RealGM All-Time Greatest NBA/ABA Franchises Ranking - #22

[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
11. Indiana Pacers
12. Seattle Supersonics/OKC Thunder
13. Portland Trailblazers
14. New Orleans/Utah Jazz
15. Phoenix Suns
16. Milwaukee Bucks
17. Dallas Mavericks
18. Cleveland Cavaliers
19. Tri-City Blackhawks, Milwaukee/St. Louis/Atlanta Hawks
20. Chicago Packers/Zephyrs, Baltimore/Capitol/Washington Bullets/Wizards
21. Toronto Raptors

.....

26. Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies
27. New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans
28. Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets
29. Buffalo Braves/(San Diego)/Los Angeles Clippers
30. Minnesota Timberwolves

[trex_8063]

These are ALL the remaining franchises listed.....

*For the Nuggets and Nets, I've included (parenthetical) ABA/NBA splits.
**Bear in mind it was [proportionally] easier to make the NBA playoffs in much of the 50's and 60's (the Kings are the only franchise that existed in the NBA at that time). Their one finals appearance [and title] was in 1951.


rs Win%
Nuggets - .501 (.490 in NBA, .555 in ABA)
Magic - .480
Kings - .456
Nets - .432 (.417 in NBA, .503 in ABA)

% of Seasons in the Playoffs
Nuggets - .654 (.581 in NBA, 1.000 in ABA)
Nets - .519 (.465 in NBA, .778 in ABA)
Magic - .500
Kings - .408

% of Seasons going as far as Conference Finals
Magic - .133
Nuggets - .115 (.070 in NBA, .333 in ABA)
Kings - .113
Nets - .096 (.047 in NBA, .333 in ABA)

Playoff Series Win%
Nets - .429 (.367 in NBA, .583 in ABA)
Magic - .423
Kings - .349
Nuggets - .277 (.286 in NBA, .250 in ABA)

% of Seasons going to Finals
Nets - .096 (.047 in NBA, .333 in ABA)
Magic - .067
Nuggets - .019 (n/a in NBA, .111 in ABA)
Kings - .014

% of Seasons Winning Title
Nets - .038 (n/a in NBA, .222 in ABA)
Kings - .014
Nuggets - n/a
Magic - n/a

[penbeast0]

Using the same criteria I have been, what team would I most like to have been a fan of since the beginning, I have to go with the Denver Nuggets. Yes they have been terrible in the playoffs, and they had Carmelo Anthony plus David Thompson's drug addiction. But still, they have been a fun entertaining team in the regular season for most of their history. The playoff failures are souring but look at the other teams there and tell me you wouldn't rather have been a Denver fan than suffer as a Nets or Kings fan.

The Magic had the Shaq years and the Dwight years, they would be a legit choice as well.



Vote: The Denver Rockets/Nuggets.

[Odinn21]

I don't know why but for some reason this project slipped my mind.

Voting for Denver Nuggets. Looks like the best of the rest.

Edited*

[Fadeaway_J]

I don't know why but for some reason this project slipped my mind.

With the numbers you provided, it looks like the Raptors are the best of the remaining ones.
Voting for Toronto Raptors.

Raptors are already in at 21, trex forgot to remove them from the stat breakdown.

I'll carry over my vote for the Denver Nuggets from the previous thread.

[trex_8063]

I think I'll go ahead and give the Denver Nuggets their due here as well.

The Nuggets have no title to their credit, but that doesn't far remove them from the rest of the field that's left: the Nets have a couple of ABA titles, and the Kings have one NBA title pre-shotclock.
The Nuggets also have the worst playoff win%, but if taken at face value that sort penalizes them for all the additional trips to the playoffs they made--->since they have BY FAR the best record of at least making it into the playoffs. If we, for instance, took 10 of their 1st-round exits away [just pretend they didn't make the playoffs], they'd have a % of seasons in the playoffs that's still competitive against the rest of the field, and their playoff series win% would then be just negligibly better than that of the Kings. Again, that's taking TEN playoff appearances away from them.

Not saying I can't see the case for the Nets or Magic, but I'm tentatively going with the Nuggets.

[penbeast0]

23 should be close between Magic and Nets. Nets have the ABA years (or it wouldn't be close), Orlando has Shaq and Penny. I can't see a good argument for Kings but then I'm one of the prime Webber anti-stans on the board so who knows.

[trex_8063]

23 should be close between Magic and Nets. Nets have the ABA years (or it wouldn't be close), Orlando has Shaq and Penny and the Dwight Howard years. I can't see a good argument for Kings but then I'm one of the prime Webber anti-stans on the board so who knows.

FYP.

Yeah, I can't see a case a good case for the Kings either. It's like I implied in my post above: we could REMOVE 10 [1st round exit] playoff appearances for the Nuggets [i.e. pretend they had X number of fewer wins required to instead make them MISS the playoffs], and they'd still have at least marginally better rs win%, playoff appearance frequency, and playoff series win% than the Kings franchise.

[Owly]

23 should be close between Magic and Nets. Nets have the ABA years (or it wouldn't be close), Orlando has Shaq and Penny and the Dwight Howard years. I can't see a good argument for Kings but then I'm one of the prime Webber anti-stans on the board so who knows.

FYP.

Yeah, I can't see a case a good case for the Kings either. It's like I implied in my post above: we could REMOVE 10 [1st round exit] playoff appearances for the Nuggets [i.e. pretend they had X number of fewer wins required to instead make them MISS the playoffs], and they'd still have at least marginally better rs win%, playoff appearance frequency, and playoff series win% than the Kings franchise.

Not necessarily a good case but I was curious to see if the title bump is enough ... so a case for the Kings would be ...

