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
23. Orlando Magic

.....

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

Okay, Nets have truly sucked for much of their history, so have the Kings. Top end, Nets have Dr. J years with the Kidd years as second tier. Royals have a winner in early years of the NBA with the Webber and Oscar years as well.

Vote changed to undecided.

penbeast0 wrote:Okay, Nets have truly sucked for much of their history, so have the Kings. Top end, Nets have Dr. J years with the Kidd years as second tier. Royals have a winner in the 40s with the Webber and Oscar years as well. Advantage Nets.

Vote: NY/NJ Nets

NBA only (ie no NBL or ABA), sub -4 SRS seasons.

2009-10 NBA New Jersey Nets -8.93
2008-09 NBA Sacramento Kings -8.6
1958-59 NBA Cincinnati Royals -7.89
1989-90 NBA New Jersey Nets -7.82
2015-16 NBA Brooklyn Nets -7.12
1987-88 NBA New Jersey Nets -6.98
2016-17 NBA Brooklyn Nets -6.74
2017-18 NBA Sacramento Kings -6.6
1976-77 NBA New York Nets -6.54
2011-12 NBA New Jersey Nets -6.37
2010-11 NBA New Jersey Nets -6.28
1990-91 NBA Sacramento Kings -6.27
1959-60 NBA Cincinnati Royals -5.92
1987-88 NBA Sacramento Kings -5.84
1997-98 NBA Sacramento Kings -5.83
1988-89 NBA New Jersey Nets -5.69
1991-92 NBA Sacramento Kings -5.63
1977-78 NBA New Jersey Nets -5.61
1988-89 NBA Sacramento Kings -5.35
1993-94 NBA Sacramento Kings -5.32
2000-01 NBA New Jersey Nets -5.3
1980-81 NBA New Jersey Nets -5.15
2007-08 NBA New Jersey Nets -5.15
2011-12 NBA Sacramento Kings -4.95
2010-11 NBA Sacramento Kings -4.8
1990-91 NBA New Jersey Nets -4.53
1986-87 NBA New Jersey Nets -4.42
1989-90 NBA Sacramento Kings -4.41
2012-13 NBA Sacramento Kings -4.26
1995-96 NBA New Jersey Nets -4.14
1971-72 NBA Cincinnati Royals -4.13
2009-10 NBA Sacramento Kings -4.06
1978-79 NBA New Jersey Nets* -4

Nets have 17, to Kings 16 despite a significantly shorter history. Nets have 7 of the top 11 worst seasons too [edit: 7 of the top 10 worst, 8 of the 11 worst].

fwiw, probably more definitive, though less directly to do with "sucking" (this time with the caveat against the Kings that they have more seasons)...
Seasons above 4 SRS

1949-50 NBA Rochester Royals* 7.72
2001-02 NBA Sacramento Kings* 7.61
2002-03 NBA Sacramento Kings* 6.68
1948-49 BAA Rochester Royals* 6.12
2000-01 NBA Sacramento Kings* 6.07
2003-04 NBA Sacramento Kings* 5.41
1963-64 NBA Cincinnati Royals* 4.43
2002-03 NBA New Jersey Nets* 4.42

Notes:
Adding ABA and NBL would:
Add two Nets teams to the suck list. (0 Kings teams)
Add two Nets teams to the contender lists. Probably (short of a ridiculous schedule adjustment to points dif - i.e -a negative 2.5 schedule, the worst in history is -1.7, toughest was 1.25, very few aren't between 1 and negative 1, though such one do tend to be early era) Kings also gain 2 for their contender list (assumes 46-47 as starting point of major league history and cuts off Kings '46 title).


IMO, ABA titles have to do a lot of work to close out the NBA era gap (Nets lower trough, more consistently bad per year and even total years, significantly worse on average - see previous thread, never a legit contender, barely a fringe contender). Unless you want to punish Kings for peaking whilst being in same conference as Shaq-Kobe Lakers, Mikan Lakers (could throw in Russell dynasty) versus Nets peaking versus ???

Heck, hadn't planned on voting but this one looks clear cut to me and likely to go, imo, the wrong direction, vote Kings/Royals.

Good analysis (as always), I may have to change my vote. For now, changing it to undecided until I hear from others.

