RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #2

[giordunk]

#1 - Lakers

I think it's pretty clear who #2 will be as well, but this is just for completion's sake.

We will be considering a team's ABA history as well, so weigh that appropriately. I think ABA championships will be huge in being tiebreakers.

[giordunk]

Just to make this conversation a little more interesting...

Consider the argument of not counting all 11 of the Russell Championships since those championships probably hold the least weight in NBA history. That brings the championship count down to 6. If we took out the Lakers Minneapolis Championships, the Lakers are still sitting on a healthy 11 championships.

But post-Russell Celtics, you're looking at two Havlicek/Cowens championships in the 70s, the 3 Bird/McHale/Parish championships, then the one in 2008, which is hardly as impressive a history as a lot of the teams we are thinking about in the third spot.

[Dr Positivity]

This one is a non starter, it's Celtics easily

#3 is also quite easy in my opinion... from #4 on it should be interesting though

[Owly]

Just to make this conversation a little more interesting...

[A] Consider the argument of not counting all 11 of the Russell Championships since [B] those championships probably hold the least weight in NBA history.

????

Not sure of the possible reasoning for A, the possible reasoning for B or how B could be taken as reasoning for A (rather than a slightly contradictory restatement of A - i.e. that they are somehow less valuable than normal though not completely valueless).

[trex_8063]

This one is a non starter, it's Celtics easily

#3 is also quite easy in my opinion... from #4 on it should be interesting though

While I agree #4 is where it really starts getting interesting, and I also agree the Celtics are #2 (my pick, btw, giordunk), I somewhat disagree that it's the Celtics "easily".

I'll do some of the numbers like I did in the last thread....

Total Seasons (not counting '20)
Celtics - 73
Spurs - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)

Total Playoff Appearances
Celtics - 56 (76.71% of total)
Spurs - 47 (90.38% of total; 39 NBA [90.70% of total], 8 ABA [88.89% of total])

rs Win%
Celtics - .590
Spurs - .602 (.621 in NBA, .508 in ABA)

Championships
Celtics - 17
Spurs - 5

Total Finals Appearances
Celtics - 21
Spurs - 6


I mean, I still go with the Celtics: all the added championships, plus maybe the fact that they've simply been a franchise for longer [could be sort of a tie-breaker] definitely tips it to them. But that striking [GOAT] rs success/consistency and ability to make the playoffs by the Spurs, for me, makes them a not too distant 3rd.

[Fadeaway_J]

Can't look past the Celtics here. A bit odd to just discount all 11 Russell championships altogether, although I can see the argument for weighting them less.

[eminence]

The Spurs have the unique argument of being far and away the best RS team of alltime, but the Celtics are elite in that category as well and with 3x the playoff success. Have to go Celtics for #2.

Agreeing that #4 will be where it heats up - and on that note, maybe consider the Heat y'all, lots of success in a short time.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, I created a links thread for this project, for ease of finding each thread and noting in it who won each place (I've sort of jumped the gun and already labeled this thread as "Boston Celtics" , as I think it's a foregone conclusion). The links thread has been added to penbeast0's stickied "PC Forum Project Consolidation Thread". So go there to find any thread related to this project; I'll continue to update the links thread as we go along.

[trex_8063]

btw, I'm already getting curious about who the BOTTOM 1-2 teams will be. Weirdly [despite recent good teams, and the possibility they may get their first title this season], right now the Clippers would likely have to be toward the bottom of the list in an all-time sense. From the time of the merger to about the mid-aughts, their franchise history is just so pathetic (with some REALLY bad years in the 80's and 90's). Anyway, I'm going to enjoy this project.

[giordunk]

This one is a non starter, it's Celtics easily

#3 is also quite easy in my opinion... from #4 on it should be interesting though

While I agree #4 is where it really starts getting interesting, and I also agree the Celtics are #2 (my pick, btw, giordunk), I somewhat disagree that it's the Celtics "easily".

I'll do some of the numbers like I did in the last thread....