Regular Season performance
Knicks: 10th
Cumulative SRS -20.89
Average SRS-0.286164384
(all through the start of this year)
over

Pacers: 11th
Cumulative SRS 15.2
Average SRS 0.353488372
(BAA/NBA only - not ABA)

Pacers have been a better team - just NBA alone - not including ABA and the (three) titles there. But longevity and ultimate playoff success are (otoh .. and at first glance in the thread, some "total"-based support) leapt the Knicks up circa say 0.7 SRS (assuming SRS is a good RS baseline). That's assuming the Pacers' ABA stuff valued at nothing and averages used as an initial baseline. I think ABA would be valued to some extent so the Knicks' bump is more than that.

If the Kings one title (as a proxy for the main aspect of the playoffs) is worth half that then ... they are still behind Denver and Orlando, but extend an already large lead over NBA only Nets (and looking at it a with ABA SRS - obviously including the ABA gives nets titles in a very small but by then more talented league). So probably not a case for here but maybe one for not last in this group as seemed widely suggested. And if the Nets titles move them up more (and Knicks's were worth more than just marginally enough to get them where they landed, enough to get them over Nets with some value to ABA titles - even if "only" mid-ABA titles) then maaaybe, maybe the Kings are into consideration here (how much difference the Royals +6.431818182 points dif in '47 and 6.433333333 in '48 might also be a factor - see below).

Spoiler:

Numbers as formatted above
Nuggets NBA
-23.15
-0.538372093

Nuggets with ABA
-3.58
-0.068846154

Magic
-16.69
-0.556333333

Kings/Royals (NBA/BAA only doesn't include pre-timeline '46 title or '47. '48 NBL campaigns
-83.64
-1.178028169


Nets NBA
-107.07
-2.49

Nets with ABA
-109.62
-2.108076923

One other note. Playoff success has been measured crudely here by titles. On the other hand, stuff like finals births ... the 50s Knicks got to more finals, but were, IMO, lesser threats to the Lakers than the 40s-50s Royals - and Nets 2000s finals berths were a joke, far lesser contenders than Sacramento were out in the Western bracket).

Caveats:
Not all titles necessarily considered equal, i.e. era (mind you '73 Knicks got to face an injured [Hondo] Boston and so a relatively simple path to the finals).
Not all voters necessarily the same.
This based one one simple model with SRS as a good RS model, titles as main importance of playoffs - RS performance as acceptable baseline to be adjusted from. Your mileage may vary.

[trex_8063]

23 should be close between Magic and Nets. Nets have the ABA years (or it wouldn't be close), Orlando has Shaq and Penny and the Dwight Howard years. I can't see a good argument for Kings but then I'm one of the prime Webber anti-stans on the board so who knows.

FYP.

Yeah, I can't see a case a good case for the Kings either. It's like I implied in my post above: we could REMOVE 10 [1st round exit] playoff appearances for the Nuggets [i.e. pretend they had X number of fewer wins required to instead make them MISS the playoffs], and they'd still have at least marginally better rs win%, playoff appearance frequency, and playoff series win% than the Kings franchise.

Not necessarily a good case but I was curious to see if the title bump is enough ... so a case for the Kings would be ...

Regular Season performance
Knicks: 10th
Cumulative SRS -20.89
Average SRS-0.286164384
(all through the start of this year)
over

Pacers: 11th
Cumulative SRS 15.2
Average SRS 0.353488372
(BAA/NBA only - not ABA)

Pacers have been a better team - just NBA alone - not including ABA and the (three) titles there. But longevity and ultimate playoff success are (otoh .. and at first glance in the thread, some "total"-based support) leapt the Knicks up circa say 0.7 SRS (assuming SRS is a good RS baseline). That's assuming the Pacers' ABA stuff valued at nothing and averages used as an initial baseline. I think ABA would be valued to some extent so the Knicks' bump is more than that.

If the Kings one title (as a proxy for the main aspect of the playoffs) is worth half that then ... they are still behind Denver and Orlando, but extend an already large lead over NBA only Nets (and looking at it a with ABA SRS - obviously including the ABA gives nets titles in a very small but by then more talented league). So probably not a case for here but maybe one for not last in this group as seemed widely suggested. And if the Nets titles move them up more (and Knicks's were worth more than just marginally enough to get them where they landed, enough to get them over Nets with some value to ABA titles - even if "only" mid-ABA titles) then maaaybe, maybe the Kings are into consideration here (how much difference the Royals +6.431818182 points dif in '47 and 6.433333333 in '48 might also be a factor - see below).

Spoiler:

Numbers as formatted above
Nuggets NBA
-23.15
-0.538372093

Nuggets with ABA
-3.58
-0.068846154

Magic
-16.69
-0.556333333

Kings/Royals (NBA/BAA only doesn't include pre-timeline '46 title or '47. '48 NBL campaigns
-83.64
-1.178028169


Nets NBA
-107.07
-2.49

Nets with ABA
-109.62
-2.108076923

One other note. Playoff success has been measured crudely here by titles. On the other hand, stuff like finals births ... the 50s Knicks got to more finals, but were, IMO, lesser threats to the Lakers than the 40s-50s Royals - and Nets 2000s finals berths were a joke, far lesser contenders than Sacramento were out in the Western bracket).

Caveats:
Not all titles necessarily considered equal, i.e. era (mind you '73 Knicks got to face an injured [Hondo] Boston and so a relatively simple path to the finals).
Not all voters necessarily the same.
This based one one simple model with SRS as a good RS model, titles as main importance of playoffs - RS performance as acceptable baseline to be adjusted from. Your mileage may vary.

Re: Knicks v Pacers
SRS difference (NBA-only) is about 0.64 (in Pacers favour). If we look at win% difference it's .502 to .486 (in Pacers favour); that's an avg 41.2 wins vs 39.9 wins (more or less the same picture that SRS paints??? slightly less favourable for the Pacers, perhaps). Not a huge difference either way.
If we include Indiana's ABA years, their cumulative SRS is 34.15, avg of 0.65673.......that's ~+0.94 to the Knicks avg. Their total (ABA + NBA) win% is .514. That's avg 42.1 wins in an 82-game schedule (vs 39.9 for the Knicks).

