Rank the last 15 nba championship teams in likeability to the average fan

[RSCD3_]

This a bit of a unique question but I'm curious what do you think of each of the previous 15 teams to win the championship, which ones were more and least beloved by the common fan whose team wasnt in the finals? So all the championship teams from 2007-08 to 2021-2022

[RSCD3_]

My estimate would be

1. 2011 Mavericks
2. 2021 Bucks
3. 2014 Spurs
4. 2019 Raptors
5. 2008 Celtics
6. 2016 Cavaliers
7. 2015 Warriors
8. 2009 Lakers
9. 2022 Warriors
10. 2020 Lakers
11. 2010 Lakers
12. 2012 Heat
13. 2013 Heat
14. 2017 Warriors
15. 2018 Warriors

[Dutchball97]

I'd have the 2009 and 2010 Lakers higher because they had Kobe. On a similar note I'd have the 08 Celtics much lower, like near the bottom. One of the first free agency superteams and I think Ray Allen probably was the only guy that people didn't dislike as KG, Pierce, Rondo and Perkins all had pretty toxic attitudes. 2014 Spurs is another one I'd put a couple spots lower as they weren't disliked or anything but casual fans still mostly hold the opinion of Spurs = boring, even if many of us here would consider them at #1 here if we were to make a personal list.

1. 2011 Mavericks
2. 2021 Bucks
3. 2019 Raptors
4. 2009 Lakers
5. 2015 Warriors
6. 2010 Lakers
7. 2016 Cavaliers
8. 2014 Spurs
9. 2022 Warriors
10. 2020 Lakers
11. 2012 Heat
12. 2008 Celtics
13. 2013 Heat
14. 2018 Warriors
15. 2017 Warriors

[-Luke-]

I would have the 2015 Warriors higher. If I remember correctly, they were a pretty big media phenomen and Steph was one of the most beloved players especially among young fans (I hope I am not mixing this up too much with 2016).

1. 2011 Mavs
29 out of 30 fanbases rooted for the Mavs in that series if memory serves well. Dirk is one of the most beloved superstars of all time. Good veteran team where no player had ever won a title. Just a good story.

2. 2015 Warriors
For the reasons above

3. 2019 Raptors
Good story, first Canadian champion. The average fan had enough of the KD version of the Warriors.

4. 2021 Bucks
I have them below the Raptors and Warriors because I think the average fan was less interested in that finals series. But still high because it had been 50 years since the last title and Giannis won his first.

5. 2014 Spurs
Beautiful basketball, Duncan, Pop,... After the tragic end of the series in the previous year.

6./7. 2009/2010 Lakers
Kobe's popularity

8. 2016 Cavs
Coming back from 1-3 was just a nice story for the average fan. And it was the first title with the franchise. The average fan had forgiven LeBron for "The Decision".

9. 2022 Warriors
Feel good story because Steph finally got his Finals MVP.

10. 2008 Celtics
Not sure about this one. Dutchball97 made some good points. I would still have them a little higher.

11. 2020 Lakers
Bubble season was a bit meh.

12./13. 2012/2013 Heat
Not as unpopular as in 2011, but the average fans still had "The Decision" and "Not one, not two,..." in mind

14./15. 2018/2019 Warriors
Adding KD to a 73 win team just felt like cheating.

[NbaAllDay]

I thought 2011 Mavs for 1st as well however I don't think that's true.

I think the average fan didn't care much for the Mavs, they actually wanted Miami to lose far.more than they wanted the Mavs to win.

Bucks or Spurs are probably more likely for me. Especially the Spurs gi en the general love and respect Duncan, Ginobili and Parker until the cheating scandals.

[Texas Chuck]

I thought 2011 Mavs for 1st as well however I don't think that's true.

I think the average fan didn't care much for the Mavs, they actually wanted Miami to lose far.more than they wanted the Mavs to win.

I think you may be right that it was more Miami-driven than Dallas and hard for me to fully understand the national perspective on that series from Dallas. But if I remember it right, that playoff run was finally where the entire NBA community stood up and really gave Dirk his flowers. Forget the Finals, he absolutely wrecked the Western Conference to get there. And it sure seemed like the NBA community really got behind him, if not the little Mavs as a whole.

Others will have to speak more clearly to that, because again my perception is influenced by my fandom and my locale, but I sure seem to remember thinking, yeah we've been telling you for a decade this dude is a problem, you just now figuring this out?

[IdolW0rm]

1. 14 Spurs
2. 11 Mavs
3. 19 Raptors

After this it gets messy.

