Are the Pelicans the worst franchise ever?

[Doctor MJ]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

[flranger]

Utah Jazz is FAR worse. If the two cities swapped names, not only would NO go from almost the worst to the best, but Utah would be slightly less bad.

I'm sure you realize, but we might have a handful of REALGM'ers who aren't aware.....the Utah Jazz were the New Orleans Jazz before getting moved. Keeping the name was as stupid as the Tennessee Titans wearing Oilers jerseys in Houston.

[Doctor MJ]

Utah Jazz is FAR worse. If the two cities swapped names, not only would NO go from almost the worst to the best, but Utah would be slightly less bad.

I'm sure you realize, but we might have a handful of REALGM'ers who aren't aware.....the Utah Jazz were the New Orleans Jazz before getting moved. Keeping the name was as stupid as the Tennessee Titans wearing Oilers jerseys in Houston.

Exactly. Perfect name for New Orleans, horrible name for any place taking a team away from New Orleans.

I'd say it's even worse than something like the Oilers or Lakers because we're talking about something that's literally about bringing joy to people's lives rather than just a feature of the earth that local humans can exploit.

[Godymas]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

[Jon1798]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

Wait, because the TWolves had KG, who pushed his way out of Minny to win in Boston, that makes them a better franchise than NO?

[Shock Defeat]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Amongst those franchises, the Pelicans were the only team gifted two #1 generational picks. AD and Zion, and have achieved nothing with them. I think that's why it looks bad for them. The other teams like the Kings, Grizzlies, Hornets, Wizards, never got the #1 pick.

From the perspective of recent history, no other team has gotten multiple first round picks and did nothing with them besides the Pels. Twolves made the WCF last year with two #1s in KAT/ANT. Cavs won a title even though they whiffed completely on Bennett but that was a weak draft.

[Jon1798]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Amongst those franchises, the Pelicans were the only team gifted two #1 generational picks. AD and Zion, and have achieved nothing with them. I think that's why it looks bad for them. The other teams like the Kings, Grizzlies, Hornets, Wizards, never got the #1 pick.

From the perspective of recent history, no other team has gotten multiple first round picks and did nothing with them besides the Pels. Twolves made the WCF last year with two #1s in KAT/ANT. Cavs won a title even though they whiffed completely on Bennett but that was a weak draft.

Never got the #1 pick? Might want to revisit that one.

[Godymas]

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

Wait, because the TWolves had KG, who pushed his way out of Minny to win in Boston, that makes them a better franchise than NO?

KG had a great career in Minnesota, he played his entire prime there and won an MVP. NoLA has never had a player of that caliber..ever.

[Jon1798]

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

Wait, because the TWolves had KG, who pushed his way out of Minny to win in Boston, that makes them a better franchise than NO?

KG had a great career in Minnesota, he played his entire prime there and won an MVP. NoLA has never had a player of that caliber..ever.

If the argument is that KG was a great player, no question. Hall of famer.

And the TWolves did nothing while he was there. Even though he gave them his first 12 seasons. He is the A#1 example of why the Wolves are below the Pels.

I feel like we lost the mark of the conversation here.

[Godymas]

Wait, because the TWolves had KG, who pushed his way out of Minny to win in Boston, that makes them a better franchise than NO?

KG had a great career in Minnesota, he played his entire prime there and won an MVP. NoLA has never had a player of that caliber..ever.

If the argument is that KG was a great player, no question. Hall of famer.

And the TWolves did nothing while he was there. Even though he gave them his first 12 seasons. He is the A#1 example of why the Wolves are below the Pels.

I feel like we lost the mark of the conversation here.

The Wolves have made the WCF...twice

The Pelicans have never done that.

The Pelicans have 1 50+ win season, the TWolves have 4, yes the franchise has been around longer, not long enough to justify 4 to 1.