However, I'd not necessarily conclude the Pacers NBA-only history is superior from that (though I suppose the case could be made). The Knicks have one more finals appearance during the same years of NBA existence. They have one fewer titles (either league) than the Pacers, but TWO additional finals appearances (albeit in a longer history---->similar frequency of reaching the finals [in a vacuum, for me, tie-breaker would go to the team with longer history in this situation [Knicks]]).

As you implied, however, not all finals appearances/titles are created equal. To summarize how I [more or less] view overall competitiveness and talent density in the league.....

I consider much of the league from ~1990 on as "modern" and extremely competitive with a few notations. The highest points ("Golden Ages", if you will) for me were the first few years of the 90's [~'90-'92 or '93], the mid-late aughts [~'05-'08], and the very recent NBA [~'15/'16-present].
A number or extraordinary centers began entering the league in the early 90's, but at the same time you had Bird and Magic [and McHale, Daugherty, Nance, etc] exiting the league, Jordan leaving after '93, the league expanding by two teams upon his return, DRob missing the whole year in '97 while other stars began to go into decline shortly thereafter [and before the next generation had fully filled out the ranks].......consequently I feel talent density began to slip, and the "Golden Age" of the early 90's was already past by the mid-90's; and I actually feel that from approximately '97-'02 or '03 was probably the weakest "era" of the last 30 years.

But '05-'08(ish) brought another "Golden Age" [imo], with talents like Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Nowitzki, Nash all in their primes [if not peaks] within that span, as well as 2nd/3rd-tier stars like Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Shawn Marion, Chauncey Billups, Amare Stoudemire, and Ben Wallace all in their primes [peaks?] within that span. Additionally, the all-time great 2003 draft class was all hitting their primes [if not peaks] in this span: Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Melo, etc. AND as if that weren't enough, there were mega-talents who came in just after 2003 (CP3, Howard, as well as lesser talents like Iggy and David West).

The league then dipped somewhat for a few years (and hold-out years never seem to look all that strong, fwiw), but has seen recent resurgence with the extraordinary depth at the center position, as well as the ascent of guys like Giannis, Curry, Harden, Kawhi, Davis, Lillard, while some of the "old guard" (Lebron, Durant, CP3) continued to play well.

As far as NBA history prior to 1990(ish), I generally feel the more recent is the more competitive, with a possible exception being the pre-merger 70's (which I generally view as similar(ish) to the mid or mid-late 60's).
I view ABA competitiveness from ~'71 or '72-'76 as similar to that of the early 60's NBA. The early years of the ABA I view similarly as the mid-late 50's NBA (~'57-'59).
And otherwise mid 50's > pre-shotclock NBA > BAA.

So if I was ranking the respective competitiveness of the various finals appearances between the Knicks and Pacers (* marking where they won), from least to most.....

'51 Knicks
'52 Knicks
'53 Knicks
'69 Pacers (ABA)
'70 Pacers (ABA)*
'72 Pacers (ABA)*
'73 Pacers (ABA)*
'75 Pacers (ABA)
'70 Knicks*
'72 Knicks
'73 Knicks*
'99 Knicks
'00 Pacers
'94 Knicks

So you'll note that [imo] the Knicks occupy most of the "high ground" on that finals hierarchy (edit: though I guess they have a good chunk of the bottom ground, too; they maybe average out marginally better overall, though)

Does that mean the Knicks deserved to go over them here? idk. I voted that way, though I'll admit I'm not 100% confident in that stance; I certainly don't fault anyone who voted Pacers at that time.


fwiw, one can also get an idea how I view the Nets titles and finals appearances based on the above, too. I'll also quote myself from a prior thread regarding the difficulty of path to the finals [as it pertains to the '02 and '03 Nets]:

Since the relative easy path to the finals has been mentioned in relation to the two NBA finals appearances for the Nets, I got curious and did a little study of my own, evaluating the path to reach the finals for every finals participant since the ABA/NBA merger (so that's the last 86 finals participants).

I started with a methodology similar to one displayed in another recent thread: just adding up the SRS of opponents faced. For late 70's/early 80's teams who only played TWO rounds to reach the finals, I prorated the cumulative SRS to THREE opponents (that is: multiplied by 1.5.........same effect as using average SRS faced).
But that doesn't give full consideration to what is arguably the biggest factor, which is the HIGHEST SRS faced. For example, consider the following hypothetical:

Team A faces a +3 SRS, a +3 SRS, and then a +3.5 SRS (total: +9.5).
Team B faces a 0 SRS, a +1 SRS, and then a +8 SRS (total: +9.0).

Using only the cumulative SRS method, Team A rates as having had the tougher path to the finals; but I think most of us would agree that Team B actually had it harder (because they had to go thru a +8 SRS team). So I wanted to give some added consideration to that highest SRS faced; though I didn't want to go too overboard with it, as that highest SRS is already part of the cumulative.

So while it's a bit arbitrary, I went with the following formula:

Cumulative SRS faced + (0.65 * Highest SRS faced)


Anyway, based on that formula for calculating difficulty of path to the finals, the '02 and '03 Nets paths rate 82nd and 78th (out of 86), fwiw.

EDIT: ^^^Also worth noting that by the above formula, the difficulty of path to the finals for the '00 Pacers ranks 83rd (out of 86)---->easier than either of the Nets trips.

I generally agree that the Nets have NEVER (in 43 years NBA history) truly looked liked a contender in the NBA. I'll again quote myself from prior thread:

The Nets have hit 50+ wins exactly ONCE in 43 years of NBA existence. Their all-time highest SRS is +4.42 (which is the one and only time in 43 years they've managed a 4+ SRS, btw; they've only twice gone >3, and only four times >2, fwiw)......what that tells me is that they were never truly a contender. I realize you can only face what's in front of you, but it should nonetheless factor into the thinking somewhere.