Total Seasons (not counting '20)
Celtics - 73
Spurs - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)

Total Playoff Appearances
Celtics - 56 (76.71% of total)
Spurs - 47 (90.38% of total; 39 NBA [90.70% of total], 8 ABA [88.89% of total])

rs Win%
Celtics - .590
Spurs - .602 (.621 in NBA, .508 in ABA)

Championships
Celtics - 17
Spurs - 5

Total Finals Appearances
Celtics - 21
Spurs - 6


I mean, I still go with the Celtics: all the added championships, plus maybe the fact that they've simply been a franchise for longer [could be sort of a tie-breaker] definitely tips it to them. But that striking [GOAT] rs success/consistency and ability to make the playoffs by the Spurs, for me, makes them a not too distant 3rd.

If you weigh the Russell Championships less I'm actually kind of wondering if the Spurs have an argument for #2. But yea, it's still the Celtics.

[giordunk]

Just to make this conversation a little more interesting...

[A] Consider the argument of not counting all 11 of the Russell Championships since [B] those championships probably hold the least weight in NBA history.

????

Not sure of the possible reasoning for A, the possible reasoning for B or how B could be taken as reasoning for A (rather than a slightly contradictory restatement of A - i.e. that they are somehow less valuable than normal though not completely valueless).

If there were any championships in NBA history that should be weighed less, it would be those and the Minneapolis Lakers ones just because the landscape of the league was different.

[Owly]

Just to make this conversation a little more interesting...

[A] Consider the argument of not counting all 11 of the Russell Championships since [B] those championships probably hold the least weight in NBA history.

????

Not sure of the possible reasoning for A, the possible reasoning for B or how B could be taken as reasoning for A (rather than a slightly contradictory restatement of A - i.e. that they are somehow less valuable than normal though not completely valueless).

If there were any championships in NBA history that should be weighed less, it would be those and the Minneapolis Lakers ones just because the landscape of the league was different.

Why less then St Louis, Philadelphia (Warriors), Syracuse, Rochester and Philadelphia (76ers)? Why not say the Lakers too in the first place (and wait till the second thread to do so)? Why not spell out why such might be the case (am assuming smaller talent pool in terms of population, global popularity, national (within the US) popularity, limited pro appeal [pay and conditions] and racial quotas) but all of those would be as already discussed applicable not only to Boston, and indeed moreso to the earlier titles. Also this would in no way be a case to "not count" the titles at all and doing that would make a mockery of an "All-time" ranking project.

Even not believing it but hoping to make it "more interesting", it's just full of holes as presented.

[giordunk]

????

Not sure of the possible reasoning for A, the possible reasoning for B or how B could be taken as reasoning for A (rather than a slightly contradictory restatement of A - i.e. that they are somehow less valuable than normal though not completely valueless).

If there were any championships in NBA history that should be weighed less, it would be those and the Minneapolis Lakers ones just because the landscape of the league was different.

Why less then St Louis, Philadelphia (Warriors), Syracuse, Rochester and Philadelphia (76ers)? Why not say the Lakers too in the first place (and wait till the second thread to do so)? Why not spell out why such might be the case (am assuming smaller talent pool in terms of population, global popularity, national (within the US) popularity, limited pro appeal [pay and conditions] and racial quotas) but all of those would be as already discussed applicable not only to Boston, and indeed moreso to the earlier titles. Also this would in no way be a case to "not count" the titles at all and doing that would make a mockery of an "All-time" ranking project.

Even not believing it but hoping to make it "more interesting", it's just full of holes as presented.

I think the point I was trying to make was that if you excluded the Minneapolis championships the Lakers are still sitting on 11 championships to the 5 that the Celtics have.

[Dr Positivity]

This one is a non starter, it's Celtics easily

#3 is also quite easy in my opinion... from #4 on it should be interesting though

While I agree #4 is where it really starts getting interesting, and I also agree the Celtics are #2 (my pick, btw, giordunk), I somewhat disagree that it's the Celtics "easily".

I'll do some of the numbers like I did in the last thread....