I'll vote Kings/Royals here. Both teams peaked what seems like a lifetime ago with a championship in the pre shot-clock era for the Royals and two ABA championships for the Nets. In modern history their best periods basically coincided (early-to-mid-2000s) and the Kings were far better and were unfortunate not to win at least one title.

They both have been pretty embarrassing in the modern era outside of a few contending years. The Oscar era is not any more successful than KG Wolves. I will take the two titles in 70s ABA over the pre shot clock. Vote Nets

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

**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....at least post-'48, that is: in NBA/BAA history] was in 1951.


rs Win%
Kings - .456
Nets - .432 (.417 in NBA, .503 in ABA)

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

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

Playoff Series Win%
Nets - .429 (.367 in NBA, .583 in ABA)
Kings - .349

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

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

Edited to reflect vote pending.

The Nets NBA history looks only marginally worse to that of the Kings, and that's before noting that the majority of the success for the Kings/Royals came pre-merger (some of it even pre-shotclock). The Nets ABA history could arguably nudge them ahead.

trex_8063 wrote:These are ALL the remaining franchises listed.....

**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....at least post-'46] was in 1951.


rs Win%
Kings - .456
Nets - .432 (.417 in NBA, .503 in ABA)

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

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

Playoff Series Win%
Nets - .429 (.367 in NBA, .583 in ABA)
Kings - .349

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

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

See previous thread. Kings made NBL (better league at the time) finals in '47 and '48 (losing to the Gears and Lakers). That's 3 in the post 46-era.

trex_8063 wrote:OK, I'm finally going to put my support behind the Nets.

Their NBA history looks more or less equal [or only marginally worse, at most] to that of the Kings

Full range of NBA (only) history SRS using the franchises used for the project is Spurs 3.588372093 - Clippers -2.986122449 = 6.574494542. Half the league's teams are between 1 and -1.

NBA only (taking out only 2 years, but two of their best) Kings are -1.178028169 (24th).
NBA only (taking out 2 of their best years, but also as noted earlier, 2 negative 4 SRS or worse seasons) Nets are -2.49 (29th).

Give the Nets their ABA years and it's still only -2.108076923. Still nearly a point per game worse, every season. Given half the league is clustered within 2 points of one another around the average that feels pretty significant. The NBA only difference is 1.311971831 and one standard deviation is 1.547207811. The Nets, NBA only, have been significantly worse. They just peaked at the right time in a weaker conference.

I think Owly's points are pretty telling. The Nets were glorious for a short time in the ABA then fighting the Clippers (and T-Wolves once they joined the league) for worst in NBA history post ABA. The Kidd/Carter teams were fun but not that good and RIck Barry was a jerk plus you have the Derrick Coleman/Chris Morris teams to be particularly dislikeable. The Kings best teams aren't that much fun (didn't see the 40s/50s ones) with Oscar the Grouch and Jerry the Stathead, then whiny Chris Webber and the Euroflopper. On the other hand, Nate Archibald in KC was one of the most fun players to watch ever . . . sort of like an upbeat version of Allen Iverson with better passing (for a lot less time, I must admit). Not as much fun as Erving, Kenon, and company but who ever was?

And, Owly has caught me out as wrong more times than anyone else to ever post on this sight so I always have to rethink when he calls me on something.

Vote: Royals/Kings

Owly wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:OK, I'm finally going to put my support behind the Nets.

Their NBA history looks more or less equal [or only marginally worse, at most] to that of the Kings

Full range of NBA (only) history SRS using the franchises used for the project is Spurs 3.588372093 - Clippers -2.986122449 = 6.574494542. Half the league's teams are between 1 and -1.

NBA only (taking out only 2 years, but two of their best) Kings are -1.178028169 (24th).
NBA only (taking out 2 of their best years, but also as noted earlier, 2 negative 4 SRS or worse seasons) Nets are -2.49 (29th).

Give the Nets their ABA years and it's still only -2.108076923. Still nearly a point per game worse, every season. Given half the league is clustered within 2 points of one another around the average that feels pretty significant. The NBA only difference is 1.311971831 and one standard deviation is 1.547207811. The Nets, NBA only, have been significantly worse. They just peaked at the right time in a weaker conference.

