). The Warriors have a marginally higher proportion of years going as far as the division/conference finals, even with all their extra DECADES in the league: 17 CF appearances in 73 years (.233), vs. 7 CF appearances in 31 years (.226) for the Heat. Though tbh, several of the Warriors' appearances were pre-merger.

In terms of all-time great teams, I think teams like the '17 Warriors trump anything the Heat have ever had, fwiw.

So idk where that leaves me. I need to consider a bit longer, and am willing to be convinced either way by the best arguments.....

Voting for heat would basically be punishing the warriors for existing longer.

Dr Positivity wrote:Surprised at the 76ers vote.

Not to derail, but......why?

Certainly you don't have to entirely agree with the pick, but I can't fathom how it should be a surprise that the team which is.....
*3rd all-time in playoff appearances
*5th all-time in % of seasons in playoffs
*3rd all-time in conference/division finals appearances
*3rd all-time in % of seasons in conf/div finals
*4th all-time in Finals appearances
*5th all-time in % of seasons in the Finals

......is picked for 5th all-time, considering they also have 3 titles (none of which came pre-shotclock, and one which was in the 3pt era).

Dr Positivity wrote:Their history from the Moses Malone trade on is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

Perhaps, but in direct comparison to the Warriors, it's an odd critique (to say the least).
From just after the Rick Barry era thru the early Steph Curry era ('79-'12)----a period of 34 seasons [longer than the existence of the Miami Heat]----the Warriors had a cumulative rs win% of .411, making the playoffs just 6 times in 34 years, and not advancing as far as the conference finals in ANY of them. That's beyond mediocre......that's bad.

freethedevil wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Yeah, this one's mostly between the Warriors and the Heat for me. Teams like the Pistons, Rockets, Pacers, Blazers (+/- Knicks or Thunder?) are not far behind though.

The Heat have the highest % of seasons in the finals of any team left (though it's only a little ahead of the Warriors: .161 vs .151). Although, if I look only at post-merger success as I kinda did in the last thread, it's worth noting that both teams have 3 titles on 5 finals appearances post-merger. The Warriors also have some notable eras of success pre-merger, too. One might claim that's only because the Heat didn't exist yet, but still, there it is (and I suppose there's no guarantee the Heat's history would have been good if they HAD existed).

The Heat have a higher rs win% and better % of seasons in playoffs (though again, their history is SO much shorter [less than half that of the Warriors]). The Warriors have a marginally higher proportion of years going as far as the division/conference finals, even with all their extra DECADES in the league: 17 CF appearances in 73 years (.233), vs. 7 CF appearances in 31 years (.226) for the Heat. Though tbh, several of the Warriors' appearances were pre-merger.

In terms of all-time great teams, I think teams like the '17 Warriors trump anything the Heat have ever had, fwiw.

So idk where that leaves me. I need to consider a bit longer, and am willing to be convinced either way by the best arguments.....

Voting for heat would basically be punishing the warriors for existing longer.

Hmmm, not necessarily. I mean, yes, that is more or less the direct concern I have in comparing the two. However, one could easily argue that it's not punishing them for longer existence at an average level......it's perhaps more punishing them because MOST of that extra existence was fairly bad (again: see the 34-year period I referred to the in the above post).

trex_8063 wrote:

freethedevil wrote:Voting for heat would basically be punishing the warriors for existing longer.

Hmmm, not necessarily. I mean, yes, that is more or less the direct concern I have in comparing the two. However, one could easily argue that it's not punishing them for longer existence at an average level......it's perhaps more punishing them because MOST of that extra existence was fairly bad (again: see the 34-year period I referred to the in the above post).

Just as a thought experiment, I'm going to wipe that 34-year period from the Warriors' history, just to see what the OTHER 39 seasons look like, collectively. imo, those 39 years have to look quite a bit better than the Heat's 31-year history (to off-set the "badness" of '79-'12).

So the Warriors, minus '79-'12, look like this compared to the Heat.....

Seasons
cherry-picked Warriors - 39
Heat - 31

rs Win%
cp Warriors - .552
Heat - .519

Playoff Appearances
cp Warriors - 29
Heat - 20

% of Seasons in Playoffs
cp Warriors - .744
Heat - .645

Conf/Div Finals Appearances
cp Warriors - 17
Heat - 7

% of Seasons in Conf/Div Finals
cp Warriors - .436
Heat - .226

Finals Appearances
cp Warriors - 11
Heat - 5

% of Seasons in Finals
cp Warriors - .282
Heat - .161

Titles
cp Warriors - 6
Heat - 3


So the cherry-picked Warrior years do look quite a bit better; maybe enough to off-set the bad 34-year stretch. Although I will point out a couple notes (using the Warriors full history):

Post-Merger Conf/Div Finals Appearances
Warriors - 5
Heat - 7

Post-Merger Finals Appearances
Warriors - 5
Heat - 5

Post-Merger Titles
Warriors - 3
Heat - 3


Leaning Warriors overall, though still close.

trex_8063 wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:Surprised at the 76ers vote.

Not to derail, but......why?

Certainly you don't have to entirely agree with the pick, but I can't fathom how it should be a surprise that the team which is.....
*3rd all-time in playoff appearances
*5th all-time in % of seasons in playoffs
*3rd all-time in conference/division finals appearances
*3rd all-time in % of seasons in conf/div finals
*4th all-time in Finals appearances
*5th all-time in % of seasons in the Finals

......is picked for 5th all-time, considering they also have 3 titles (none of which came pre-shotclock, and one which was in the 3pt era).

Dr Positivity wrote:Their history from the Moses Malone trade on is pretty mediocre in my opinion.