Total Seasons (not counting '20)
Celtics - 73
Spurs - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)

Total Playoff Appearances
Celtics - 56 (76.71% of total)
Spurs - 47 (90.38% of total; 39 NBA [90.70% of total], 8 ABA [88.89% of total])

rs Win%
Celtics - .590
Spurs - .602 (.621 in NBA, .508 in ABA)

Championships
Celtics - 17
Spurs - 5

Total Finals Appearances
Celtics - 21
Spurs - 6


I mean, I still go with the Celtics: all the added championships, plus maybe the fact that they've simply been a franchise for longer [could be sort of a tie-breaker] definitely tips it to them. But that striking [GOAT] rs success/consistency and ability to make the playoffs by the Spurs, for me, makes them a not too distant 3rd.

While Spurs have been very impressive, 17 titles to 5...

[Dr Positivity]

Consider the argument of not counting all 11 of the Russell Championships since those championships probably hold the least weight in NBA history.

I know you were just trying to make it interesting, but they don't in my opinion. First off if we include the pre shot clock era ones then they hold less... secondly I weight the Russell titles in the 60s as higher than the mid to late 70s, I feel the competition was higher in the 60s. I don't think teams like 75 Warriors, 78 Bullets or 79 Sonics are close to the 68 Sixers or 69 Knicks or Lakers. I would rank the competition in some seasons like 94, 95, 09, 15 to be lower than years like 68 or 69 as well. With that said the Celtics also got 2 titles in the 70s so it doesn't help their case a whole lot to devalue the 70s and upgrade the 60s.

[ardee]

This one is a non starter, it's Celtics easily

#3 is also quite easy in my opinion... from #4 on it should be interesting though

While I agree #4 is where it really starts getting interesting, and I also agree the Celtics are #2 (my pick, btw, giordunk), I somewhat disagree that it's the Celtics "easily".

I'll do some of the numbers like I did in the last thread....

Total Seasons (not counting '20)
Celtics - 73
Spurs - 52 (43 NBA, 9 ABA)

Total Playoff Appearances
Celtics - 56 (76.71% of total)
Spurs - 47 (90.38% of total; 39 NBA [90.70% of total], 8 ABA [88.89% of total])

rs Win%
Celtics - .590
Spurs - .602 (.621 in NBA, .508 in ABA)

Championships
Celtics - 17
Spurs - 5

Total Finals Appearances
Celtics - 21
Spurs - 6


I mean, I still go with the Celtics: all the added championships, plus maybe the fact that they've simply been a franchise for longer [could be sort of a tie-breaker] definitely tips it to them. But that striking [GOAT] rs success/consistency and ability to make the playoffs by the Spurs, for me, makes them a not too distant 3rd.

If you weigh the Russell Championships less I'm actually kind of wondering if the Spurs have an argument for #2. But yea, it's still the Celtics.

The Cs have more non-Russell championships than the Spurs have total championships... and all the Spurs' titles came from one era too.

It's not close IMO.

[Cavsfansince84]

tbh I would probably go with something as simple as a scoring system where each franchise gets
5 pts for a title
2 pts for losing in a finals
1 pt for losing in a conf final

2 pts for a 60 win season
1 pt for a 50 win season

Just so the regular season has some meaning

[penbeast0]

Celtics, though the Cleveland Pipers have the greatest championship win % at 100% if we are counting the ABL . . . (Globetrotters might be #1 if we are looking beyond NBA). Just don't see any real discussion here for #2 in NBA history.

[trex_8063]

Celtics, though the Cleveland Pipers have the greatest championship win % at 100% if we are counting the ABL . . . (Globetrotters might be #1 if we are looking beyond NBA). Just don't see any real discussion here for #2 in NBA history.

Actually, the Raptors, Rochester Royals, and of course the Bulls are also shooting 100% in the finals, too.

[trex_8063]

The Cs have more non-Russell championships than the Spurs have total championships... and all the Spurs' titles came from one era too.

It's not close IMO.

Although the Spurs actually have more post-merger titles (5 to 4), and more post-merger seasons where they made it AT LEAST as far as the conference finals (14 to 13). And again, the superior rs record overall, much more consistently reaching the playoffs (ESPECIALLY post-merger: Spurs making the playoffs 90.7% of all post-merger seasons, to the Celtics' 72.1%).

I still voted Celtics, and feel it is in fact clearly the Celtics......I just don't think it's "by a mile" or other similar wording.