[Dr Positivity]

This seems like Nets vs Nuggets

ABA: The Nets clearly were better than the Nuggets in the ABA with 2 titles and a finals loss vs 1 finals loss.

NBA: The Nuggets have been more consistent with conference finals teams in the 70s, 80s and 00s. The 90s was pretty horrible outside of the iconic Sonics upset and this decade they did decent at the start carrying over the Melo era, then did good again last year. The Nets made 2 finals but the 02 and 03 Nets weren’t really any better than a team like the 09 Nuggets who are my unofficial silver medal that year.

So the question is whether the Nuggets have been better enough in the NBA to make up for their ABA deficit. I’m gonna say no. Even if it’s based on conference alignment it’s still 2 finals to 0 for the Nets in the NBA, and the Nuggets haven’t been a team that’s decent every year. For example in the 90s and early 2000s, they once missed the playoffs 8 years in a row, and overall 11 of 13 years from 90-03. I would argue from 90 on (or after the English era), the Nuggets vs Nets is pretty close overall. Which leaves the Nuggets with the better 80s and the Nets with the better 70s, but the 70s was the one with the titles.

Vote Nets

[Owly]

FYP.

Yeah, I can't see a case a good case for the Kings either. It's like I implied in my post above: we could REMOVE 10 [1st round exit] playoff appearances for the Nuggets [i.e. pretend they had X number of fewer wins required to instead make them MISS the playoffs], and they'd still have at least marginally better rs win%, playoff appearance frequency, and playoff series win% than the Kings franchise.

Not necessarily a good case but I was curious to see if the title bump is enough ... so a case for the Kings would be ...

Regular Season performance
Knicks: 10th
Cumulative SRS -20.89
Average SRS-0.286164384
(all through the start of this year)
over

Pacers: 11th
Cumulative SRS 15.2
Average SRS 0.353488372
(BAA/NBA only - not ABA)

Pacers have been a better team - just NBA alone - not including ABA and the (three) titles there. But longevity and ultimate playoff success are (otoh .. and at first glance in the thread, some "total"-based support) leapt the Knicks up circa say 0.7 SRS (assuming SRS is a good RS baseline). That's assuming the Pacers' ABA stuff valued at nothing and averages used as an initial baseline. I think ABA would be valued to some extent so the Knicks' bump is more than that.

If the Kings one title (as a proxy for the main aspect of the playoffs) is worth half that then ... they are still behind Denver and Orlando, but extend an already large lead over NBA only Nets (and looking at it a with ABA SRS - obviously including the ABA gives nets titles in a very small but by then more talented league). So probably not a case for here but maybe one for not last in this group as seemed widely suggested. And if the Nets titles move them up more (and Knicks's were worth more than just marginally enough to get them where they landed, enough to get them over Nets with some value to ABA titles - even if "only" mid-ABA titles) then maaaybe, maybe the Kings are into consideration here (how much difference the Royals +6.431818182 points dif in '47 and 6.433333333 in '48 might also be a factor - see below).

Spoiler:

Numbers as formatted above
Nuggets NBA
-23.15
-0.538372093

Nuggets with ABA
-3.58
-0.068846154

Magic
-16.69
-0.556333333

Kings/Royals (NBA/BAA only doesn't include pre-timeline '46 title or '47. '48 NBL campaigns
-83.64
-1.178028169


Nets NBA
-107.07
-2.49

Nets with ABA
-109.62
-2.108076923

One other note. Playoff success has been measured crudely here by titles. On the other hand, stuff like finals births ... the 50s Knicks got to more finals, but were, IMO, lesser threats to the Lakers than the 40s-50s Royals - and Nets 2000s finals berths were a joke, far lesser contenders than Sacramento were out in the Western bracket).

Caveats:
Not all titles necessarily considered equal, i.e. era (mind you '73 Knicks got to face an injured [Hondo] Boston and so a relatively simple path to the finals).
Not all voters necessarily the same.
This based one one simple model with SRS as a good RS model, titles as main importance of playoffs - RS performance as acceptable baseline to be adjusted from. Your mileage may vary.

Re: Knicks v Pacers
SRS difference (NBA-only) is about 0.64 (in Pacers favour). If we look at win% difference it's .502 to .486 (in Pacers favour); that's an avg 41.2 wins vs 39.9 wins (more or less the same picture that SRS paints??? slightly less favourable for the Pacers, perhaps). Not a huge difference either way.
If we include Indiana's ABA years, their cumulative SRS is 34.15, avg of 0.65673.......that's ~+0.94 to the Knicks avg. Their total (ABA + NBA) win% is .514. That's avg 42.1 wins in an 82-game schedule (vs 39.9 for the Knicks).

However, I'd not necessarily conclude the Pacers NBA-only history is superior from that (though I suppose the case could be made). The Knicks have one more finals appearance during the same years of NBA existence. They have one fewer titles (either league) than the Pacers, but TWO additional finals appearances (albeit in a longer history---->similar frequency of reaching the finals [in a vacuum, for me, tie-breaker would go to the team with longer history in this situation [Knicks]]).

As you implied, however, not all finals appearances/titles are created equal. To summarize how I [more or less] view overall competitiveness and talent density in the league.....

I consider much of the league from ~1990 on as "modern" and extremely competitive with a few notations. The highest points ("Golden Ages", if you will) for me were the first few years of the 90's [~'90-'92 or '93], the mid-late aughts [~'05-'08], and the very recent NBA [~'15/'16-present].
A number or extraordinary centers began entering the league in the early 90's, but at the same time you had Bird and Magic [and McHale, Daugherty, Nance, etc] exiting the league, Jordan leaving after '93, the league expanding by two teams upon his return, DRob missing the whole year in '97 while other stars began to go into decline shortly thereafter [and before the next generation had fully filled out the ranks].......consequently I feel talent density began to slip, and the "Golden Age" of the early 90's was already past by the mid-90's; and I actually feel that from approximately '97-'02 or '03 was probably the weakest "era" of the last 30 years.