The point is there are more memories and highs with the TWolves. The Pelicans have churned along and accomplished less. Having fewer lows with worse highs is worse than having low lows and high highs basically every other "bad' franchise has over the Pelicans except the Hornets.

But where the Hornets get ahead is from their amazing branding and the swagger of the 90s team which was a legitimate ERA. The Pelicans have never had a single memorable ERA of basketball.

[Jon1798]

KG had a great career in Minnesota, he played his entire prime there and won an MVP. NoLA has never had a player of that caliber..ever.

If the argument is that KG was a great player, no question. Hall of famer.

And the TWolves did nothing while he was there. Even though he gave them his first 12 seasons. He is the A#1 example of why the Wolves are below the Pels.

I feel like we lost the mark of the conversation here.

The Wolves have made the WCF...twice

The Pelicans have never done that.

The Pelicans have 1 50+ win season, the TWolves have 4, yes the franchise has been around longer, not long enough to justify 4 to 1.

The point is there are more memories and highs with the TWolves. The Pelicans have churned along and accomplished less. Having fewer lows with worse highs is worse than having low lows and high highs basically every other "bad' franchise has over the Pelicans except the Hornets.

But where the Hornets get ahead is from their amazing branding and the swagger of the 90s team which was a legitimate ERA. The Pelicans have never had a single memorable ERA of basketball.

The Pelicans are literally that 90’s Hornets team lol. That team is the one that then moved here. So the Hornets claim to fame is what this organization did while there (depending on how we define that). Or at best, happened before New Orleans ever had a team again. The Pelicans name has existed for only 11 years.

And if we are back to winning as a marker, the Pelicans have won at a higher rate than the TWolves as established above.

Regardless, I’m good with no longer arguing who the tallest short person is. I wish things were better here too. The team is cursed, there is no question.

[Ckay]

I'm so glad the Pelicans didn't have a chance to draft Wembanyama.

[Dr Aki]

I'd like to think the Wizards have them beat

[HMFFL]

New Orleans needs new ownership other than 77 year old Gayle Benson.

Another team is Minnesota, who I believe eventually will lose Anthony Edwards.

Washington Wizards!

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using RealGM mobile app

[ChiTownHero1992]

I don't even consider them in the bottom 3 worse franchises...

In terms of name though, ya they're the worst! (I get that it holds significance to the area) but it is not intimidating, fierce, competitive, anything remotely good for sports...

[ChiTownHero1992]

Utah Jazz is FAR worse. If the two cities swapped names, not only would NO go from almost the worst to the best, but Utah would be slightly less bad.

I'm sure you realize, but we might have a handful of REALGM'ers who aren't aware.....the Utah Jazz were the New Orleans Jazz before getting moved. Keeping the name was as stupid as the Tennessee Titans wearing Oilers jerseys in Houston.

Exactly. Perfect name for New Orleans, horrible name for any place taking a team away from New Orleans.

I'd say it's even worse than something like the Oilers or Lakers because we're talking about something that's literally about bringing joy to people's lives rather than just a feature of the earth that local humans can exploit.

Honestly we just need to shift a bunch:

Minnesota - change back to the Lakers
Toronto - take the wolves
New Orleans - take the Jazz back
Denver - become the Grizzlies
Utah - can be the Raptors (one of the only states a Raptor fossil was found in)
Wizards - back to the Bullets as an ode to the crimes in D.C. (jk, jk)
LA - can take on a new name something based on Stars, Hollywood, etc likely
Memphis - take on something regional based Sound, Music, etc
Clippers - take on any relevant name that is not the Clippers, hell become the Nuggets (Califonia Gold Rush and all)

By the way this is mostly a joke but would be cool if some of these teams changed their names

[Eightnineborn]

Washington Wizards are the worst.

[Doctor MJ]

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Amongst those franchises, the Pelicans were the only team gifted two #1 generational picks. AD and Zion, and have achieved nothing with them. I think that's why it looks bad for them. The other teams like the Kings, Grizzlies, Hornets, Wizards, never got the #1 pick.