[Doctor MJ]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

[Dutchball97]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

I think likeability is a weighing of popularity vs amount of contempt against them. I see 2016 Cavs and the 09/10 Lakers as a middle ground of teams that had a lot of fans as well as quite some people wanting to see them fail. The Heatles and KD Warriors had plenty of fans but they were also public enemy number 1 for the rest of the league. 2011 Mavs on the other hand are spoken about almost exclusively in a favorable way but I do think it might be a fair criticism to say that could also be influenced by us looking back at it now instead of properly taking into account the sentiment at the time.

[Doctor MJ]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

I think likeability is a weighing of popularity vs amount of contempt against them. I see 2016 Cavs and the 09/10 Lakers as a middle ground of teams that had a lot of fans as well as quite some people wanting to see them fail. The Heatles and KD Warriors had plenty of fans but they were also public enemy number 1 for the rest of the league. 2011 Mavs on the other hand are spoken about almost exclusively in a favorable way but I do think it might be a fair criticism to say that could also be influenced by us looking back at it now instead of properly taking into account the sentiment at the time.

If the Mavs are at the top of the list, then popularity clearly doesn't matter and you're going simply based on how irritated people are at the team, which is just about directly proportional to how good they are.

The key then to the Mavs success with approach is that they weren't better at basketball, and thus avoided the sin of winning more titles in a dominant fashion that would have driven dialogue in broader popular culture, and thus made hard core fans sick of hearing about how amazing they were.

I might suggest that instead of calling this "likeability" better words would be "apathy" or "irrelevance".

(I do want to be clear: Y'all's feelings as hard-core fans are quite understandable here. The vast majority of music that sells in large quantities doesn't appeal to me that much and thus I have a long standing tendency toward irritation at the latest boy band or teen queen, but I do try not to confuse my irritation as something that is relevant to average music fans. I may have pride in being a weirdo, but I know that I'm the weird one, not the masses.)

[Texas Chuck]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

So, first I would agree with you that among more casual fans the Warriors first title probably was a bigger deal than the Mavs lone title. And obviously the Warriors went on to be a dynasty where as for Dallas it was the culmination of an extended run of excellence.

But I think you are too quick to belittle the Mavs because the title came at the end. Remember the only other team in NBA history to win 50 games every season for as long as Dallas was their contemporaries in San Antonio. Dallas was a really good team for a long time, with another Finals run, and a 67 win team(after starting 0-4 mind you) mixed in there. They weren't some rise-up, fall-off quick champ. Nothing like a bee with only one stinger. Surprised to hear you suggest that.

Heck the Mavs even after a long run of mediocrity after the title, still have the 2nd best record of this century which shows just how good they were around prime Dirk.

Will the 00's Mavs be a relevant thing in 50 years? Nope. They will be forgotten. The Warriors won't be. But that's not really that relevant in the moment when nobody knows what is next. Or cares really.

[prolific passer]

Hate them all.

[Doctor MJ]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

So, first I would agree with you that among more casual fans the Warriors first title probably was a bigger deal than the Mavs lone title. And obviously the Warriors went on to be a dynasty where as for Dallas it was the culmination of an extended run of excellence.

But I think you are too quick to belittle the Mavs because the title came at the end. Remember the only other team in NBA history to win 50 games every season for as long as Dallas was their contemporaries in San Antonio. Dallas was a really good team for a long time, with another Finals run, and a 67 win team(after starting 0-4 mind you) mixed in there. They weren't some rise-up, fall-off quick champ. Nothing like a bee with only one stinger. Surprised to hear you suggest that.

Heck the Mavs even after a long run of mediocrity after the title, still have the 2nd best record of this century which shows just how good they were around prime Dirk.

Will the 00's Mavs be a relevant thing in 50 years? Nope. They will be forgotten. The Warriors won't be. But that's not really that relevant in the moment when nobody knows what is next. Or cares really.

Glad you riposted as you did.

First, Dirk and the Mavs deserve all sorts of credit for that chip.
Second, while they only won one title and did so in between years of not being seen as that relevant, there was the era before where they were seen as very relevant.

My pithy language understandably feels disrespectful to them and I should probably find a better way to express myself and not just about specific players and teams, but with the negativity I came into the thread with.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the average fan has somewhat contradictory mix of cheering for a good story like an underdog over the team that already has titles, but also caring more if they recognize the players.

1. 2016 Cavs

This checks all the boxes, star power but also good underdog story and improbable 3-1 comeback against defending champ. Fans who's primary is NFL or MLB having seen Cleveland get kicked in their nuts in their sport would help them get into the city finally winning.