I wasn't going merely by SRS (or rs record, which is a marginally lesser gap than SRS fwiw) alone as a means of suggesting their NBA history is only slightly worse. I was also noting:

*that their frequency of reaching the playoffs is better. You can point to the weakness of the Eastern Conference thru much of their history, but I don't think this fully wipes away the relevance of that. The WC (which the Kings were in) was quite weak in the 80's, too; they also existed during that span of the 60's where 75% of the team were going to the playoffs, making it [proportionally] much easier to earn a playoff berth.

**that the Nets have a marginally better playoff series record in the playoffs.

***and that they've been to the NBA finals twice (vs once for the Kings), and both in a more competitive era.
^^^Although I'll acknowledge the weak conference factor plays heavily into these latter two; and I agree some of those early 00's Kings teams were better than the two Nets teams that made the finals.


So considering the Nets' ABA history was impressive too......I felt that made it close.

I'm not sure what to do with the two NBL titles. Like most projects we do, it was implied (by candidacy being limited to the 30 existing franchises) that this was supposed to be the best of NBA/ABA history (and the BAA that the NBA "claims"). In some respect I feel it's fair game to consider accomplishments which occurred during the same time period as the existence of the BAA, though I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how much creedence to give to titles obtained in a relatively infantile [and semi-defunct] league [and sport in general].

idk, I may just abstain from voting in this one, and let you all decide (Kings look like they'll take it regardless of my voting either way).

trex_8063 wrote:

Owly wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:OK, I'm finally going to put my support behind the Nets.

Their NBA history looks more or less equal [or only marginally worse, at most] to that of the Kings

Full range of NBA (only) history SRS using the franchises used for the project is Spurs 3.588372093 - Clippers -2.986122449 = 6.574494542. Half the league's teams are between 1 and -1.

NBA only (taking out only 2 years, but two of their best) Kings are -1.178028169 (24th).
NBA only (taking out 2 of their best years, but also as noted earlier, 2 negative 4 SRS or worse seasons) Nets are -2.49 (29th).

Give the Nets their ABA years and it's still only -2.108076923. Still nearly a point per game worse, every season. Given half the league is clustered within 2 points of one another around the average that feels pretty significant. The NBA only difference is 1.311971831 and one standard deviation is 1.547207811. The Nets, NBA only, have been significantly worse. They just peaked at the right time in a weaker conference.

I wasn't going merely by SRS (or rs record, which is a marginally lesser gap than SRS fwiw) alone as a means of suggesting their NBA history is only slightly worse. I was also noting:

*that their frequency of reaching the playoffs is better. You can point to the weakness of the Eastern Conference thru much of their history, but I don't think this fully wipes away the relevance of that. The WC (which the Kings were in) was quite weak in the 80's, too; they also existed during that span of the 60's where 75% of the team were going to the playoffs, making it [proportionally] much easier to earn a playoff berth.

**that the Nets have a marginally better playoff series record in the playoffs.

***and that they've been to the NBA finals twice (vs once for the Kings), and both in a more competitive era.
^^^Although I'll acknowledge the weak conference factor plays heavily into these latter two; and I agree some of those early 00's Kings teams were better than the two Nets teams that made the finals.


So considering the Nets' ABA history was impressive too......I felt that made it close.

I'm not sure what to do with the two NBL titles. Like most projects we do, it was implied (by candidacy being limited to the 30 existing franchises) that this was supposed to be the best of NBA/ABA history (and the BAA that the NBA "claims"). In some respect I feel it's fair game to consider accomplishments which occurred during the same time period as the existence of the BAA, though I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how much creedence to give to titles obtained in a relatively infantile [and semi-defunct] league [and sport in general].

idk, I may just abstain from voting in this one, and let you all decide (Kings look like they'll take it regardless of my voting either way).

I mean making the playoffs less often ... given you acknowledge a worse RS record by all means ... is absolutely luck. I don't get pointing to specific eras of a weak west or eras of high playoff availability. If the Kings are better in the RS then making the playoffs is definitionally luck. I may follow up on this though.

Better playoff series record seems likely to be a conference thing. And yeah I take the early-to-mid 2000s Kings over the same era Nets every single time by a fair margin without a second glance.

