Multiple dynasties / titles in different eras

[chakdaddy]

I was thinking of what other measures there are to compare franchises, besides total number of titles. Total number of titles may overrate teams with one dynasty (Bulls, Spurs); the Russell dynasty might even overrate us.

Another way might be to measure in how many different eras a team won titles, and how many dynasties/multiple championships within an era they claimed. (I'm defining dynasties loosely as winning 2 titles with the same core.)


1a. Boston - 3 dynasties (Russell era, Cowens era, Bird era) plus 1 sporadic title 2008. Another title in 2008-09 would make it an incredible 3 dynasties...and put us ahead of LA by this measure.

1b. Lakers - 3 dynasties (Mikan era, Magic/Kareem era, Shaq/Kobe era) plus 1 sporadic title in 1972.

3a. Detroit - 1 dynasty (Bad Boys), 1 sporadic (2004)

3b. 76ers - 3 sporadic (55, 67, 83)

3c. Warriors - 3 sporadic (47, 56, 75)

6a. Bulls - 1 dynasty

6b. Spurs - 1 dynasty

6c. Rockets - 1 dynasty

6d. Knicks - 1 dynasty


and those are the only 9 franchises who have won more than 1 title!

Obviously, the Lakers, 76ers, and Warriors get downgraded since some of their titles came before they moved...and I would argue that anything before the Russell era can barely be considered modern or relevant...

But I think this method ranks the greatest franchises in NBA history accurately as 1. Celtics, 2. Lakers, and 3. Pistons ; although you could argue that the Pistons bad boy teams should not qualify from a morality and decency perspective.

[toecutter]

I think winning pct during the course of a dynasty reign is a good factor to consider as part of the evaluation.

Also, a comparison of NBA finals opponents would be key. LA's most recent dynasty was cheapened by dubious officiating (Sacto was robbed in '02) and lackluster opponents (NJ Nets anyone?).

[chakdaddy]

I definitely agree;

I was just looking at a quick rundown of multiple titles and felt like ranking things out in a simple way.

I was struck that since 1979, every title was won by Boston/LA/Chicago/Houston/Detroit/San Antonio except for the solitary Miami and Philly titles. Almost 30 years, and only 8 teams have won - it underscores what an accomplishment it was to get back to the top.

I wonder how the various dynasties should be ranked. Clearly on paper it is 1. Russell 2. Jordan 3. Magic 4. Bird. But I think in terms of real quality Jordan's dynasty should be dropped to 4th since the 80's Celtics and Lakers dragged each other down, Lakers would have had 6 if not for us, we would have had 5...plus the last two Bulls titles were against a garbage choking team and were largely due to the refs...but the first 4 Bulls titles still beat out the Spurs, I'd say.

[the sea duck]

One contention: You credit the bulls with 1 dynasty, but also credit the rockets with one dynasty. I would argue that the rockets were an aberration within the bulls dynasty. Otherwise, how could one team have a dynasty within another team's dynasty?

You could credit the bulls with two dynasties and I don't think anyone would argue, but I understand you're trying to separate it by decade. Then again, decades are any ten year periods, doesn't have to be 80-89, 90-99 etc... You might try splitting the eras on a different timeline. It would be interesting to see what you could come up with if you did this.

[Jammer]

Chak:

From the 1950-51 season thru the 1992-93 season (43 seasons),

the Red Auerbach led Boston Celtics had 3 losing seasons.

40 out of 43 seasons .500 or better.

That record will stand possibly forever.

The Lakers from 1961-62 thru 2003-2004 had 39 out of 42 seasons above .500;

but the Lakers had losing seasons in 1960-61 and 2004-05
to make it 39 out of 43 winning seasons,
one less than the Celtics.

So, like I said, that record will likely stand forever.

No one else is remotely close.