RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #30 (the WORST)

[trex_8063]

1. Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers
2. Boston Celtics
3. Dallas Chaparrals, San Antonio Spurs
4. Chicago Bulls
5. Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers
6. Philly/SF/Golden State Warriors
7. Miami Heat
8. Fort Wayne/Detroit Pistons
9. Houston Rockets
10. New York Knicks

.....

30. ???

penbeast0 suggested the idea (I thought it was a good one) that once we reached #10 (or so) we change course and next decide on the WORST of the existing franchises, and then work backwards from there for a bit (maybe like the bottom 5 franchises).
I pm'ed it to the project chair but didn't hear back. I suspect my life just isn't as busy as his. So in the interest of keeping things moving again (the #10 thread's been open about 52 hours), I'm gonna set off and run with pen's idea.

So......which of the 30 existing franchises has the WORST history of all-time?

.

[Odinn21]

Voting for the Timberwolves.

Minnesota; 30 completed seasons, 971-1459 (.400) record, 21 seasons under .500 (.700), 9 playoffs (.300), won only 2 playoff series, 18-34 (.346) playoffs record, best ever result WCF in 2004 (is the only year they won playoff series)
Memphis; 24 completed seasons, 797-1141 (.411) record, 14 seasons under .500 (.583), 10 playoffs (.417), won only 4 playoff series, 29-46 (.387) playoffs record, best ever result WCF in 2013
Charlotte; 29 completed seasons, 1035-1315 (.440) record, 16 seasons under .500 (.552), 10 playoffs (.345), won only 4 playoff series, 23-40 (.365) playoffs record, best ever results ECSF on 4 occassions
Cilppers; 49 completed seasons, 1624-2366 (.407) record, 34 seasons under .500 (.694), 14 playoffs (.286), won only 5 playoff series, 46-64 (.418) playoffs record, best ever results E/W CSF on 6 occassions

For me, it's so clear that the answer is Minnesota Timberwolves.

For some season, I forgot the Clippers franchise. Added them. Still voting for the Timberwolves but damn, they are bad.

[bledredwine]

I agree with Minnesota. Vote Timberwolves.

[penbeast0]

Voting for the Timberwolves.

Minnesota; 30 completed seasons, 971-1459 (.400) record, 21 seasons under .500 (.700), 9 playoffs (.300), won only 2 playoff series, 18-34 (.346) playoffs record, best ever result WCF in 2004 (is the only year they won playoff series)
Memphis; 24 completed seasons, 797-1141 (.411) record, 14 seasons under .500 (.583), 10 playoffs (.417), won only 4 playoff series, 29-46 (.387) playoffs record, best ever result WCF in 2013
Charlotte; 29 completed seasons, 1035-1315 (.440) record, 16 seasons under .500 (.552), 10 playoffs (.345), won only 4 playoff series, 23-40 (.365) playoffs record, best ever results ECSF in 1993, 1998, 2001, 2002

For me, it's so clear that the answer is Minnesota Timberwolves.

LA Clippers: 49 completed seasons, (.407) W/L record, 14 playoff appearances (.286), 7 playoff series won, never out of 2nd round, and . . . . Donald Sterling and his record of racism.

Best players: Bob McAdoo, Danny Manning, Chris Paul

Vote: LA Clippers

[trex_8063]

Without a doubt it's between the TWolves and the Braves/Clippers:

TWolves have played 30 completed seasons, the Clippers 49........

rs Win%
TWolves - .398 (dead last among the 30 franchises)
Clippers - .406 (2nd worst)

Playoff Appearances
TWolves - 9 (2nd lowest all-time; only the Pelicans have fewer with 7, though they've existed for 13 fewer years).
Clippers - 14 (6th lowest all-time, fwiw)

% of seasons making the playoffs
TWolves - .300 (2nd lowest all-time)
Clippers - .286 (lowest all-time)

Neither team has ever been to the finals. The Clippers have never even been to the conference finals in 49 years. The TWolves have been to the CF ONCE in their 30 years. However, the Clippers have been beyond the 1st round SIX times (whereas that one year going to the CF is the ONLY year for the TWolves).

Hmmm........