But '05-'08(ish) brought another "Golden Age" [imo], with talents like Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Nowitzki, Nash all in their primes [if not peaks] within that span, as well as 2nd/3rd-tier stars like Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Elton Brand, Shawn Marion, Chauncey Billups, Amare Stoudemire, and Ben Wallace all in their primes [peaks?] within that span. Additionally, the all-time great 2003 draft class was all hitting their primes [if not peaks] in this span: Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Melo, etc. AND as if that weren't enough, there were mega-talents who came in just after 2003 (CP3, Howard, as well as lesser talents like Iggy and David West).

The league then dipped somewhat for a few years (and hold-out years never seem to look all that strong, fwiw), but has seen recent resurgence with the extraordinary depth at the center position, as well as the ascent of guys like Giannis, Curry, Harden, Kawhi, Davis, Lillard, while some of the "old guard" (Lebron, Durant, CP3) continued to play well.

As far as NBA history prior to 1990(ish), I generally feel the more recent is the more competitive, with a possible exception being the pre-merger 70's (which I generally view as similar(ish) to the mid or mid-late 60's).
I view ABA competitiveness from ~'71 or '72-'76 as similar to that of the early 60's NBA. The early years of the ABA I view similarly as the mid-late 50's NBA (~'57-'59).
And otherwise mid 50's > pre-shotclock NBA > BAA.

So if I was ranking the respective competitiveness of the various finals appearances between the Knicks and Pacers (* marking where they won), from least to most.....

'51 Knicks
'52 Knicks
'53 Knicks
'69 Pacers (ABA)
'70 Pacers (ABA)*
'72 Pacers (ABA)*
'73 Pacers (ABA)*
'75 Pacers (ABA)
'70 Knicks*
'72 Knicks
'73 Knicks*
'99 Knicks
'00 Pacers
'94 Knicks

So you'll note that [imo] the Knicks occupy most of the "high ground" on that finals hierarchy (edit: though I guess they have a good chunk of the bottom ground, too; they maybe average out marginally better overall, though)

Does that mean the Knicks deserved to go over them here? idk. I voted that way, though I'll admit I'm not 100% confident in that stance; I certainly don't fault anyone who voted Pacers at that time.


fwiw, one can also get an idea how I view the Nets titles and finals appearances based on the above, too. I'll also quote myself from a prior thread regarding the difficulty of path to the finals [as it pertains to the '02 and '03 Nets]:

Since the relative easy path to the finals has been mentioned in relation to the two NBA finals appearances for the Nets, I got curious and did a little study of my own, evaluating the path to reach the finals for every finals participant since the ABA/NBA merger (so that's the last 86 finals participants).

I started with a methodology similar to one displayed in another recent thread: just adding up the SRS of opponents faced. For late 70's/early 80's teams who only played TWO rounds to reach the finals, I prorated the cumulative SRS to THREE opponents (that is: multiplied by 1.5.........same effect as using average SRS faced).
But that doesn't give full consideration to what is arguably the biggest factor, which is the HIGHEST SRS faced. For example, consider the following hypothetical:

Team A faces a +3 SRS, a +3 SRS, and then a +3.5 SRS (total: +9.5).
Team B faces a 0 SRS, a +1 SRS, and then a +8 SRS (total: +9.0).

Using only the cumulative SRS method, Team A rates as having had the tougher path to the finals; but I think most of us would agree that Team B actually had it harder (because they had to go thru a +8 SRS team). So I wanted to give some added consideration to that highest SRS faced; though I didn't want to go too overboard with it, as that highest SRS is already part of the cumulative.

So while it's a bit arbitrary, I went with the following formula:

Cumulative SRS faced + (0.65 * Highest SRS faced)


Anyway, based on that formula for calculating difficulty of path to the finals, the '02 and '03 Nets paths rate 82nd and 78th (out of 86), fwiw.

EDIT: ^^^Also worth noting that by the above formula, the difficulty of path to the finals for the '00 Pacers ranks 83rd (out of 86)---->easier than either of the Nets trips.

I generally agree that the Nets have NEVER (in 43 years NBA history) truly looked liked a contender in the NBA. I'll again quote myself from prior thread:

The Nets have hit 50+ wins exactly ONCE in 43 years of NBA existence. Their all-time highest SRS is +4.42 (which is the one and only time in 43 years they've managed a 4+ SRS, btw; they've only twice gone >3, and only four times >2, fwiw)......what that tells me is that they were never truly a contender. I realize you can only face what's in front of you, but it should nonetheless factor into the thinking somewhere.

Reiteration: The post was as noted an exploration whether there is a case not advocating for a position. Similarly this is mostly thinking aloud.

Thoughts

1) NBA Pacers versus Knicks RS difference is, "Not a huge difference", but it is 10th in that versus 15th so not insignificant.

2) Regarding Pacers not necessarily better in the same time period versus Knicks ... 1) that was with regard to RS, full history. But 2) Otoh, I'd lean pretty heavily that they were (was starting to go into detail here but wasn't sure I was parsing your arguments right in terms of what versions of Pacers versus what versions of Knicks - seemed to go off in different directions).

3) I think I value the Knicks '99 finals less than you. I think lockout year made things a bit more noisy, they got a team the matched up really well against in round one won a narrow points diff series (including taking 2 of 3 very tight games) versus Indiana in strong Camby series and never looked like a threat to win it (note here: you later ding the Pacers for an easy route in 2000 but they were competitive in the series and even if one big win is what tilts the points dif in their favor overall, with the 3 closest games going for LA, and in particular a 2 point win in G4 ... it's much more a series [and a title] I could see Indiana winning].

