RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #28

[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
9. Houston Rockets
10. New York Knicks

.....

29. Buffalo Braves/(San Diego)/Los Angeles Clippers
30. Minnesota Timberwolves


So what is the 3rd-worst franchise of all-time. A reminder: the Bobcats/Hornets claim the '89-'02 Hornets history.

.

[penbeast0]

Looking at Sacramento, Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, leaning toward the Kings before analysis but we will see after I get a better idea of what each has accomplished (if that's the right word).

[Narigo]

Sacramento for me. They havent won a championship since 1951. Also they have alot of losing seasons under their belt also.

[trex_8063]

Looking at Sacramento, Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, leaning toward the Kings before analysis but we will see after I get a better idea of what each has accomplished (if that's the right word).

Sacramento for me. They havent won a championship since 1951. Also they have alot of losing seasons under their belt also.

Nah, I can't see it being the Kings just yet.

Compared to the Pelicans, they have just a slightly worse rs win% going into this season (.456 vs .467), comparable % of seasons in the playoffs (.408 vs .412 for the Pels), but a much higher % of seasons reaching the conference finals (.113 [Royals/Kings have been there 8 times, including TWICE in the post-merger era] vs 0 for the Pels).
The Pelicans' cumulative playoff record is 2-7 (.222); the Kings' cumulative record is 15-28 (.349) [including 7-14 (.333) in the post-merger era]. And the Kings (Royals) do have that one title, even if it did come pre-shotclock.

So while I'll grant you it's really close between these two franchises, I'm not seeing a clear edge [in badness] for the Kings. Gun-to-my-head, I'd probably say the Pels are marginally worse, actually.


But compared to the Bobcats/Hornets franchise.....
The Kings have a better rs win%, better % of seasons going to the playoffs, better record in those playoffs [better in the post-merger era only, too], an 8-0 edge in going as far as the CF, and the one title.

In an all-time sense, I'm struggling to see the case for the Kings as the worse franchise.

Vote: Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets

[trex_8063]

I think the Royals/Kings franchise history is arguably better than that of the Grizzlies, too, for that matter.

[Owly]

Does the Kings franchise's title (and one of two good runs) being under a different name, in a different city hurt them? Should it?

Or is it being discounted for era?

[trex_8063]

Does the Kings franchise's title (and one of two good runs) being under a different name, in a different city hurt them? Should it?

Or is it being discounted for era?

For me, the answers go:

No (no).
Yes.

[Owly]

Does the Kings franchise's title (and one of two good runs) being under a different name, in a different city hurt them? Should it?

Or is it being discounted for era?

For me, the answers go:

No (no).
Yes.

When you say "for me" is this what's happening in your head/process or your interpretation of others?

I think the moves, the fact that their isn't organizational memory, a fanbase linking the Kings to the Royals probably has hurt that team [Risen, Wanzer, Davies et al Royals - mid-40s to early/mid 50s)'s standing historically. Even just the team name being so changed (repeatedly), and it then emphasizes the era discount, there being a team in Rochester (Sheboygan, Tri-Cities, owner sponsored team with company names in etc - it's easy to write off as minor league), I think maybe it feels smaller than if the New York Knicks had won a championship (obviously New York is an outlier, just wanted to say a team that was a contender then that is still in the same place under the same name, but say, Boston).

For me should it ... probably not depending on what you want to measure. Hollinger's numerical ranking dinged franchises for moving in general and I get that. I don't like franchises moving in general (moreso if they have a long history in the place, they have successful history in the place, they should be able to be viable in the market ... i.e. Seattle). It shouldn't affect the title team, but as I said, organizational/fanbase memory gets harmed. I think we might know more about the Wanzer MVP if it were in a steady franchise for instance.

For era I think there's range of reasonable positions people can take. I'm sure in reality that the title is dinged for that. As before I wonder if, and am inclined to think that it is probably done moreso because it's the Rochester Royals.

[trex_8063]

Does the Kings franchise's title (and one of two good runs) being under a different name, in a different city hurt them? Should it?

Or is it being discounted for era?

For me, the answers go:

No (no).
Yes.

When you say "for me" is this what's happening in your head/process or your interpretation of others?

By "for me" I mean very specifically for me. I generally won't presume to speak for others, and if I do I'd likely preface it was a disclaimer of sorts (e.g. "I suspect most of us....").

For me, whether a franchise has moved or not doesn't really figure into things. Maybe it damages the general knowledge/impression of or esteem for players like Wanzer or Risen (because their primary fan-base is now geographically disenfranchised), I don't know. But for me, specifically, it just doesn't matter. These are still pretty relevant players to me just because they were pretty damn relevant to their era (and that's more how I look at the league and its players).

But yes, a title in 1951 is certainly discounted compared to pretty much ANY title that came after it, because I simply feel any cross-section of the league AFTER 1951 was tougher or more competitive than the league of '51 (and that includes the early ABA).

[trex_8063]

Will have to wrap this one up in the next 12-16 hours, and so far we only have 3 votes. Hoping to drum up more, so am quoting some of you who've shown at least passing interest in this project.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Fadeaway_J]

Sorry I've been kind of busy the last few days.

Are we counting pre-New Orleans history for the Hornets like the NBA does officially?

