RealGM Greatest Franchises Rankings - #9

[trex_8063]

1. Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers
2. Boston Celtics
3. Dallas Chaparrals, San Antonio Spurs
4. Chicago Bulls
5. Syracuse Nationals/Philadelphia 76ers
6. Philly/SF/Golden State Warriors
7. Miami Heat
8. Fort Wayne/Detroit Pistons

.

[Odinn21]

Rockets; 52 completed seasons, .528 win rate, 33 playoffs appearances (.635), .494 win rate in playoffs (153-157), 9.4 games per playoffs, 4 NBA Finals, 2 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
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 Championship
Bucks; 51 completed seasons, .516 win rate, 31 playoffs appearances (.608), .473 win rate in playoffs (121-135), 8.3 games per playoff, 2 NBA Finals, 1 NBA Championship
Blazers; 49 completed seasons, .537 win rate, 35 playoffs appearances (.714), .441 win rate in playoffs (116-147), 7.5 games per playoff, 3 NBA Finals, 1 NBA Championship
Pacers; 52 completed seasons, .515 win rate, 35 playoffs appearances (.673), .485 win rate in NBA playoffs (115-122), .533 win rate in ABA playoffs (57-50), .500 win rate in playoffs combined (172-172), 9.8 games per playoff, 1 NBA Finals, 0 NBA Championship, 5 ABA Finals, 3 ABA Championships

Edit: Changed my vote.
Voting for the Thunder franchise.

[trex_8063]

Probably leaning toward the Rockets, though I need to look more in depth when I get home from work. Off the cuff, the other contenders for this spot could include the Knicks, the Pacers [depending on how I want to weight the ABA years], +/- maybe the Sonics/Thunder???

[Odinn21]

Probably leaning toward the Rockets, though I need to look more in depth when I get home from work. Off the cuff, the other contenders for this spot could include the Knicks, the Pacers [depending on how I want to weight the ABA years], +/- maybe the Sonics/Thunder???

I expanded my chart and I didn't want to make the thread even more crowded. Here's the numbers; (note: the numbers don't include ABA numbers, just NBA numbers in there)
https://i.imgur.com/i77fWTD.jpg

I added number of seasons with .500+ record. Also with positive SRS values.
As for playoffs, number of 1st round exits looked important to me.

Looking at the numbers, I'd say we were definitely wrong to vote Bulls franchise ahead of Sixers franchise.
I'm also on the verge of changing my vote to Thunder franchise. I'm not so sure one more title would make it up for the differences in win rates and ratio of 1st round exits.

[trex_8063]

Looking at the numbers, I'd say we were definitely wrong to vote Bulls franchise ahead of Sixers franchise.

It's debatable, but certainly [imo] not something one can say we "definitely" got wrong. It depends on how you weight things. The fact that the Bulls won TWICE as many titles (despite existing for 17 fewer years) is pretty darn consequential, and can potentially overrule some of the other factors in which the Sixers have a small lead. Additionally noting that all of the Bulls titles came in the post-merger era (vs only ONE of the Sixer titles [and 5 of their 9 appearances]).

idk, I would still say it's perfectly justified to pick the Bulls at 4th (though I can see the argument for the Sixers).

[trex_8063]

Some of this is repeat of data Odinn21 has already posted, but organized slightly differently (also including % of seasons going to CF, and one or two teams he left off):


rs Win%
Sonics/Thunder - .542
Jazz - .539
Trailblazers - .538
Suns - .529
Rockets - .528
Pacers - .514 (.502 in NBA, .574 in ABA)
Hawks - .495
Knicks - .486

Playoff Appearances
Hawks - 46
Knicks - 42
Trailblazers - 35
Pacers - 35 (26 NBA, 9 ABA)
Rockets - 33
Sonics/Thunder - 31
Suns - 29
Jazz - 28

% of Seasons in the Playoffs
Trailblazers - .714
Pacers - . 673 (.605 NBA, 1.000 ABA)
Hawks - .657
Rockets - .635
Jazz - .622
Sonics/Thunder - .596
Knicks - .575
Suns - .569

Conf/Div Finals Appearances
Knicks - 16
Pacers - 15 (8 NBA, 7 ABA)
Hawks - 13
Sonics/Thunder - 10
Suns - 9
Rockets - 8
Trailblazers - 7
Jazz - 6