From the perspective of recent history, no other team has gotten multiple first round picks and did nothing with them besides the Pels. Twolves made the WCF last year with two #1s in KAT/ANT. Cavs won a title even though they whiffed completely on Bennett but that was a weak draft.

Never got the #1 pick? Might want to revisit that one.

Indeed. Clearly he's coming at things from a very 21st century perspective while talking about a league that mostly existed in the 20th century. So then, just to look at things from that perspective, here are the worst franchises of the 21st century by W/L%:

1. Wizards .409
2. Hornets .416
3. Knicks .437
4. Timberwolves .443
5. Nets .449
6. Hawks .452
7. Magic .457
8. Bulls .459
9. Pistons .461
10. Kings .463

[Doctor MJ]

Then the other classic throw-ins like the Kings, TWolves, Clippers, well these teams have turned leafs around or have had enough iconic eras and players that they have legitimate fandoms today.

So yes, the Pelicans might be the worst franchise in the NBA and it really sucks.

So I think an earnest discussion here has to really put up front that franchises who began earlier need to be judged differently than those who started later.

The Kings for example began as the Rochester Royals, who had great success in the early years as a small market in part because of the money they made barnstorming. The franchise can always point to what it did in the 1940s/50s to avoid the "worst ever" designation.

Meanwhile the Clippers were absolutely the worst run franchise in sports for their first few decades, but if you stick around long enough in a major market, you're eventually going to have some success.

I think it makes sense to just look at cume W-L% to just give a sense of average badness, so of teams that still exist:

1. Timberwolves .412
2. Clippers .424
3. Hornets .431
4. Grizzlies .436
5. Nets .439
6. Wizards .444
7. Kings .458
8. Pelicans .465
9. Magic .470
10. Raptors .470

So then from this perspective, the Pelicans haven't really been an outlier in badness, they just are an expansion franchise that's mostly struggled.

In terms of their specifics across the Paul/Davis/Zion eras, I think they've mostly just been unlucky. I wouldn't say they've been particularly well-run, but honestly I wouldn't say their failures have been about outlier levels of incompetence.

Yes the Pelicans are not the worst franchise in terms of win loss and yet that list is really misleading. The Grizzlies have been a very well run franchise since the Grit and Grind era which is approaching a decade now. To be honest, their win/loss record being worse than the Pelicans is kind of shocking.

The TWolves were awful but KG's career has been better than the entirety of the Pelicans existence for the most part.

The Clippers are now on their 2nd official "era"

The Nets had the early 00s.

I'd much rather be any of those teams than the Pelicans because those teams have iconic franchise players, iconic eras in Basketball. The Pelicans have been around for so many years and never had a truly iconic "era" of Pelicans brand Basketball. Their overall impact on the NBA and culture is much less than any of the teams that have a worse record in my opinion.

How can it be misleading to look at cumulative record when talking about "ever"? I think maybe you need to really think about what criteria you're looking to discuss here.

The Grizzlie example is case in point: You're basically suggesting we should not consider the Vancouver era to be part of the Grizzlies franchise history which is just silly given the team's horrible performance on the court played a major role in why the team ended up in a position where the franchise had to be sold and moved far away to a place not actually populated by grizzly bears.

Re: Pelicans been around for so many years no iconic era of Pelicans brand basketball. They've only been the Pelicans since 2013, and have only existed since 2002. So, no they haven't made much of a dent as a brand, but the idea they've been around a long time when they're actually a young franchise is strange.

No, a big iconic period hasn't happened yet...but they aren't the only 21st century NBA franchise without iconic status in that time period.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Focusing strictly on the name- it's probably one of the worst in all professional sports (NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB and WNBA).

IMO

I think it is the worst actually. I still can’t believe they called their team… pelicans

I remember when I first found out, I thought it was some kind of prank initially… then I was like… “oh ****, this is for real??? Pelicans???”