This made me look at '94 as well. They outscored Houston but were outscored by Chicago and even in points with Indiana so overall were kinda lucky to be there from a playoffs perspective (though based on the full picture I respect them as a legit contender).

But this does re-raise my issue with finals berths. Indiana '98 going 7 games with the Bulls feels better than '99 Knicks getting to final and not really looking competitive (SA had two home games in their back pocket too).

4) Personal taste ... I'm not much for weighting eras. Gets a bit arbitrary for me. Even stats attempts to do it ... how do you know if more guys are improving production because the league is getting worse (I think the hypothesis for one model) versus the players are improving because they got better. I get league depth in terms of player pool and greater probability versus fewer teams ... I get expansion dilutes talent in the short term ... overall, in general it's hard for me to get behind it.

5) SRS finals route ... I'd want to math it out but I don't love a weighting without knowing the justification for that number. maybe for a "legit contender" (is that who you optimize for ... or should it be for an average team? an average playoff team?) the 3,3, 3.5 route is easier, but I'd want to see the probabilities of advancing to justify any multiplier. FWIW best of 5 game first rounds make a somewhat close competitor in that round more dangerous.

6) Regarding Indiana finals route versus Nets. 1) Nets weren't always no 1 seed. I know I'm using RS as a baseline so maybe should credit a harder route. Still I don't think the RS gives enough playoff advantage and I guess most aren't weighing as much as I would ... I don't know. 2) The Pacers based on their finals performance and RS performance looked like plausible champs. The Nets didn't. Hard to aggregate playoff performance on a varying playing field, but the crux of how I see it here is the last two sentences Pacers look like viable champs to me, the Nets ... no. Might not disagree here, but since you raise the Pacers in the context of the Nets.

7) Allowing for different points of view if you want to take the Knicks over the Pacers ... okay .. per my initial post I think that puts the Kings somewhat in the discussion, albeit probably not the choice, for their title. As before others' mileage will vary.

All that said, and having looked at the teams for the prior post, I might venture a vote for the Denver Nuggets. Not on average bad, as the Nets are (even with ABA taken at full value) mitigating their ABA silverware advantage. And generally the best (or least worst) NBA team available (boosted to near average with ABA at full value) which is all you can ask here.

[limbo]

Knicks should be dead last.

70 years in the NBA, BIGGEST MARKET in the league, and only two titles to show, last one all the way back in 1973...

Not even that. It would be one thing if they were able to be at least competitive for large stretches of their history, but most of the time they were a joke. No titles in the 50's. Irrelevant in the 60's. Irrelevant post 75's. Irrelevant in the 80's. Solid but ultimately winless in the 90's. A complete trainwreck in the 00's and 10's.

And this is an organization with resources, connections and market only comparable to maybe Los Angeles... Now go look at what the Lakers have done and what the Knicks in their history.

It's unfair to compare Knicks to these young small market franchise. The Knicks are the biggest joke in Major American Sports history based on their potential and their reality.

[trex_8063]

I might be a few hours early, but the vote count is:

Nuggets - 5
Nets - 1


So I don't really see that result changing. Feel free to continue discussing anything itt, but I'll go ahead and get the next one up.....

[trex_8063]

Knicks should be dead last.

70 years in the NBA, BIGGEST MARKET in the league, and only two titles to show, last one all the way back in 1973...

Not even that. It would be one thing if they were able to be at least competitive for large stretches of their history, but most of the time they were a joke. No titles in the 50's. Irrelevant in the 60's. Irrelevant post 75's. Irrelevant in the 80's. Solid but ultimately winless in the 90's. A complete trainwreck in the 00's and 10's.

And this is an organization with resources, connections and market only comparable to maybe Los Angeles... Now go look at what the Lakers have done and what the Knicks in their history.

It's unfair to compare Knicks to these young small market franchise. The Knicks are the biggest joke in Major American Sports history based on their potential and their reality.

I think many in this project simply didn't figure market size/resources into their thinking, and rather compared all franchises on a even playing field, as it were.
If you do factor heavily resources, then I'd generally agree the Knicks should be MUCH lower. However, I don't think even there they should be "dead last"; there's too much recency bias colouring that statement. I figure at the very least, the Clipper franchise is more sad:
*49 years history (35 of that in L.A., so a near-comparable market as NY most of the time), and----forget about titles----they've never even been in a conference finals.
They have one 15-year stretch where they didn't make the playoffs AT ALL (for a decade and a half!), another [entirely separate] 18-years stretch in which they only made the playoffs TWICE.
***They have multiple of the worst records and SRS's in NBA history; TWELVE seasons (out of 49!) where they lost 60+ games (in an 82-game schedule), etc etc.

It's kinda beyond atrocious, considering market size. Historically, the Knicks don't have anything to compare with that.

[limbo]

I think many in this project simply didn't figure market size/resources into their thinking, and rather compared all franchises on a even playing field, as it were.
If you do factor heavily resources, then I'd generally agree the Knicks should be MUCH lower. However, I don't think even there they should be "dead last"; there's too much recency bias colouring that statement. I figure at the very least, the Clipper franchise is more sad:
*49 years history (35 of that in L.A., so a near-comparable market as NY most of the time), and----forget about titles----they've never even been in a conference finals.
They have one 15-year stretch where they didn't make the playoffs AT ALL (for a decade and a half!), another [entirely separate] 18-years stretch in which they only made the playoffs TWICE.
***They have multiple of the worst records and SRS's in NBA history; TWELVE seasons (out of 49!) where they lost 60+ games (in an 82-game schedule), etc etc.

It's kinda beyond atrocious, considering market size. Historically, the Knicks don't have anything to compare with that.