All-Time leaders in WS [in order] look like this:
TWolves - Kevin Garnett, Karl-Anthony Towns, Kevin Love, Wally Szczerbiak, Sam Mitchell, Gorgui Dieng, Ricky Rubio, Terrell Brandon, Tom Gugliotta, Christian Laettner, Nikola Pekovic, Joe Smith
Clippers - Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, Elton Brand, Blake Griffin, Bob McAdoo, Randy Smith, Corey Maggette, Loy Vaught, Danny Manning, Swen Nater, Eric Piatkowski, Bob Kauffman

I must admit the TWolves leader-board starts looking really sad by about #4.

[Dr Positivity]

The least accomplished franchise is actually the Pelicans with no conference finals and two second round appearances, and only one 50 W team. However they've only been around since 02. I would rank the Pelicans as worse than the Grizzlies, who started in 95 instead of 02 and stunk it up in that 7 year period, but have otherwise been more successful since.

On the other end you have the Clippers who have are more accomplished than the Pelicans even if you go from 02 on, however the total picture since 1970 is horrendous with no conference finals appearances and sub .400 record. So are they punished for their pre 02 history?

Somewhere in the middle is the TWolves and the Hornets who had some brief 50 W success, the TWolves making it to CF, but having more bad years overall. I rate the TWolves higher than the Hornets as they had a higher peak of success, and I believe nearly as many successful seasons, just bunched up more.

My vote is between the Clippers and Pelicans. The Pelicans are the team who've done the least, but the Clippers have been around since 1970 with no CF and barely more good seasons than teams that have been around 20-30 years.

Vote LA Clippers, just based on a 50 year history and the lack of success except for the Paul and Blake era

[Owly]

Without a doubt it's between the TWolves and the Braves/Clippers:

TWolves have played 30 completed seasons, the Clippers 49........

rs Win%
TWolves - .398 (dead last among the 30 franchises)
Clippers - .406 (2nd worst)

Playoff Appearances
TWolves - 9 (2nd lowest all-time; only the Pelicans have fewer with 7, though they've existed for 13 fewer years).
Clippers - 14 (6th lowest all-time, fwiw)

% of seasons making the playoffs
TWolves - .300 (2nd lowest all-time)
Clippers - .286 (lowest all-time)

Neither team has ever been to the finals. The Clippers have never even been to the conference finals in 49 years. The TWolves have been to the CF ONCE in their 30 years. However, the Clippers have been beyond the 1st round SIX times (whereas that one year going to the CF is the ONLY year for the TWolves).

Hmmm........

All-Time leaders in WS [in order] look like this:
TWolves - Kevin Garnett, Karl-Anthony Towns, Kevin Love, Wally Szczerbiak, Sam Mitchell, Gorgui Dieng, Ricky Rubio, Terrell Brandon, Tom Gugliotta, Christian Laettner, Nikola Pekovic, Joe Smith
Clippers - Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, Elton Brand, Blake Griffin, Bob McAdoo, Randy Smith, Corey Maggette, Loy Vaught, Danny Manning, Swen Nater, Eric Piatkowski, Bob Kauffman

I must admit the TWolves leader-board starts looking really sad by about #4.

La's look ugly at 2 (for 2nd place all time, obviously win shares is Jordan friendly) and again from 6 or 7 (depending on how much you know and what you feel about 70s ball), whilst after Dieng Minny's list, IMO, mostly picks up a bit. Minny working within context of a shorter history too. Minny roleplayers making the middle of their list isn't too cool but at least they could get some solid rotation players to stick around, the Clipper were in too much turnover for that to happen for most of their history. Minny do have a long run of KG too.

For me, otoh, if voting, among active franchises, it would be one of these 2 or (if available) the Bobcats franchise lineage.

[penbeast0]

...among active franchises, it would be one of these 2 or (if available) the Bobcats franchise lineage.

Why not vote? It's only for fun and would appreciate your input.

[trex_8063]

Been thinking about it, and I'm going to vote Minnesota Timberwolves.

I just think their overall record of "success" is marginally worse than the Clippers: although they have a marginally higher % of seasons in the playoffs, they also have a marginally worse rs win%. And although they have one year going as far as the CF and the Clippers don't, the TWolves have otherwise never been out of the 1st round--->their cumulative playoff record [in terms of series's won/lost] is 2-9 (.182); the Braves/Clippers's cumulative record is 5-14 (.263), with one of those "1st round" losses actually being [technically] in the "2nd round" [semis] because the playoff structure allowed a 1st-round bye for the top 3 seeds in each conference.

That somewhat better playoff success for the Clips tips the mantle of "worst" to the TWolves for me.