% of Seasons in Conf/Div Finals
Pacers - .288 (.186 NBA, .778 ABA)
Knicks - .219
Sonics/Thunder - .192
Hawks - .186
Suns - .176
Rockets - .154
Trailblazers - .143
Jazz - .133

Titles
Pacers - *3 (*all in ABA)
Knicks - 2
Rockets - 2
Hawks - 1
Trailblazers - 1
Sonics/Thunder - 1
Suns - 0
Jazz - 0

Finals Appearances
Knicks - 8
Pacers - *6 (*1 in NBA, 5 in ABA)
Sonics/Thunder - 4
Hawks - 4
Rockets - 4
Trailblazers - 3
Suns - 2
Jazz - 2

% of Seasons in the Finals
Pacers - *.115 (*.024 in NBA, .556 in ABA)
Knicks - .110
Rockets - .077
Sonics/Thunder - .077
Trailblazers - .061
Hawks - .057
Jazz - .044
Suns - .039


imo, there are a number of teams you could justifiable go with.

[giordunk]

Thanks again for moving this along.

I think it's the Rockets for me. Two Championships, okay history before their best years. I'd also give them a boost in terms of impact on the game of basketball because of Yao and his global reach.

[trex_8063]

I have to say: I'm thinking hard on the Indiana Pacers.

If we look at NBA-only, among the eight teams I outlined above: they're tied [with Suns and Jazz] for last as the three teams WITHOUT an NBA title, and they'd be last among the eight in % of seasons making it to the finals.
However, they'd be 6th in rs win%, 5th in % of seasons making the playoffs, and tied for 3rd in % of seasons making it as far as the CF......which is to say: very much in the middle of things in these other fields.

When we combine that consideration with the fact that their success in the ABA is unparalleled [there truly isn't another team who really even approaches their level of success in the ABA]......idk, does that give us reason to be giving them serious consideration at this point? Or am I premature?

At the very least I think they need to be a serious candidate for #11-12 or thereabouts.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd vote Rockets between the titles, players and consistent success. I also think the Cavs should get a mention with some of these other franchises if people can overlook them having some really bad teams in stretches in the early 80's, early 00's and between LeBron stints.

[Dr Positivity]

Rockets - consistent franchise, 2 titles, 4 finals, lots of winning in the 2000s despite never making finals. They have been probably a top 10 franchise for four decades in a row. They got lucky to avoid MJ in 94 and 95, but probably unlucky in 18 to play the Warriors and 96 to play the Celtics

Knicks - highest peak of the teams I'm considering in my opinion, with an all time great team in the early 70s. They had success in the Ewing era with 2 more finals, then the wheels fell off.

Sonics/Thunder - Interesting candidate with 1 title and 3 other finals, however I would rate their 79 title as one of the weakest. They face strong comp in 96 and 12 though. I don't think they quite match the Rockets who have also been an impressive regular season team, but got it done in two harder years competition wise than 79 in 94 and 95, and also faced an ATG team in 86 like the Sonics played 96 Bulls.

I have to say: I'm thinking hard on the Indiana Pacers.

If we look at NBA-only, among the eight teams I outlined above: they're tied [with Suns and Jazz] for last as the three teams WITHOUT an NBA title, and they'd be last among the eight in % of seasons making it to the finals.
However, they'd be 6th in rs win%, 5th in % of seasons making the playoffs, and tied for 3rd in % of seasons making it as far as the CF......which is to say: very much in the middle of things in these other fields.

When we combine that consideration with the fact that their success in the ABA is unparalleled [there truly isn't another team who really even approaches their level of success in the ABA]......idk, does that give us reason to be giving them serious consideration at this point? Or am I premature?

At the very least I think they need to be a serious candidate for #11-12 or thereabouts.

Yea but the Pacers advantage over the Nets is all based off dominating the early ABA which I take less seriously competition wise. From 72 on they both win 2 titles and make 3 finals, and the Nets get the latest success with 2 of the last 3 titles, when I assume the competition was the highest.

The Pacers are an interesting candidate however - especially when you compare them to the Knicks as their success paralleled each other up until about their last finals appearances each, just with Pacers winning in early 70s ABA and Knicks in NBA, with the Knicks having the edge in impressiveness there. The Pacers have been much more successful since 2000 with 3 CF.

My vote is between Houston, NY and Pacers. Ultimately I think Houston has best combination of success (2 NBA titles) and consistent winning.

