RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #7

[penbeast0]

I may have made mistakes as I was just doing a quick and dirty but yes, I just added ranks of the 11 numbered teams (didn't use the Heat or teams like the Wizards, used ties as an average between the two) and used a 10 where there was no rank listed. And I realize longevity is an advantage (notice my vote was for the Heat), but this was just an unweighted summary of the ranking list. I probably won't vote Pacers next time either but just wanted to get a rough feel for what the lists were showing and thought others might too.

[freethedevil]

Pistons clearly. I don't agree with the use of rate stats over accumulataive ones here. The term with more quality seasons has done more than the team with a higher rate of qulaity seasons.

Pistons have won as much, made more finals, and made the playoffs more than everybody else here. Aside from punihsing them for longetivty, I don't see the case against them.

[penbeast0]

Pistons clearly. I don't agree with the use of rate stats over accumulataive ones here. The term with more quality seasons has done more than the team with a higher rate of qulaity seasons.

Pistons have won as much, made more finals, and made the playoffs more than everybody else here. Aside from punihsing them for longetivty, I don't see the case against them.

Main issue is all the years of suckitude. They are one of those teams with a regular season record under .500 for their history. The Heat have as many rings in half as many years, and just consistently mattered more.

[Odinn21]

Heat; 31 completed seasons, .520 win rate, 20 playoffs appearances (.645), .554 win rate in playoffs (124-100), 11.2 games per playoffs, 5 NBA Finals, 3 NBA Championships
Rockets; 52 completed seasons, .529 win rate, 33 playoffs appearances (.635), .494 win rate in playoffs (153-157), 9.4 games per playoffs, 4 NBA Finals, 2 NBA Championships
Pistons; 71 completed seasons, .486 win rate, 42 playoffs appearances (.592), .514 win rate in playoffs (189-179), 8.8 games per playoffs, 7 NBA Finals, 3 NBA Championships
Knicks; 73 completed seasons, .485 win rate, 42 playoffs appearances (.575), .500 win rate in playoffs (186-186), 8.9 games per playoff, 8 NBA Finals, 2 NBA Championships

Well, going with the Heat. I think this one's obvious seeing all these.

BTW, Blazers have a very bad W-L record in the playoffs with 116-147 (.441). And they played 7.5 games per playoffs appearance. That's not impressive. This is kind of diminishes their good playoffs to number of season ratio.

Edit; I added games per playoffs number to show how far those teams got. Here's numbers of the teams already voted in;
1. Lakers 12.2 games per playoff
2. Celtics 11.6
3. Spurs 9.6
4. Bulls 9.8
5. Sixers 9.0
6. Warriors 10.0

How do the Sonics/Thunder stack up other than having only 1 ring? Better than Portland I would hope.

I was away for the weekend. Here's how the Thunder franchise stack up;
Thunder; 52 completed seasons, .541 win rate, 31 playoffs appearances (.596), .497 win rate in playoffs (161-163), 10.5 games per playoff, 4 NBA Finals, 1 NBA Championships

While I kinda like the "avg games per playoff" stat for greater completeness, it's important to keep in mind that it will directly favour more recent franchises (when the playoffs were a longer affair in general). EDIT: it also theoretically rewards teams for struggling to finish off a series (winning 4-3 or 4-2) as apposed to teams who were mostly sweeping their opponents ("fo-fo-fo").

Even while I was writing that post, I was aware of that averages would be affected by format and the challenges they faced but it cuts both ways. The closer your average is to 5, you're getting eliminated in the first round way more than the others.
The proper way would be to calculate number of series won by rounds but it just would take too much time when I'd like to keep it light and sweet.

[trex_8063]

I'm gonna jump in again, as this one is now almost 58 hours open. The vote is:

Heat - 5
Pistons - 2

Calling it for the Heat, and will get #8 open in a sec....

.

[freethedevil]

Pistons clearly. I don't agree with the use of rate stats over accumulataive ones here. The term with more quality seasons has done more than the team with a higher rate of qulaity seasons.

Pistons have won as much, made more finals, and made the playoffs more than everybody else here. Aside from punihsing them for longetivty, I don't see the case against them.

Main issue is all the years of suckitude. They are one of those teams with a regular season record under .500 for their history. The Heat have as many rings in half as many years, and just consistently mattered more.

What are you comparing the years of suckitude with? The Heat don't have nearly as many good seasons as the pistons do. Sp unless we're imagining hypothetical seasons the hear never played, I don't see how that works in their favor.

[Owly]

Pistons clearly. I don't agree with the use of rate stats over accumulataive ones here. The term with more quality seasons has done more than the team with a higher rate of qulaity seasons.

Pistons have won as much, made more finals, and made the playoffs more than everybody else here. Aside from punihsing them for longetivty, I don't see the case against them.

Main issue is all the years of suckitude. They are one of those teams with a regular season record under .500 for their history. The Heat have as many rings in half as many years, and just consistently mattered more.

What are you comparing the years of suckitude with? The Heat don't have nearly as many good seasons as the pistons do. Sp unless we're imagining hypothetical seasons the hear never played, I don't see how that works in their favor.

Not sure that the bolded is true. At best it's vague and false under some interpretations (e.g. each has 7 seasons of SRS above 5 - no huge gap there).

I don't think there's an absolute right and wrong regarding cumulative versus % rate of success depends on what you care about, but I don't get not seeing the other side (here, that (more) being bad could be ... well ... bad).