RealGM All-Time Franchise Ranking - #28

[trex_8063]

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 ...

Ah, I stand **corrected [they apparently existed (at least on and off) as a "barn-storming" semi-pro team as early as 1923], if that is indeed the history he was referring to.

**However, that twenty-odd years of additional history is irrelevant within the context of this project (hence my confusion), as we're outlining success (or lack thereof) within the confines of NBA (and their claimed BAA) and/or ABA existence.

[trex_8063]

I count 5 for Bobcats/Hornets, 1 each for Pelicans and Kings. Will have the next thread up in a moment.

[SkyHookFTW]

Ach, just saw this...for me, the Bobcats/Hornets simply have accomplished virtually nothing since they have been in existence. While the Royals/Kings almost define futility, the Bobcat/Hornet franchise never had a team as good as the 2002 Kings team that was, IMO, outright jobbed. So I vote Bobcats/Hornets.

[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.....

You're off by about two decades there.

I am not, and even if I were do you think 50 years sounds much better?

......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.

They were an expansion team - it is expected they would lose a lot their first few seasons.

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.

Going from the same 24 year span vs the Grizzlies isn't equity. The Grizzlies were an expansion team during that 24 year span, the Kings were not. I would hope the Kings have a better win%.

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).

This sounds like a point in Memphis' favor not Sacramento's.

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.

Again, this seems like a point in the grizzlies favor. When you look into the context of their conference finals, it isn't impressive at all.

For the entirety of the Grizzlies existence you would have to win 2 playoff series to make a conference finals. Not the same for the Kings.

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).

Audio based films did not exist during the 1920s. The Kings are older than the Jazz Singer - it seems like you are just not aware of how old some of the professional teams in the league are. Hence my statement "and you would never think that if we didn't have wikipedia to remind us" - apparently, I am quite accurate in that assessment.

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.

i'm not sure if it is possible to grade something without comparing the why in some context - if so, then what is the point of the thread - you could merely look up the win/loss ratio%. I am assuming you are doing some form of assessment.

[Owly]

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

You're off by about two decades there.

I am not, and even if I were do you think 50 years sounds much better?
...

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).

Audio based films did not exist during the 1920s. The Kings are older than the Jazz Singer - it seems like you are just not aware of how old some of the professional teams in the league are. Hence my statement "and you would never think that if we didn't have wikipedia to remind us" - apparently, I am quite accurate in that assessment.

This (Royals' full lineage, 1946 title and the scope of the project) are covered in posts 20 and 21.

Whilst I agree with using the '46-47 starting point is best, as the generally given beginning of the major league era, going beyond that so as to allow for the extra title, even if you want to call the semi-pro years a negative (I suspect there are few, if any, of us, qualified to give an informed opinion on how the semi-pro team did), is probably a net positive, if it were to be included.

Also it's unclear how much you could call the semi-pro stuff all one lineage - I don't know about roster continuity, but there's suggestions on Wikipedia Harrison split from the liquor backed Seagrams' but that such a team continued, though it may well be poor/ambiguous wording ("They pooled money to meet the steep entry fee of $25,000 dollars, and were granted an NBL franchise. Their team pushed out the Seagrams locally at their facility, smallish Edgerton Park Arena." wikipedia). Harrison probably wanted all his history in with the franchise, but given he didn't buy the old team, but a franchise birth in an expansion pool I think it's unclear if that can really be called the same franchise. Not saying it can't, but it is unclear. I think this is moot though - my understanding is that the timeline for the project begins in 46-47 - though the original post in the project didn't make it clear and a chance to clarify in the opening thread was missed (may have done later - trex as an organizer has I think suggested this timeline).