Vote Houston Rockets

[penbeast0]

I don't see the Knicks in my next three. My criteria is what franchise would I most like to have been a fan of and the Knicks have been one of the most disappointing franchises in NBA history. Despite being in the greatest basketball city and with the most money, they have rarely achieved more than mediocrity. The Frazier Knicks were great . . . in the second weakest NBA era. The Ewing Knicks were ugly, great defense achieved with a really high degree of thuggery (still remember John Starks trying to stomp on a fallen opponent's face). Otherwise they have squandered opportunity again and again.

Thus I am left with the Pacers, the Rockets, and the Sonics. The Pacers started strong with their ABA success and have generally overperformed their talent as much as any NBA team. A bit of a downgrade for the Malice at the Palace, speaking of thuggery.

Houston has the two Hakeem titles and a lot of fun teams . . . Elvin Hayes, Calvin Murphy, Moses Malone, Yao, Harden, even Tmac though I never liked him in Houston. They get the fun team bonus more than any of the others.

Seattle's good teams with Payton and Kemp seemed to last a long time (not as long as Stockton and Malone, but still). They were the first NBA moneyball team and got to give a shot out to Downtown Freddie Brown and Slick Watts as well as the Sikma/Gus/DJ title teams.

However, unless I get talked out of it, my vote is HOUSTON ROCKETS

[Fadeaway_J]

I'll go Houston Rockets by a hair over Seattle/OKC. The two franchises are so close in most other categories that the extra championship nudges Houston in front.

[trex_8063]

I don't see the Knicks in my next three. My criteria is what franchise would I most like to have been a fan of and the Knicks have been one of the most disappointing franchises in NBA history.

I'll apologize up front, because this will sound harsh, but that statement is pretty "out there". Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong.

My guess is it's excessively influenced by recent history, because in an all-time sense.......well, let's just outline their history in chunks/eras:

The Knicks are one of the teams that go all the way back to the BAA with a 73 full-season history....

They had a winning record (making the playoffs each year too) for their first 9 seasons in a row, going at least as far as the division finals in 6 of their first 7 seasons, including 3 consecutive trips to the NBA finals in the early 50's. Although no title, that's a helluva good start for the franchise history.

Following those first 9 winning years, they had three years hovering around .500 though not making the playoffs (except for a 3rd-place tie-breaker), then followed it up with a 40-32 season [making the playoffs] in '59.

Then upon entering the 60's they had the first actual bad stretch in their franchise history: 7 consecutive years with a losing record (.327 cumulative win%) and missing the playoffs each of those years.

But they then followed that up with 9 consecutive years of making the playoffs [winning record in 7 of the 9], which contained a 6-year stretch ['69-'74] wherein they made it at least as far as the ECF every year, including 3 trips to the NBA finals (winning twice).

For the next 12 seasons ('76-'87) they entered a period of mediocrity. Note: NOT exactly "bad" during this span, merely slightly below average--->4 winning records, cumulative win% of .443, made the playoffs 4 times (getting bounced in the first round in only ONE of those four appearances).

By this point we're well into the Patrick Ewing era, and the Knicks follow up that 12-year period of mediocrity (or slightly below) with 14 consecutive years ['88-'01] of making the playoffs (losing in the 1st round just THREE of those 14 appearances). This period would include FOUR seasons where they made it to the ECF, and TWO appearances in NBA Finals (one in which they were just John Starks NOT having the worst shooting night of his life away from an NBA title). You may not have appreciated the manner in which some of these teams achieved their success, but imo that doesn't give license to discount it.


If we stopped their history right there^^^, they'd likely have been voted in 6th or 7th place at worst:
The '47-'01 Knicks (still a very substantial 55-year sample) would have the 2nd-highest % of playoff appearance of any team not in the top 5 of our list [only Portland has better, though the Knicks would double them in NBA titles and more than double them in Finals appearances]; it'd be the 5th-highest % of playoff appearances all-time among ALL teams.
They would have the 4th-best % of seasons in the CF of all-time (and better than any team that's been on the table since the #5 thread).
And they would have the 5th-best % of seasons in the Finals of all-time (and better than any team that's been on the table since the #7 thread).

It's only because of the last 18 years (which have not ALL been bad: there are three winning seasons and four playoff appearances tucked in there) that they're only now beginning to get some mentions. Given this period represents <25% of their total franchise history (which, as outlined above, was actually pretty fantastic outside of recent history), I don't think it's enough to push them out of consideration here (and certainly not enough to call them "one of the most disappointing franchises in NBA history").