[eminence]

Gotta go with the Bobcats/Hornets imo. Just no noteworthy peak to speak of (woohoo, 2nd round 2-3 SRS seasons as your franchise peak in 30 years). And it's not like their average is impressive either.

Next spot might be a little tricky, but to me the Wolves/Clippers/Hornets are the clear bottom 3.

[trex_8063]

Sorry I've been kind of busy the last few days.

Are we counting pre-New Orleans history for the Hornets like the NBA does officially?

Yes. Is noted in OP.

[Fadeaway_J]

I'll go Hornets/Bobcats as well. The Kings kind of rescue themselves with that run of contending teams during the early 2000s, whereas Charlotte topped out as "decently above average for a couple of years". Even the Kings current playoff futility would have been basically matched by Charlotte if not for the good fortune of playing in the East.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think the Royals/Kings franchise history is arguably better than that of the Grizzlies, too, for that matter.

Is it? They've been around what, 60-70 years longer than the Grizzlies and don't have much more to show for it. They were contenders once and won a championship a really long time ago. That's a lot of losing in between.

The Kings have been around longer than audio based movies, and you would never think that if we didn't have wikipedia to remind us. Their history really is quite pathetic - it would almost be like comparing someone from nobility who lost most of their fortunate but technically still has more money than a middle of the white collar guy and saying the former is more successful.


The Grizzlies have at least been respectable for roughly 1/3rd of their franchise history which includes the rough growing pains of being an expansion team. That's not too bad compared to the Kings.

[trex_8063]

I think the Royals/Kings franchise history is arguably better than that of the Grizzlies, too, for that matter.

Is it? They've been around what, 60-70 years longer than the Grizzlies.....

You're off by about two decades there.

......and don't have much more to show for it. They were contenders once and won a championship a really long time ago. That's a lot of losing in between.

The Grizzlies failed to win even 25 games for their first SEVEN seasons in a row (and four MORE seasons since). That's 11 seasons (out of 24) where they didn't even manage 25 wins. That's "a lot of losing in between" their decent years.

The Kings' all-time rs win% is .456 vs .413 for the Grizzlies; even in the SAME 24-YEAR SPAN that the Grizzlies have existed in, their rs win% is .453.
Their all-time % of seasons going to the playoffs is comparable (.408 vs .417). In the same 24 years that the Grizzlies have existed, they've made the playoffs just ONE less time (9 times, vs 10 for the Grizzlies), though have a better playoff record in those appearances (5-9 (.357) vs 4-10 (.286) for the Grizzlies).
They've been as far as the conference finals 8 times to the 1 time for the Grizzlies (have had one trip since the Grizzlies became a franchise; had 7 other trips prior to that [including one in the post-merger era]).
And they have the one pre-shotclock title.

The Kings have been around longer than audio based movies, and you would never think that if we didn't have wikipedia to remind us.

As someone who's also a cinephile with an interest in the motion picture history, this is grossly inaccurate (again: off by about two decades).

Their history really is quite pathetic - it would almost be like comparing someone from nobility who lost most of their fortunate but technically still has more money than a middle of the white collar guy and saying the former is more successful.

The Grizzlies have at least been respectable for roughly 1/3rd of their franchise history which includes the rough growing pains of being an expansion team. That's not too bad compared to the Kings.

Never said the Kings' history wasn't sad. As to whether it's sadder than that of Grizzlies, it's debatable; which is all I said previously (note: "arguably"). And what I've laid out above bears that to be an absolutely well-founded opinion.

If you want to grade the Kings by a different standard than the one you use on the Grizzlies [because they're a relatively recent expansion team], fair enough. Factors such as resources and so forth have been discussed in other threads. I, personally, don't figure that into my assessment. For my own purposes/process in this project, I don't so much care about the why they're bad/good.......merely establishing that they're bad/good (and the degree to which they're same) is my aim.

[Odinn21]

Voting for the Charlotte Hornets franchise.

Memphis Grizzlies have worse ratio numbers actually. But they made 7 playoffs in a row. And when I think about the players those played for the franchise and how they played, feels like the Grizzlies have a better all-time team. I'll vote for them in the next round.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Pelicans

They've been around for less time than Charlotte, but have really achieved very little other than a few 2nd round appearances

[penbeast0]

It's basically a coin flip between these few that are being argued for me. I don't see it as a clear bottom 3 at all. I had forgotten about the Rochester Royals part of the franchise; when you are arguing this level of futility, that's probably enough to move them above the other sad sacks even if they've been a sad sack longer (again, very close -- I do discount for the era that it was won).

Vote: Bobcats/Hornets

[Owly]

I think the Royals/Kings franchise history is arguably better than that of the Grizzlies, too, for that matter.

Is it? They've been around what, 60-70 years longer than the Grizzlies.....

You're off by about two decades there.

...

The Kings have been around longer than audio based movies, and you would never think that if we didn't have wikipedia to remind us.

As someone who's also a cinephile with an interest in the motion picture history, this is grossly inaccurate (again: off by about two decades).

Disparity here may be the difference between eligible Royals history and full franchise lineage (including other names). Of course pushing back beyond the 46-47 (iirc) start point, even a single year, gives the Royals another title so ...