Where does LeBron's career rank among franchises?

[giordunk]

LeBron has done more in his career than many NBA franchises have achieved in their entire history. Where does he rank?

The Celtics and Lakers will be hard to catch.

I think he ranks behind the Warriors just because he only beat them once, and the Warriors have additional history.

Since most of Spurs success came in the Tim Duncan years, and many people rank LeBron higher than Duncan, I'd say he's above the Spurs.

I think it's quite reasonable to rank him as high as 4th.

[EmpireFalls]

4th? Umm… there was this team who won 6 rings in the 90s. You may have heard of them.

[dygaction]

LeBron has done more in his career than many NBA franchises have achieved in their entire history. Where does he rank?

The Celtics and Lakers will be hard to catch.

I think he ranks behind the Warriors just because he only beat them once, and the Warriors have additional history.

Since most of Spurs success came in the Tim Duncan years, and many people rank LeBron higher than Duncan, I'd say he's above the Spurs.

I think it's quite reasonable to rank him as high as 4th.

Bulls and Spurs for sure, so he will be closely behind Russell and Jordan in #8 playerish franchises

[Doctor MJ]

Since most of Spurs success came in the Tim Duncan years, and many people rank LeBron higher than Duncan, I'd say he's above the Spurs.

Team game man. The Spurs during Duncan's career accomplished considerably more than LeBron's teams during his despite Duncan being a lesser player.

So I'd probably say:

1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Warriors
4. Pistons
5. Spurs
6. LeBron
7. Bulls

Switch 6 & 7 if you think Jordan's the clear cut Career GOAT over LeBron.

Drop the Pistons if you include NBL years (which I know most wouldn't, but the Pistons - and the backing of their owner Fred Zollner - MADE that league the foundation of pro ball in the '40s, so they were historically important before any of the other teams were).

[OhayoKD]

Since most of Spurs success came in the Tim Duncan years, and many people rank LeBron higher than Duncan, I'd say he's above the Spurs.

Team game man. The Spurs during Duncan's career accomplished considerably more than LeBron's teams during his despite Duncan being a lesser player.

So I'd probably say:

1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Warriors
4. Pistons
5. Spurs
6. LeBron
7. Bulls

Switch 6 & 7 if you think Jordan's the clear cut Career GOAT over LeBron.

Drop the Pistons if you include NBL years (which I know most wouldn't, but the Pistons - and the backing of their owner Fred Zollner - MADE that league the foundation of pro ball in the '40s, so they were historically important before any of the other teams were).

As someone who has Lebron many levels above, taking him over Chicago in terms of team success seems eh. Even if we grade this olympics style(so 6>4 is not prohibitive), The Bulls had 2 years with Jordan as the 2nd or 3rd best team(1990, 2nd, 1989 is really about how you feel regarding the magic injury), a year with Jordan as a top 5 team (1988), a year without Jordan as a top 2 or 3 team(1975), 3 years without jordan as a top 5 team(1974, 1994, 2011), and honestly if you're playoff focused, i'd say 2015 would be top 5 as well(in turn if you're regular-season focused, they were the srs lead in 2012 pre-rose injury).

Lebron teams as 4 years as the 2nd best(2008, 2011, 2015, 2017, if you're rs-focused, 2009/2010 but then 2008 drops), and a few years as top 5 (2007,2009, 2010, 2018, 2023..2021?).

Is that really making up for a 2-ring gap [i]and[i] about 16 extra playoff apperances?

[DraymondGold]

A heck of a lot lower than 4th. Which is no shame to LeBron -- the fact that he has a case over any franchise is crazy.

But if we're doing something like 'total' championship odds, I think people are underestimating how much of a massive peak advantage a all-time team has over a GOAT-tier peak individual (remember, we're dealing with LeBron individually, not his teams), and how much of a longevity advantage many franchises have over a GOAT-tier longevity individual.

Let's use RS SRS as a proxy for team championship odds/goodness. It's far from perfect, but it's super simple and accessible, and actually a quite effective proxy.
-Peak Bulls have seasons at +11.8, +10.7, +10.07, +8.57, +7.91, +7.43, +7.24.

Thinking basketball's published a ton of research into plus minus data, adjusted plus minus data, and WOWY data, and found that if you look at true player 'goodness' (e.g. smooth out the noise and ignore happenstance super-favorable or unfavorable circumstances/fits), it's really hard to argue any player has been a true +8 player, including LeBron. That's likely multiple seasons from the Bulls where they have like ~25–50% better impact than LeBron's corresponding best years as an individual. That's a pretty substantial peak advantage.
Like I said, it's just kind of impossible for a peak individual to beat the best peak teams.

And that's just peak. For longevity, they have like 28 seasons with positive SRS. The franchise has been around for 57 years. LeBron's only played 21 seasons. That's 33% more positive longevity (massive longevity advantage), and nearly 3x the total longevity.

I mean heck, there's like 15 franchises that have nearly 3x the total longevity of LeBron... you need to be hyper-peak focused to make up for that deficit, but going to peak focused also benefits teams (since, again, top team peaks >> top individual peaks).

In the playoffs, as others have pointed out, even using a simple proxy of rings or playoff appearances(which obviously ignore context, e.g. injuries to themselves or opponents, favorable or disfavorable matchups, etc.), the Bulls clearly also have the advantage.

You could do a similar set of analysis with the 76ers or the Bucks or even the Heat/Pistons/Rockets/Knicks (in addition to the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Warriors who have already been mentioned). It's just not really feasible for a player to overcome the impact and longevity of a franchise in the top few tiers of franchises.

Maybe if you change the way you measure your ranking and look explicitly at something like hardware/resume (where you'll note players have a lot more chances to rack up hardware like rings and MVPs and Olympics medals and records like most points, while people really only care about rings for team hardware) and you might get something more favorable to players. But in terms of actual impact/winning, it's hard. Maybe something like 'LeBron's teams' vs other franchises would be more fair.