2. 2011 Mavericks
3. 2019 Raptors

I think this is a nice mix of recognizable stars and established contenders, but still surprising title, and heel opponent in finals they loved to see go down.

4. 2015 Warriors
5. 2021 Bucks

New superstar gets breakthrough title, Bucks hurt a bit by likeability of Suns and I'm trying to separate my personal feelings on 2015 being a meh playoffs and default feeling winner, if I was still at my peak NBA fandom maybe I would have enjoyed it as much as 2009 Lakers winning due to KG's injury.

6. 2008 Celtics
7. 2022 Warriors

My only problem with 08 Celtics is the defense first style of play and no clear offensive superstar might hurt a bit, otherwise three recognizable stars teaming together should play, and had a star packed finals. The Warriors issue is they already had multiple titles making some people root against another one for them, but their style of play and superstar is very appealing.

8. 2009 Lakers
9. 2012 Heat

These teams have mega star power but on the other hand reasons to be heel-ish, from Kobe's rape case, Slytherin-esque personality and the other 00s Lakers titles, and the Heat's big 3 celebration cockiness leading to mega heel year 2011, but finals losses made them a bit more sympathetic. I think Kobe despite some haters, also had a lot of people who checked out after MJ happy to see the closest equivalent.

10. 2014 Spurs

Beloved for NBA nerds but I think average fan would be meh on ensemble builds like this compared to the superstar builds they're used to, plus the Spurs already had 4 titles. Good finals opponent and story coming back from 13 though.

11. 2010 Lakers
12. 2013 Heat

Similar to 09 and 12, except the repeat champ is a bit easier to root against for average fan.

13. 2017 Warriors
14. 2018 Warriors

Durant's ring chaser move made them the biggest heels of the modern era, when you add in repeat champion boredom of 2018 that's the winner hands down.

N/A 2020 Lakers - Too hard to compare the covid bubble ones, they probably would've been top 8 or so without it, but I think most average would rate this as the worst playoffs just based on no crowd.

[giberish]

I'm not sure that general popularity and likeability to the average fan are the same thing. The Yankees and Dodgers are very popular teams, but in a series against a random other team, the average baseball fan will root against them. Similarly, the Lakers with a marquee star will be very popular, but most NBA fans will root against them. Such teams are more popular among people who really aren't NBA fans but like the one or two famous guys they've heard of. Of course they also draw ratings from NBA fans rooting against them.

So with that said:

1) 2011 Dallas. The plucky vet star who stuck around would always have been popular, but the extreme contrast to the heatles pushes them to #1.

2) 2015 GSW. The biggest pre-season underdog. A team that hadn't been past the 2nd round since the 70' s and had rarely made the playoffs at all. Also a more exciting style of play than spamming ISO's and PNR's.

3) 2014 Spurs. Veteran redemption and a very attractive style of play. Only below GS due to the Spurs long-term success beforehand.

4) 2021 Mil. Outsider team with largely homegrown roster
5) 2019 Tor. Similar outsider team though wtih mercenary star pushing them over the top

6) 2016 Cleveland. Essentially redemption for the city. Even though they were an artificial 'superteam' that fans generally don't like helped by a lot of lottery luck a lot of people wanted to see Cleveland get a title.

7) 2008 Boston Tough for Boston to ever be considered plucky outsiders, they had been somewhat down for a while. KG had been stuck with a bad FO for so long most NBA fans were happy to see him win.

8) 2022 GSW. By now they were big money insiders, but the roster was at least still essentially 'homegrown' with no forced star trades or star FA collusions.

9,10) 2009, 2010 Lakers. Lakers always seen as big money insiders to root against. Many casuals loved Kobe but relentless overhype and off-court issues (trade demand, Colorado) caused many NBA fans to root against them. Saltiness over Pau trade.

11,12) 2017, 2018 GSW. Obviously KD move made many root against them, they were at least much less 'artificial' than teams below them.

13) 2020 Lakers. LeBron fatigue combined with awkwardly forced AD trade made most root against them.

14, 15) 2012, 13 Miami.

[Statlanta]

Are the Raptors that likeable? I mean the players are sans Lowry but I feel that championship isn’t liked that much since it’s a Canadian one and because of the injuries.

[OhayoKD]

So seeing the early responses to this thread has been eye-opening to me.

To me "likeability to the average fan" basically means the same thing as "popularity".

And so here we have people insisting that the 2011 Mavs would lead that category when the reality is they were nothing close to the most popular team before or after their title.