As alluded to previously Nets history isn't entirely impressive, starting out badly in a low caliber league. But I'm not anywhere specific on how to weight the ABA titles. Just not getting NBA era comp being as highlighted (i.e. "Their NBA history looks more or less equal [or only marginally worse, at most] to that of the Kings").

Not sure why ABA would be any more a part of an NBA project than late NBL. Both merged into the league. With, otoh, Royals, Nats, Lakers and Pistons - more I think - the Blackhawks became the Hawks iirc, making the NBA (and surviving) they contributed more franchises as the ABA did (short term even more, and a larger percentage of the league at the time). More indeed than the initial BAA did (Knicks, Celtics, Warriors, I think). NBL had the better players and the better literal name when merging (where ABA was clearly the lesser league and was taken only in part, and I doubt there was any consideration of taking or adapting to the ABA name or one similar). Don't get "semi-defunct" as the NBL merged - unless you're talking '46, maybe (not sure about defunct but still war-affected I guess) which I haven't made any case based on.

Also only one NBL title: '46. Two further finals in the BAA existent era. Then '51 in the NBA.

On playoff appearances the case it wouldn't be (directly, though imo still is) luck is maybe if you're putting a higher percentage of .500 or better seasons.

Now as I type I'll say
1) I don't know if that's true.
2) If worse on average I think that's still luck, given an SRS level of goodness.
3) What privileges that playoff hinge as the most important versus overall average or highest highs and lowest lows (both covered both give the case for Kings as better)? Fwiw, as a fan and how I think of it I'd put average overall first then, if focusing in: high end, then not being embarrassing (some small leeway for intelligent tanking), then ekeing average-ish seasons above .500 last.

Okay, now, fwiw
Nets have a slightly higher percentage of NBA only seasons above .500.
Kings have a similar, small advantage in SRS seasons above 0 (suggesting luck directly or indirectly [conference] - in Nets advantage).


For me ... IF circa 500 is a big lever then the Nets have done better job of this and thus above/below average is close overall (I lean Kings with SRS as the better measure). For me it isn't both because of the lost detail of this method, the average performance levels and the priorities outlined above.

NOTE: written before your most recent post.....

Owly wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

Owly wrote:Full range of NBA (only) history SRS using the franchises used for the project is Spurs 3.588372093 - Clippers -2.986122449 = 6.574494542. Half the league's teams are between 1 and -1.

NBA only (taking out only 2 years, but two of their best) Kings are -1.178028169 (24th).
NBA only (taking out 2 of their best years, but also as noted earlier, 2 negative 4 SRS or worse seasons) Nets are -2.49 (29th).

Give the Nets their ABA years and it's still only -2.108076923. Still nearly a point per game worse, every season. Given half the league is clustered within 2 points of one another around the average that feels pretty significant. The NBA only difference is 1.311971831 and one standard deviation is 1.547207811. The Nets, NBA only, have been significantly worse. They just peaked at the right time in a weaker conference.

I wasn't going merely by SRS (or rs record, which is a marginally lesser gap than SRS fwiw) alone as a means of suggesting their NBA history is only slightly worse. I was also noting:

*that their frequency of reaching the playoffs is better. You can point to the weakness of the Eastern Conference thru much of their history, but I don't think this fully wipes away the relevance of that. The WC (which the Kings were in) was quite weak in the 80's, too; they also existed during that span of the 60's where 75% of the team were going to the playoffs, making it [proportionally] much easier to earn a playoff berth.

**that the Nets have a marginally better playoff series record in the playoffs.

***and that they've been to the NBA finals twice (vs once for the Kings), and both in a more competitive era.
^^^Although I'll acknowledge the weak conference factor plays heavily into these latter two; and I agree some of those early 00's Kings teams were better than the two Nets teams that made the finals.


So considering the Nets' ABA history was impressive too......I felt that made it close.

I'm not sure what to do with the two NBL titles. Like most projects we do, it was implied (by candidacy being limited to the 30 existing franchises) that this was supposed to be the best of NBA/ABA history (and the BAA that the NBA "claims"). In some respect I feel it's fair game to consider accomplishments which occurred during the same time period as the existence of the BAA, though I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how much creedence to give to titles obtained in a relatively infantile [and semi-defunct] league [and sport in general].

idk, I may just abstain from voting in this one, and let you all decide (Kings look like they'll take it regardless of my voting either way).