[trex_8063]

For me, otoh, if voting, among active franchises, it would be one of these 2 or (if available) the Bobcats franchise lineage.

I glanced at the Hornets/Bobcats. But ultimately [compared to the Wolves], they have a better rs win%, better % of seasons going to the playoffs, and better record in those playoffs (4-10 [.286] vs Minny's 2-9 [.182]). Although that has come in a [mostly] weaker conference, I also looked at their avg SRS, and Minny still comes out marginally worse there as well: -2.089 avg for Charlotte, -2.254 avg for Minny.

So for me, it's definitive that while Charlotte's history is sad, it's not as sad as Minny's.

[Owly]

For me, otoh, if voting, among active franchises, it would be one of these 2 or (if available) the Bobcats franchise lineage.

I glanced at the Hornets/Bobcats. But ultimately [compared to the Wolves], they have a better rs win%, better % of seasons going to the playoffs, and better record in those playoffs (4-10 [.286] vs Minny's 2-9 [.182]). Although that has come in a [mostly] weaker conference, I also looked at their avg SRS, and Minny still comes out marginally worse there as well: -2.089 avg for Charlotte, -2.254 avg for Minny.

So for me, it's definitive that while Charlotte's history is sad, it's not as sad as Minny's.

To be clear I'm referring to the (non-eligible) Bobcats franchise/organization lineage (i.e. they don't get to claim the original Hornets). Since 04-05 3 winning records, 3 playoff appearances (all first round outs, twice swept, this in the weaker East), 3 positive SRSes, +2.36 as best single season SRS, 2nd worst single season SRS, worst single season win%, realistic cumulative historical probability/expectation of championships is circa 0. Very little star power in their all-time roster either, fwiw.

That isn't my process (don't really have one) but some lowlights there. Of course there's a shorter history there so you'd probably expect some regression to the mean over time even if they aren't the best run franchise.

[trex_8063]

For me, otoh, if voting, among active franchises, it would be one of these 2 or (if available) the Bobcats franchise lineage.

I glanced at the Hornets/Bobcats. But ultimately [compared to the Wolves], they have a better rs win%, better % of seasons going to the playoffs, and better record in those playoffs (4-10 [.286] vs Minny's 2-9 [.182]). Although that has come in a [mostly] weaker conference, I also looked at their avg SRS, and Minny still comes out marginally worse there as well: -2.089 avg for Charlotte, -2.254 avg for Minny.

So for me, it's definitive that while Charlotte's history is sad, it's not as sad as Minny's.

To be clear I'm referring to the (non-eligible) Bobcats franchise/organization lineage (i.e. they don't get to claim the original Hornets). Since 04-05 3 winning records, 3 playoff appearances (all first round outs, twice swept, this in the weaker East), 3 positive SRSes, +2.36 as best single season SRS, 2nd worst single season SRS, worst single season win%, realistic cumulative historical probability/expectation of championships is circa 0. Very little star power in their all-time roster either, fwiw.

I guess I need some clarity from the project chair [quoted below]. I was under the impression we were just taking the lineages as portrayed on bbref (on which the current Bobcats/Hornets do "claim" the prior [pre-'03] Hornets lineage)......which admittedly was at odds with my memory (just looked up to confirm I wasn't on crack), as I assumed the current Pels should have the claims to that pre-'03 Hornets history.
Which way should we be thinking, giordunk?

.

EDIT: sidenote, why the hell does bbref list it that way? It's not like it's the only instance in which a franchise moved and then another franchise moved into the original city.

[Dr Positivity]

I glanced at the Hornets/Bobcats. But ultimately [compared to the Wolves], they have a better rs win%, better % of seasons going to the playoffs, and better record in those playoffs (4-10 [.286] vs Minny's 2-9 [.182]). Although that has come in a [mostly] weaker conference, I also looked at their avg SRS, and Minny still comes out marginally worse there as well: -2.089 avg for Charlotte, -2.254 avg for Minny.

So for me, it's definitive that while Charlotte's history is sad, it's not as sad as Minny's.

To be clear I'm referring to the (non-eligible) Bobcats franchise/organization lineage (i.e. they don't get to claim the original Hornets). Since 04-05 3 winning records, 3 playoff appearances (all first round outs, twice swept, this in the weaker East), 3 positive SRSes, +2.36 as best single season SRS, 2nd worst single season SRS, worst single season win%, realistic cumulative historical probability/expectation of championships is circa 0. Very little star power in their all-time roster either, fwiw.