Meanwhile we've got people putting the 2015 Warriors middle of the pack when that year transformed the Warriors from a perpetual joke to being among the most popular franchises in all of sports. (Granted the subsequent years helped with that too, but it's not like people are championing a later Warrior chip team as the truly likeable one.)

I can't help but think of threads in the past few years where folks here talk about the Warriors as if everyone hates them, and feel like people are too close to the action to really get in the head of the average fan.

I think it's important for everyone looking to celebrate the non-superteams to remember that the 1970s NBA largely doesn't exist in modern pop culture while the '60s & '80s do. Why? Because it's players/teams that are outliers in terms of greatness that grab hold of the public's imagination and grow the game's popularity.

If the next decade so a variation on the 2011 Mavs - one star, B-list crossover appeal, disappear from contending relevance afterward like a bee that can only sting once - it would be damage the NBA's popularity. Hard core fans don't have to care about this necessarily, but they shouldn't be confused as to what actually drives the success of the NBA.

I think likeability is a weighing of popularity vs amount of contempt against them. I see 2016 Cavs and the 09/10 Lakers as a middle ground of teams that had a lot of fans as well as quite some people wanting to see them fail. The Heatles and KD Warriors had plenty of fans but they were also public enemy number 1 for the rest of the league. 2011 Mavs on the other hand are spoken about almost exclusively in a favorable way but I do think it might be a fair criticism to say that could also be influenced by us looking back at it now instead of properly taking into account the sentiment at the time.

If the Mavs are at the top of the list, then popularity clearly doesn't matter and you're going simply based on how irritated people are at the team, which is just about directly proportional to how good they are.

The key then to the Mavs success with approach is that they weren't better at basketball, and thus avoided the sin of winning more titles in a dominant fashion that would have driven dialogue in broader popular culture, and thus made hard core fans sick of hearing about how amazing they were.

I might suggest that instead of calling this "likeability" better words would be "apathy" or "irrelevance".

(I do want to be clear: Y'all's feelings as hard-core fans are quite understandable here. The vast majority of music that sells in large quantities doesn't appeal to me that much and thus I have a long standing tendency toward irritation at the latest boy band or teen queen, but I do try not to confuse my irritation as something that is relevant to average music fans. I may have pride in being a weirdo, but I know that I'm the weird one, not the masses.)

Eh, I think you're being reductive here. Likeability is not necessarily synonymous with popularity or "culturally impactful". That doesn't mean popularity is irrelevant, but the ratio of "like to dislike" also matters.

One way to frame things is to see popularity as "volume" and how "liked" something is as "efficiency". And I think it's fair to argue teams should at least have a positive like to dislike ratio. Very doubtful that applies to the 2017 or 2018 Warriors, and the average fan is probably more ruthless than the PC Board or even the media on that front.

For a non-sports example, DBZ is probably the most popular anime, but polls consistently have shown that NGE is the most "loved". Pengu is probably the most popular cartoon across the world, but I very much doubt it's the most "liked"

Getting back to basketball, A common correlate with being less "likeable" is the idea of a team being "stacked" which is commonly assessed by looking at the reputation of the best players or looking at what a team was doing before/after an addition. The 2014 Spurs were also really dominant, but because it wasn't centered around an all-time-great superstar, the Spurs are both iconic(most common pep barca analog) and very well-liked. So well liked in fact, that the 2014 Spurs "beautiful basketball" basically washed away people's distaste for their "dirty" and "boring" approach from the 2000's. "Pretty much directly proportional to how good a team is" is just an oversimplfication.

[Narigo]

2009 Lakers
2010 Lakers
2011 Mavs
2016 Cavs
2015 Warriors

-09 and 10 Lakers are clearly the most favorable imo. Kobe is extremely popular.

- 2011 Mavs had Dirk as the lone star beating the Thunder with KD/Westbrook, Lakers with Kobe and the big 3 heat who were the most hated team in the league at the time

- Cavs came back from 3-1 to beat 73 win team. Lot of fans consider this to be LeBron's most impressive ring

[giberish]

Is this "Most popular team among people who watch at least one or two NBA games a year?"

Or is this "Most liked team among NBA fans averaged accross all 30 teams?"

IMO the lists will be almost entirely inverted between the two, as the first will be all about media hype and liking the 1-3 players they've heard about. So a lot of LeBron and Kobe (media hype being the one area where Kobe can match LeBron) at the top. Toronto and Milwaulkee at the bottom.

However all the media hype driven to very casual fans makes their teams easy to root against among more involved NBA fans. Especially when combined with big money insider status franchises (especially the Lakers) and FA collaboration or forced trades.

[ShaqAttac]

06 wade n shaq was fun