[trex_8063]

Actually, in looking their history over thoroughly, I'm going to vote for the New York Knicks.

Their history in recent years is pretty ugly, but I don't want recency bias to overly colour my opinion of the franchise. Facts are:

*They have the most conference finals appearances of any team left on the table.
**They have the most finals appearances of any team left on the table.
***Excepting for ABA titles, they are at least tying any team left on the table in Championships (albeit none in the post-merger era).
****They have the 2nd-most total playoff appearances of any team left on the table.

Their % of appearances are competitive against pretty much anyone left on the table, while having the longest possible longevity/existence.
I certainly can't fault anyone voting for the Rockets here either, but I'm going to lend my support to New York.

[Owly]

I don't see the Knicks in my next three. My criteria is what franchise would I most like to have been a fan of and the Knicks have been one of the most disappointing franchises in NBA history.

I'll apologize up front, because this will sound harsh, but that statement is pretty "out there". Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong.

Disappointment is - I think necessarily - related to expectations. Resource advantages are noted in the sentence after you cut off the quote. Whether or not such a method is "fair" or aligns comfortably with your thoughts will be a matter of taste and what exactly you are trying to measure.

Whether or not it is or should be within the remit, it is probably fair to say an NY team at a given level (in some way low) is more frustrating and very probably doing a worse job than a team at the same level of on-the-floor performance almost anywhere else.

[giordunk]

Decently convincing win for the Rockets.

[trex_8063]

I don't see the Knicks in my next three. My criteria is what franchise would I most like to have been a fan of and the Knicks have been one of the most disappointing franchises in NBA history.

I'll apologize up front, because this will sound harsh, but that statement is pretty "out there". Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong.

Disappointment is - I think necessarily - related to expectations. Resource advantages are noted in the sentence after you cut off the quote. Whether or not such a method is "fair" or aligns comfortably with your thoughts will be a matter of taste and what exactly you are trying to measure.

Whether or not it is or should be within the remit, it is probably fair to say an NY team at a given level (in some way low) is more frustrating and very probably doing a worse job than a team at the same level of on-the-floor performance almost anywhere else.

The next sentence (that I didn't include in my quoted portion) was not lost on me. It's actually kinda what I was referring to with the comment regarding using different standards for different teams. Even if one thinks it's justified based upon market-size/resources, that's still what it boils down to: shifting of goal-posts.

That said, it's perfectly fair to ask: IS IT justified [to shift the goal-posts]?

idk.....based upon my rhetoric here you can likely guess that I'm not a fan of it (at least as anything more than a tie-breaker). I'm not a fan of it being a major inclusion for 2-3 reasons: a) the difficulty in how to consistently incorporate that consideration into one's criteria in a manner that is commensurate with whatever degree of advantage/disadvantage they have in terms of resources; b) it'd be difficult to credibly establish just how big an impact resources/market size make on team success; and c) I feel like curving our evaluation based on certain circumstances [or "luck", if you will] could arguably be a slippery slope. For example, if added resources need to be taken into account and teams given a handicap of sorts as a result, could one also justify looking at team front office personnel (the people responsible for spending those resources on players, etc) and shifting the standards of evaluation based upon the brilliance [or lack thereof] within that front office?


Also, I noted that market-size/resources have not previously been mentioned in this project, if I'm not mistaken. Seems as though if it were a major consideration for someone, it probably should have at least drawn a mention for the Spurs in the #2 thread (being a smaller market team than the Celtics, yet having more success in some measurable areas).

[Owly]

I'll apologize up front, because this will sound harsh, but that statement is pretty "out there". Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong.

Disappointment is - I think necessarily - related to expectations. Resource advantages are noted in the sentence after you cut off the quote. Whether or not such a method is "fair" or aligns comfortably with your thoughts will be a matter of taste and what exactly you are trying to measure.

Whether or not it is or should be within the remit, it is probably fair to say an NY team at a given level (in some way low) is more frustrating and very probably doing a worse job than a team at the same level of on-the-floor performance almost anywhere else.

The next sentence (that I didn't include in my quoted portion) was not lost on me. It's actually kinda what I was referring to with the comment regarding using different standards for different teams. Even if one thinks it's justified based upon market-size/resources, that's still what it boils down to: shifting of goal-posts.