I mean making the playoffs less often ... given you acknowledge a worse RS record by all means is absolutely luck. I don't get pointing to specific eras of a weak west....

If I were to simply list their respective frequency of making the playoffs, as stated: I'd almost expect one to point out how the Nets have been in an easier conference for some time now. And it'd be a totally valid remark (which is why I preemptively acknowledged it). There's no question that teams like the Pistons, Nets, Hornets, Bucks, etc have---in the last decade----benefited from playing in a weak conference (as far as earning a playoff berth is concerned)......those teams each have at least one playoff year in which they would have been watching the playoffs on TV like the rest of us if they were in the WC.

So it seemed that when looking at the broader history of the franchises, that a natural counterpoint (again: preemptively) would be to point out that there was a decade or so where it was the conference the Kings are in that was weak.

Owly wrote:....or eras of high playoff availability.

There was a stretch during the late 50's/early 60's (in which Kings [Royals] existed in the NBA while the Nets did not) in which 6 (out of 8) teams made the playoffs. Then for a few years after that it was 6 out of 9 teams making the playoffs. For one year (in '67), 8 out of 10 teams made the playoffs!; the following year it was 8 out of 12.

In other words, sub-mediocre teams were awarded a playoff berth each and every year during this span of NBA history. If one chose to use frequency of making the playoffs as a tool for measuring franchise success---not saying you have to----it seems self-explanatory why this time-frame could be worth mentioning.

This "generous" playoff structure does appear to bear relevance to the Kings' history at least once: in '58, the Royals were actually only tied for the 6th-best record (out of 8 teams) at 33-39, which was 3rd [of 4] in their conference (actually tied for 2nd [with the Pistons] in record, but would lose the tie-breaker--->6-6 record vs the Pistons, but the Pistons have the better record against the conference leader St. Louis [6-6, vs the Royals’ 3-9 record]). They nonetheless were in the playoffs that year.

Owly wrote: If the Kings are better in the RS then making the playoffs is definitionally luck.

This isn’t necessarily the case. Let’s take a look at a hypothetical example of two teams over a 10-year span; and for the sake of argument we’ll say the conferences are equal and that if you manage 40 wins you’re all but guaranteed a playoff appearance (* notes a playoff berth)….

Team A goes:
*47-35
*45-37
*42-40
39-43
*40-42
33-49
24-58
19-63
22-60
29-53

Team B goes:
37-45
33-49
38-44
*41-41
*42-40
37-45
*40-42
36-46
35-46
34-48

Team A went 340-480 (.415), and made the playoffs four times.
Team B went 373-447 (.455), and made the playoffs three times.

It’s basically a question of what constitutes more value to you: consistently treading water at near-mediocrity (falling just shy of the playoffs), or having a more polarized history (containing more good years, but also more terrible years).
In a more frank example: do you consider going consistently 37-45 (.452) and missing the playoffs each year better, worse, or the same as another team that evenly splits their seasons between 46-36 (with playoff berth) and 26-56 records (would have worse .439 cumulative win%, but gets to be in the playoffs half the time)?
Personally, I’d comfortably take the polarized version in this more extreme hypothetical; at least it gives you some playoff presence. Obviously in reality the difference in playoff frequency is not so stark, but you get the idea.

The above hypotheticals ARE actually somewhat representative of what we see for these two franchises (below is pro-rated to 82-game schedule for shorter years, btw):

In 43 years of NBA history, the Nets have 11 seasons with <25 wins, 15 seasons with a winning record (34.9% of total).
In 71 years of BAA/NBA history, the Kings/Royals have just 7 seasons <25 wins, but also just 22 seasons with a winning record (31.0% of total).

Owly wrote:Also only one NBL title: '46. Two further finals in the BAA existent era. Then '51 in the NBA.

Sorry, yeah. Meant to write finals apparances, but was inwardly thinking about the Nets’ ABA titles and the Royals’ NBA title when I wrote that and sort of mixed it in. What I get for not proof-reading.

I've been given enough reason to question my Nets vote, so its been retracted, and I ultimately abstained here. The Kings win this spot 3-1 without me.

By default, that makes the Nets #25.

Thank you to all who participated.