Perhaps, but in direct comparison to the Warriors, it's an odd critique (to say the least).
From just after the Rick Barry era thru the early Steph Curry era ('79-'12)----a period of 34 seasons [longer than the existence of the Miami Heat]----the Warriors had a cumulative rs win% of .411, making the playoffs just 6 times in 34 years, and not advancing as far as the conference finals in ANY of them. That's beyond mediocre......that's bad.

Yea but then they made the finals 5 years in a row with 3 titles and GOAT level playoffs and regular season runs. So the Warriors record after 86 are still by far better than the Sixers. The playoff appearance comparison in that time frame isn't even that bad, it's like 20 misses for the Warriors to 17 for the Sixers after 86. They had no bad run as long as the Warriors, but had multiple runs of bad teams like 92-98 and the Process. By my count the Sixers are somewhere around the 19th or 20th best franchise since the turning point that was trading away Moses and the #1 pick in 86 (I actually rate them below the KNICKS in that timeframe) The Sixers only made it past the 2nd round once, and made the finals in one of the weakest years for the East with a team that Run TMC may have competed with. Now up to the mid 80s they were one of the league's elite and one step behind the Lakers and Celtics, so the question is how to weight those two halves as there's no doubt that up until the 80s the Sixers are a higher ranking franchise than the Warriors. The Sixers had a good not amazing 3 titles to that point, 2 of them all time great teams, but one in 55 with weak competition. The Warriors may not have been the most consistent franchise but they had elite teams in 10s, 70s, 60s and 50s which isn't too bad, and I consider peaking in 10s to be more valuable than peaking in 60s or 80s, even though I am high on the competition in both eras. Or to put it another way the Warriors have the accomplishment edge (6 titles/11 finals vs 3 titles/9 finals) and their era of success tilts more modern than the Sixers, even with having slightly more 50s ones.

trex_8063 wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:Yeah, this one's mostly between the Warriors and the Heat for me. Teams like the Pistons, Rockets, Pacers, Blazers (+/- Knicks or Thunder?) are not far behind though.

The Heat have the highest % of seasons in the finals of any team left (though it's only a little ahead of the Warriors: .161 vs .151). Although, if I look only at post-merger success as I kinda did in the last thread, it's worth noting that both teams have 3 titles on 5 finals appearances post-merger. The Warriors also have some notable eras of success pre-merger, too. One might claim that's only because the Heat didn't exist yet, but still, there it is (and I suppose there's no guarantee the Heat's history would have been good if they HAD existed).

The Heat have a higher rs win% and better % of seasons in playoffs (though again, their history is SO much shorter [less than half that of the Warriors]). The Warriors have a marginally higher proportion of years going as far as the division/conference finals, even with all their extra DECADES in the league: 17 CF appearances in 73 years (.233), vs. 7 CF appearances in 31 years (.226) for the Heat. Though tbh, several of the Warriors' appearances were pre-merger.

In terms of all-time great teams, I think teams like the '17 Warriors trump anything the Heat have ever had, fwiw.

So idk where that leaves me. I need to consider a bit longer, and am willing to be convinced either way by the best arguments.....

Voting for heat would basically be punishing the warriors for existing longer.

Hmmm, not necessarily. I mean, yes, that is more or less the direct concern I have in comparing the two. However, one could easily argue that it's not punishing them for longer existence at an average level......it's perhaps more punishing them because MOST of that extra existence was fairly bad (again: see the 34-year period I referred to the in the above post).

I'd argue existince at a below average level isn't less preferable to a lack of exisistince.

freethedevil wrote:I'd argue existince at a below average level isn't less preferable to a lack of exisistince.

I cannot agree with that. You'd said voting for the Heat would be like penalizing them for added longevity (which could be wrong). However, giving them extra credit for merely existing, even at a BAD level, makes no more sense (arguably less).

And for me, it kinda depends on who you're comparing them to. If you're comparing them to lowly teams like the TWolves, Clippers, or Bobcats, merely existing at a mediocre [or even slightly below] level helps their case ('cause even mediocre is better than what those franchises have averaged).

Against a high-tier team it's a little different....

Suppose we're comparing Team A and Team B. Team B's history is just 30 years, and they had some good success in that span [similar to the Heat]. Then let's say Team A has existed for 60 years, and had a 30-year span with a similar degrees of success as Team B.....but then the other 30 years were merely "average". In this instance I wouldn't necessarily penalize them for those extra 30 years of average, because who's to say that the next 30 years for Team B won't be average? In fact, "average" is a reasonable prediction for any team in the long-term future (with outliers on either side of that, but on average they will be, well, AVERAGE). So here I'd still be really struggling on who to pick.
If those extra 30 years were BELOW average, that may pull Team A below Team B for me (again: assuming the other 30-year chunk is an even wash with Team B's history).
But if those extra 30 years are even a pinch ABOVE average, well that would tip the scales to them.

So that's what I've been weighting in this comp. The 34-year span I'd referred to for the Warriors wasn't average; it wasn't even just "a little" below average. It was fairly bad. So if the rest of their history was merely equal(ish) to the Heat, I'd be comfortably picking the Heat here.

HOWEVER, the other 39 years are not merely equal(ish) to the Heat's 31 years (as I illustrated in a post above); they were, in fact, quite stellar.
I think even stellar enough that I'm going to make my pick, unless someone can make a brilliant case to convince me otherwise.

Vote: Warriors

I count 4 votes for Warriors, 1 for the Heat. This one's been open just over 51 hours, too. I'll go ahead and start up the next for giordunk to keep things moving.....

giordunk wrote:.