I guess I need some clarity from the project chair [quoted below]. I was under the impression we were just taking the lineages as portrayed on bbref (on which the current Bobcats/Hornets do "claim" the prior [pre-'03] Hornets lineage)......which admittedly was at odds with my memory (just looked up to confirm I wasn't on crack), as I assumed the current Pels should have the claims to that pre-'03 Hornets history.
Which way should we be thinking, giordunk?

.

EDIT: sidenote, why the hell does bbref list it that way? It's not like it's the only instance in which a franchise moved and then another franchise moved into the original city.

Yes, I believe these are the two franchises:

New Orleans Hornets-New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets-Charlotte Bobcats-Charlotte Hornets

When the Bobcats changed back to Hornets, they wanted their old history back I believe. It's not just basketball reference, I think the current Hornets own their 90s history rights in other ways

[trex_8063]

To be clear I'm referring to the (non-eligible) Bobcats franchise/organization lineage (i.e. they don't get to claim the original Hornets). Since 04-05 3 winning records, 3 playoff appearances (all first round outs, twice swept, this in the weaker East), 3 positive SRSes, +2.36 as best single season SRS, 2nd worst single season SRS, worst single season win%, realistic cumulative historical probability/expectation of championships is circa 0. Very little star power in their all-time roster either, fwiw.

I guess I need some clarity from the project chair [quoted below]. I was under the impression we were just taking the lineages as portrayed on bbref (on which the current Bobcats/Hornets do "claim" the prior [pre-'03] Hornets lineage)......which admittedly was at odds with my memory (just looked up to confirm I wasn't on crack), as I assumed the current Pels should have the claims to that pre-'03 Hornets history.
Which way should we be thinking, giordunk?

.

EDIT: sidenote, why the hell does bbref list it that way? It's not like it's the only instance in which a franchise moved and then another franchise moved into the original city.

Yes, I believe these are the two franchises:

New Orleans Hornets-New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets-Charlotte Bobcats-Charlotte Hornets

When the Bobcats changed back to Hornets, they wanted their old history back I believe

I vaguely recall that explanation/narrative/circumstance, too. It's just so at odds with how we're considering basically ALL other teams, though:
When the TWolves were installed as an expansion team based out of Minneapolis they didn't lay claim to the Minneapolis Laker history (that has stayed with the Laker franchise).
When the Nationals moved to Philly, they didn't get to claim the prior history of the Philadelphia Warriors (we considered that history part of the GSW's legacy).
When the Hornets moved to New Orleans, they didn't get to claim the previous New Orleans Jazz history [not that they'd want to].
When the Chicago Zephyrs moved to Baltimore and changed the team name to "Bullets", they didn't lay claim to the prior Baltimore Bullets ['48-'55] history (despite having the same team name).

We've allowed teams to take their prior history/legacy with them where ever they move to........for all teams except the current Pelicans, who've sacrificed a 14-year span of team history to a different franchise that [strictly speaking] has no lineage-based claim to it.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it does go against the grain for me. But I'll go along with whatever ruling giordunk decides for this. But we definitely should be absolutely clear before tallying the votes for this thread, because Owly's right in that the actual Bobcats/Hornets franchise history [without that '89-'02 stretch] does have a strikingly good case for worst ever.

[Owly]

I guess I need some clarity from the project chair [quoted below]. I was under the impression we were just taking the lineages as portrayed on bbref (on which the current Bobcats/Hornets do "claim" the prior [pre-'03] Hornets lineage)......which admittedly was at odds with my memory (just looked up to confirm I wasn't on crack), as I assumed the current Pels should have the claims to that pre-'03 Hornets history.
Which way should we be thinking, giordunk?



EDIT: sidenote, why the hell does bbref list it that way? It's not like it's the only instance in which a franchise moved and then another franchise moved into the original city.

Yes, I believe these are the two franchises:

New Orleans Hornets-New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets-Charlotte Bobcats-Charlotte Hornets

When the Bobcats changed back to Hornets, they wanted their old history back I believe

I vaguely recall that explanation/narrative/circumstance, too. It's just so at odds with how we're considering basically ALL other teams, though:
When the TWolves were installed as an expansion team based out of Minneapolis they didn't lay claim to the Minneapolis Laker history (that has stayed with the Laker franchise).
When the Nationals moved to Philly, they didn't get to claim the prior history of the Philadelphia Warriors (we considered that history part of the GSW's legacy).
When the Hornets moved to New Orleans, they didn't get to claim the previous New Orleans Jazz history [not that they'd want to].
When the Chicago Zephyrs moved to Baltimore and changed the team name to "Bullets", they didn't lay claim to the prior Baltimore Bullets ['48-'55] history (despite having the same team name).