That said, it's perfectly fair to ask: IS IT justified [to shift the goal-posts]?

idk.....based upon my rhetoric here you can likely guess that I'm not a fan of it (at least as anything more than a tie-breaker). I'm not a fan of it being a major inclusion for 2-3 reasons: a) the difficulty in how to consistently incorporate that consideration into one's criteria in a manner that is commensurate with whatever degree of advantage/disadvantage they have in terms of resources; b) it'd be difficult to credibly establish just how big an impact resources/market size make on team success; and c) I feel like curving our evaluation based on certain circumstances [or "luck", if you will] could arguably be a slippery slope. For example, if added resources need to be taken into account and teams given a handicap of sorts as a result, could one also justify looking at team front office personnel (the people responsible for spending those resources on players, etc) and shifting the standards of evaluation based upon the brilliance [or lack thereof] within that front office?


Also, I noted that market-size/resources have not previously been mentioned in this project, if I'm not mistaken. Seems as though if it were a major consideration for someone, it probably should have at least drawn a mention for the Spurs in the #2 thread (being a smaller market team than the Celtics, yet having more success in some measurable areas).

I think Penbeast has discussed it within the context of being a fan, which I think he has mentioned. If so, he probably has been consistent (or at least there isn't evidence of inconsistency just because this aspect hasn't been explicitly stated). Fwiw, at at a glance many (most? all? - I hven't read super tightly) choices seem at least somewhat ad hoc rather than fitting a tightly defined process.

I can see people attempting neutralizing for market as they may they say feel it extrinsic to the basketball, honestly I cannot see anyone not wanting to include the job done by front office.

I'm not sure I'd do it (depending what I wanted to measure) and agree it could be difficult to calibrate. It's uncertain but that would feel more problematic if the tendency was towards a rigid formula (a la http://web.archive.org/web/20170728164142/https://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro - and even here there's some playing with an "intangibles" category) or indeed a "tighter" question (I could get irritated with a person giving style points on a "best player" list, "greatest franchise", here and in general, is quite woolly).

[penbeast0]

... Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong....

I think I do judge the Knicks by a higher standard than any team outside Los Angeles, though it's not that major. A team is judged by the way they perform relative to their expectations. If I was a Knick fan in New York, I think I'd have been unhappy pretty generally except for the Frazier era and the Ewing era (and, again, my criteria is how happy I would be as a fan . . . one reason why the Wiz are not going to rank very high for me either). I do expect a bit more from big market teams, like the Lakers who I think have exceeded any reasonable expectation. If Indiana and the Knicks are performing at the same level over the course of their history, as a Pacer fan I'm pretty stoked and as a Knick fan I'm disappointed.

I don't think this is a major factor in my analysis but it is there.

[trex_8063]

... Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong....

I think I do judge the Knicks by a higher standard than any team outside Los Angeles, though it's not that major. A team is judged by the way they perform relative to their expectations. If I was a Knick fan in New York, I think I'd have been unhappy pretty generally except for the Frazier era and the Ewing era (and, again, my criteria is how happy I would be as a fan . . . one reason why the Wiz are not going to rank very high for me either). I do expect a bit more from big market teams, like the Lakers who I think have exceeded any reasonable expectation. If Indiana and the Knicks are performing at the same level over the course of their history, as a Pacer fan I'm pretty stoked and as a Knick fan I'm disappointed.

I don't think this is a major factor in my analysis but it is there.

Fair enough, this I can understand. I guess part of my incredulous tone [sorry, btw] stemmed from the choice of words ("one of the worst..."), which had me wondering, "just how many teams are in this group of 'the worst' that the Knicks are 'one of'?"

Because even in light of their market/resources, I'd still struggle to see how their franchise history is as poor as that of the TWolves, Clippers/Braves, Bobcats/Hornets, Grizzlies, Hornets/Pelicans, Royals/Kings, Magic, your own Bullets/Wizards, or even the Raptors (despite recent success); probably the Mavericks, too (+/- 1 or 2 others??). In short, it would still leave them ahead of decidedly more than just a handful of teams, and I suspect you don't really disagree there.
There was even a potential contradiction within that original statement: said they're "one of the worst" [out of 30], yet also said you'll not be voting for them only in any of the next three spots (which would seem to imply that you WILL be willing to give them consideration as soon as #12-13 [out of 30]).

Anyway, we can each go our own way on this, and once again I apologize if there was a bit too much venom on my previous post.