RealGM

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
22. Denver Rockets/Nuggets

.....

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

Using the same fanboy criteria I have been, would it have been more fun to have been a fan of the Kings, Magic, or Nets. (Or, to put it another way, would you rather have a bad relationship, a serious knee injury, or be going bald.)

All have had major streaks of suckitude. The Nets have been the worst, the Magic the least sucky years (speaking subjectively). All have had some years of contending, the Nets clearly the best (the ABA years before THEY SOLD DOCTOR J the cheap buggers), but the Magic had the Shaq years and the Dwight and the Kings the Oscar/Lucas years and the Webber/Divac years (plus some real old good teams).

Oh heck. I love Dr. J, but the Nets years of suckiness are just too sucky to ever want to be a Nets fan. It's ugly but changing my vote to the Magic.

Vote: ORLANDO MAGIC

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%
Magic - .480
Kings - .456
Nets - .432 (.417 in NBA, .503 in ABA)

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

% of Seasons going as far as Conference Finals
Magic - .133
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

% of Seasons going to Finals
Nets - .096 (.047 in NBA, .333 in ABA)
Magic - .067
Kings - .014

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

The Nets NBA history seems pretty close t the Magic, so when you add ABA titles, seems like it goes their way. The Kings are last of the three.

Vote Nets

Voting for Orlando Magic.

The Nets snatched away 2 titles in the ABA. Made it to NBA Finals 2 times. So, their performance on end result looks better. But their low points are just too deep and too much.

Dr Positivity wrote:The Nets NBA history seems pretty close t the Magic, so when you add ABA titles, seems like it goes their way. The Kings are last of the three.

Vote Nets

Magic have been a bit below average (-0.556333333 average SRS, 20th).
Nets have been dreadful (-2.49 average NBA SRS, 28th IF as I do, you count Bobcats organisation as the starting point for a lineage, if per this project, you count "The team in Charlotte" as one franchise they leap ahead of the Clippers, Nets, Grizzlies and T'Wolves and leave the Nets in 2nd last. They're around the back end of a (rough) bell curve.

There's (maybe) a case if you weight the late ABA titles (including 7 team ABA) at close to full NBA title value. But in terms of being close to the Magic their RS success is worse than the Lakers' is good (Lakers are 2nd only to NBA Spurs). For me then seeing them as close in the NBA is contingent on valuing them getting out of THAT era Eastern conference.

trex_8063 wrote: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%
Magic - .480
Kings - .456
Nets - .432 (.417 in NBA, .503 in ABA)

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

% of Seasons going as far as Conference Finals
Magic - .133
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

% of Seasons going to Finals
Nets - .096 (.047 in NBA, .333 in ABA)
Magic - .067
Kings - .014

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

Royals have three finals appearances counting major leagues from the 46-47 campaign on (NBL finals in 47 and 48 versus the Gears and Lakers - not including their '46 NBL title - before getting shafted by a divisional alignment that called Rochester part of the Western Division both because a glut of eastern teams and possibly also because the big arena BAA guys wanted to compartmentalize the NBL additions.

In terms of %s history, Orlando get shafted by having been a genuine expansion franchise, whilst the other teams emerged into similarly emerging leagues. One might argue the Nets were gutted by their territorial fee (and loss of Erving though they acquired Archibald first so presumably weren't too poor? Or just were badly run?) though whether they would have had to do so if they'd just moved to New Jersey straight away is an open question. I don't know here, but NJ is hardly New York territory ... maybe they wouldn't so maybe it was just being a bad organization.

How far back are we going in terms of franchise histories?

Oh, and northern NJ where the Nets have always played (as opposed to Trenton or somewhere in the Philly sphere) is certainly in the NY territorial claim as the teams were counting it.

I have no idea how to weigh ABA history against NBA. The Nets have just had too many long stretches of both mediocrity and ineptitude, and even their best NBA teams would have been first or second round fodder in a real conference. Orlando's highs are just more impressive - some of that is down to lottery luck, but the Dwight teams were pretty well constructed.

Vote: Orlando Magic

Nets clearly have higher highs IMO. They definitely seem like the pick.

Sorry this is late. Have been pre-occupied with, well......life recently.

The count without me is 3 for the Magic, 2 for the Nets. And I'm gonna cast my vote for the Magic as well (making it 4-2); will try to jump in with my reasons tomorrow. For now, I'll call it and get the next thread up.

trex_8063 wrote:Sorry this is late. Have been pre-occupied with, well......life recently.

The count without me is 3 for the Magic, 2 for the Nets. And I'm gonna cast my vote for the Magic as well (making it 4-2); will try to jump in with my reasons tomorrow. For now, I'll call it and get the next thread up.

Just to clarify my reasoning for kinda leaning toward the Magic.......

I note that they have a significantly better rs win% than the Nets (even if we include the ABA years for the Nets), barely worse frequency of reaching the playoffs even if ABA years are allowed (and better than the Nets if they're not), more or less equal playoff series win% even if ABA years are allowed (significantly better than the Nets if they're not), better than the Nets in terms of reaching the finals in NBA-only (worse if ABA years are included)---->and did so against significantly tougher roads to the NBA finals than the '02 or '03 Nets faced, too.

One could argue the two ABA titles for the Nets outweigh all that, and I cannot say that person is wrong......in my gut I just don't quite feel that way. Very close, though.
Owly elaborated on just how putrid the Nets' NBA history has been [outside of the Jason Kidd era, anyway] in the #24 thread. It's just hard for me to get over all that.