We've allowed teams to take their prior history/legacy with them where ever they move to........for all teams except the current Pelicans, who've sacrificed a 14-year span of team history to a different franchise that [strictly speaking] has no lineage-based claim to it.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it does go against the grain for me. But I'll go along with whatever ruling giordunk decides for this. But we definitely should be absolutely clear before tallying the votes for this thread, because Owly's right in that the actual Bobcats/Hornets franchise history [without that '89-'02 stretch] does have a strikingly good case for worst ever.

For project purposes the majority was for official histories rather than organizational lineages (how I conceive it). My stuff was more just my thinking rather than official project discussion, so sorry for the tangent/distraction.

Fwiw, I suspect this means at some future point OKC will be seen as a 08-09 expansion team and an expansion Supersonics franchise (never playing under any other name - or else a relocated team?) will claim the Seattle history.

[Dr Positivity]

I guess I need some clarity from the project chair [quoted below]. I was under the impression we were just taking the lineages as portrayed on bbref (on which the current Bobcats/Hornets do "claim" the prior [pre-'03] Hornets lineage)......which admittedly was at odds with my memory (just looked up to confirm I wasn't on crack), as I assumed the current Pels should have the claims to that pre-'03 Hornets history.
Which way should we be thinking, giordunk?



EDIT: sidenote, why the hell does bbref list it that way? It's not like it's the only instance in which a franchise moved and then another franchise moved into the original city.

Yes, I believe these are the two franchises:

New Orleans Hornets-New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets-Charlotte Bobcats-Charlotte Hornets

When the Bobcats changed back to Hornets, they wanted their old history back I believe

I vaguely recall that explanation/narrative/circumstance, too. It's just so at odds with how we're considering basically ALL other teams, though:
When the TWolves were installed as an expansion team based out of Minneapolis they didn't lay claim to the Minneapolis Laker history (that has stayed with the Laker franchise).
When the Nationals moved to Philly, they didn't get to claim the prior history of the Philadelphia Warriors (we considered that history part of the GSW's legacy).
When the Hornets moved to New Orleans, they didn't get to claim the previous New Orleans Jazz history [not that they'd want to].
When the Chicago Zephyrs moved to Baltimore and changed the team name to "Bullets", they didn't lay claim to the prior Baltimore Bullets ['48-'55] history (despite having the same team name).

We've allowed teams to take their prior history/legacy with them where ever they move to........for all teams except the current Pelicans, who've sacrificed a 14-year span of team history to a different franchise that [strictly speaking] has no lineage-based claim to it.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it does go against the grain for me. But I'll go along with whatever ruling giordunk decides for this. But we definitely should be absolutely clear before tallying the votes for this thread, because Owly's right in that the actual Bobcats/Hornets franchise history [without that '89-'02 stretch] does have a strikingly good case for worst ever.

It's weird but I think it's the official decision by the NBA, and what goes on sites like basketball-reference and wiki. So I think it just makes more sense to go with that ruling.

[penbeast0]

Torn on this. On the one hand, the franchise actually was the Hornets/Pelicans. ON the other, the NBA has officially recognized it a different way and that's the argument for allowing ABA numbers and history. On the whole, I think the argument for organizations lineage is stronger; as trex said, that's how every other organization is treated and without it, the Pelicans have such a short existence that it's almost not fair to put them in the mix.

[trex_8063]

Haven't heard back from giordunk, but I looked back in the original sign-up thread and I guess he did state there that we're to go with the "official NBA lineages" (that which is listed on bbref), so the Bobcats/Hornets do have the claim on the '89-'02 Hornets years, and the N.O. Hornets/Pelicans are to be considered a franchise with just 17 years history ('03-'19).

I'll check back in on this one in the afternoon; currently the count is 3 for TWolves, 2 for Clippers.

[penbeast0]

To paraphrase a bumper sticker I saw in Atlanta once:

"Go TWolves Go! And take the Wild with you."

[trex_8063]

Calling this one for the TWolves; next one (2nd-worst) is up.