The Clippers comparison is kind of unfair. The biggest problem with the Clippers is they share the market with their bigger brother, which happens to be the greatest and most popular basketball franchise of all-time. So yeah, while theoretically, they are a big market team, the situation isn't really comparable because LA is run by the Lakers in every possible way. So in that sense, after relocating to LA in '85, it was an uphill battle to establish the Clippers as a worthy stand-alone franchise for top tier basketball talent. Also, since Sterling, supposedly illegally, randomly decided to move the Clippers to LA, nobody was really sure what to make of the stability of the whole ordeal. The Clippers have been constantly rumored with moves to different destinations due to the Lakers dominance over the LA market.

TL;DR

The Knicks and Clippers aren't comparable in a vacuum, imo. The Knicks were founded at the very inception of the league and had decades of time and resources to establish themselves in being a well-run organization/franchise before the Clippers even existed. Also had the biggest market in the country all to themselves and have managed to be largely irrelevant or outright terrible in the sport of basketball outside of maybe 15 years out of their 70 year history.

If we're accounting for which team has managed to fail in the most spectacular of fashions as a basketball organization while perennially having the most time/resources to work with. comparatively speaking with the rest of the field, then the New York Knicks deserve the #1 spot. I'm thinking most franchises, yes, including the likes of the Clippers and Timberwolves, would have managed to have better winning percentages and win more championships if they had the advantages the Knicks had.

[trex_8063]

I think many in this project simply didn't figure market size/resources into their thinking, and rather compared all franchises on a even playing field, as it were.
If you do factor heavily resources, then I'd generally agree the Knicks should be MUCH lower. However, I don't think even there they should be "dead last"; there's too much recency bias colouring that statement. I figure at the very least, the Clipper franchise is more sad:
*49 years history (35 of that in L.A., so a near-comparable market as NY most of the time), and----forget about titles----they've never even been in a conference finals.
They have one 15-year stretch where they didn't make the playoffs AT ALL (for a decade and a half!), another [entirely separate] 18-years stretch in which they only made the playoffs TWICE.
***They have multiple of the worst records and SRS's in NBA history; TWELVE seasons (out of 49!) where they lost 60+ games (in an 82-game schedule), etc etc.

It's kinda beyond atrocious, considering market size. Historically, the Knicks don't have anything to compare with that.

The Clippers comparison is kind of unfair. The biggest problem with the Clippers is they share the market with their bigger brother, which happens to be the greatest and most popular basketball franchise of all-time. So yeah, while theoretically, they are a big market team, the situation isn't really comparable because LA is run by the Lakers in every possible way. So in that sense, after relocating to LA in '85, it was an uphill battle to establish the Clippers as a worthy stand-alone franchise for top tier basketball talent. Also, since Sterling, supposedly illegally, randomly decided to move the Clippers to LA, nobody was really sure what to make of the stability of the whole ordeal. The Clippers have been constantly rumored with moves to different destinations due to the Lakers dominance over the LA market.

TL;DR

The Knicks and Clippers aren't comparable in a vacuum, imo. The Knicks were founded at the very inception of the league and had decades of time and resources to establish themselves in being a well-run organization/franchise before the Clippers even existed. Also had the biggest market in the country all to themselves and have managed to be largely irrelevant or outright terrible in the sport of basketball outside of maybe 15 years out of their 70 year history.

If we're accounting for which team has managed to fail in the most spectacular of fashions as a basketball organization while perennially having the most time/resources to work with. comparatively speaking with the rest of the field, then the New York Knicks deserve the #1 spot. I'm thinking most franchises, yes, including the likes of the Clippers and Timberwolves, would have managed to have better winning percentages and win more championships if they had the advantages the Knicks had.

Some points here. However, what you refer to in Sterling's influence, rumours of moving, etc, all at least indirectly [if not directly] relate to franchise management--->the very thing you're contending that the Knicks organization has done so poorly [though imo, mostly just in recent history].

I looked up different sources (slcdunk from 2016, and reddit source from multiple recent years) which all listed the Clippers as the 4th-biggest market just behind the Lakers (NY and Brooklyn Nets listed #1 and #2). Forbes magazine (in 2019) listed the Clippers as the 9th-biggest market (NY #1, Lakers #2; Nets #6, fwiw), at about 16% above league avg.

I also found from 2012 some "study" cited on Bleacher Report (for whatever that's worth) that----to be fair----did look sort of arbitrary........however, one thing it had going for it was that it was considering MULTIPLE factors (not ONLY market size): including fan base, future market growth, ticket prices, other local competing franchises or other entertainment options, etc. And overall, it only listed the Knicks as the 9th-most "advantageous" franchise (Clippers 15th). idk, from the skimming I did I found the methodology and conclusions questionable, but nonetheless just putting that out there.


So while some of what you say is probably true, the balance of evidence clearly indicates that the Clippers market and "advantages" are certainly above average; and whatever disadvantage relative to the Knicks is [imo] insufficient to account for the DRASTIC difference in results.
I mean, the nut-shell gap in resources is basically the difference between #1 and #5-9(ish); the results gap is the difference between #10-11(ish) and #29.

[Dr Positivity]

I think many in this project simply didn't figure market size/resources into their thinking, and rather compared all franchises on a even playing field, as it were.
If you do factor heavily resources, then I'd generally agree the Knicks should be MUCH lower. However, I don't think even there they should be "dead last"; there's too much recency bias colouring that statement. I figure at the very least, the Clipper franchise is more sad:
*49 years history (35 of that in L.A., so a near-comparable market as NY most of the time), and----forget about titles----they've never even been in a conference finals.
They have one 15-year stretch where they didn't make the playoffs AT ALL (for a decade and a half!), another [entirely separate] 18-years stretch in which they only made the playoffs TWICE.
***They have multiple of the worst records and SRS's in NBA history; TWELVE seasons (out of 49!) where they lost 60+ games (in an 82-game schedule), etc etc.

It's kinda beyond atrocious, considering market size. Historically, the Knicks don't have anything to compare with that.

The Clippers comparison is kind of unfair. The biggest problem with the Clippers is they share the market with their bigger brother, which happens to be the greatest and most popular basketball franchise of all-time. So yeah, while theoretically, they are a big market team, the situation isn't really comparable because LA is run by the Lakers in every possible way. So in that sense, after relocating to LA in '85, it was an uphill battle to establish the Clippers as a worthy stand-alone franchise for top tier basketball talent. Also, since Sterling, supposedly illegally, randomly decided to move the Clippers to LA, nobody was really sure what to make of the stability of the whole ordeal. The Clippers have been constantly rumored with moves to different destinations due to the Lakers dominance over the LA market.

TL;DR

The Knicks and Clippers aren't comparable in a vacuum, imo. The Knicks were founded at the very inception of the league and had decades of time and resources to establish themselves in being a well-run organization/franchise before the Clippers even existed. Also had the biggest market in the country all to themselves and have managed to be largely irrelevant or outright terrible in the sport of basketball outside of maybe 15 years out of their 70 year history.

If we're accounting for which team has managed to fail in the most spectacular of fashions as a basketball organization while perennially having the most time/resources to work with. comparatively speaking with the rest of the field, then the New York Knicks deserve the #1 spot. I'm thinking most franchises, yes, including the likes of the Clippers and Timberwolves, would have managed to have better winning percentages and win more championships if they had the advantages the Knicks had.

You can say the Clippers city isn’t as big of an advantage as the Knicks, something I’m not sure I entirely agree with, but the Clippers accomplishments are also much smaller than the Knicks. This is a team that has never even made the conference finals. The Ewing era is by far more successful than any stretch for the Clippers, and that’s not even the golden period for the Knicks.

[Owly]

I think many in this project simply didn't figure market size/resources into their thinking, and rather compared all franchises on a even playing field, as it were.
If you do factor heavily resources, then I'd generally agree the Knicks should be MUCH lower. However, I don't think even there they should be "dead last"; there's too much recency bias colouring that statement. I figure at the very least, the Clipper franchise is more sad:
*49 years history (35 of that in L.A., so a near-comparable market as NY most of the time), and----forget about titles----they've never even been in a conference finals.
They have one 15-year stretch where they didn't make the playoffs AT ALL (for a decade and a half!), another [entirely separate] 18-years stretch in which they only made the playoffs TWICE.
***They have multiple of the worst records and SRS's in NBA history; TWELVE seasons (out of 49!) where they lost 60+ games (in an 82-game schedule), etc etc.

It's kinda beyond atrocious, considering market size. Historically, the Knicks don't have anything to compare with that.

The Clippers comparison is kind of unfair. The biggest problem with the Clippers is they share the market with their bigger brother, which happens to be the greatest and most popular basketball franchise of all-time. So yeah, while theoretically, they are a big market team, the situation isn't really comparable because LA is run by the Lakers in every possible way. So in that sense, after relocating to LA in '85, it was an uphill battle to establish the Clippers as a worthy stand-alone franchise for top tier basketball talent. Also, since Sterling, supposedly illegally, randomly decided to move the Clippers to LA, nobody was really sure what to make of the stability of the whole ordeal. The Clippers have been constantly rumored with moves to different destinations due to the Lakers dominance over the LA market.

TL;DR

The Knicks and Clippers aren't comparable in a vacuum, imo. The Knicks were founded at the very inception of the league and had decades of time and resources to establish themselves in being a well-run organization/franchise before the Clippers even existed. Also had the biggest market in the country all to themselves and have managed to be largely irrelevant or outright terrible in the sport of basketball outside of maybe 15 years out of their 70 year history.

If we're accounting for which team has managed to fail in the most spectacular of fashions as a basketball organization while perennially having the most time/resources to work with. comparatively speaking with the rest of the field, then the New York Knicks deserve the #1 spot. I'm thinking most franchises, yes, including the likes of the Clippers and Timberwolves, would have managed to have better winning percentages and win more championships if they had the advantages the Knicks had.

You can say the Clippers city isn’t as big of an advantage as the Knicks, something I’m not sure I entirely agree with, but the Clippers accomplishments are also much smaller than the Knicks. This is a team that has never even made the conference finals. The Ewing era is by far more successful than any stretch for the Clippers, and that’s not even the golden period for the Knicks.

That's just false. A simplistic measure to be sure but versus the Paul Clippers ...

Best Single Year SRS: Clippers 7.27 ('14) to Knicks 6.48 ('94)
2nd Best Year SRS: Clippers 6.8 ('15) to Knicks 5.87 ('93)
so also
best two year run: Clippers
3rd best Year: 6.43 ('13) to 3.62 ('89)
so
Best 3 year cumulatively (not requiring adjacency): Clippers
Best 3 adjacent years: Clippers
this can keep going to years 4 and 5 with the Clippers winning each individual year comp and so further opening the gap.

If you want to ding the Clippers for not coming out some tough Western Conferences (versus the Knicks squeaking through in '94 and making it there in '99 - not a run I rate highly as already covered but people can disagree) fine ... but "far more successful" I don't buy.

The Clippers problem is the preceding spell, especially the Sterling/LA era, is putrid, with extended very low lows (mid-to-late 80s might be the worst run of consistent dreadfulness and they came out of it with very little going forward until eventually getting Manning and Smith) and both rare and not-that-high highs (Brand was really good, 2006 Clippers above average, Manning/Larry Brown Clippers were ... average, even going back to Braves days the McAdoo-Smith teams peaked at above average, albeit that could win you a title in the right year with some luck in the mid-to-late 70s), with the normal being just bad.

But the Clippers have put forward a genuine contender for a spell in the last decade.