Who's Best Since Merger? Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Celts?

[Galileo]

Who's Best Since Merger? Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Celts?

There have been 32 complete NBA seasons since the NBA/ABA merger. How do the top four teams stack up? Galileo takes a look:

Regular Season Performance:

Missed playoffs

Spurs 4
Lakers 2
Bulls 13
Celts 11

Sub-.500

Spurs 6
Lakers 3
Bulls 16
Celts 13

Fewer than 50 wins, projected over 82 games for strike year

Spurs 13
Lakers 9
Bulls 23
Celts 19

3rd or worse in Division

Spurs 8
Lakers 8
Bulls 20
Celts 14

Division Titles

Spurs 16
Lakers 16
Bulls 6
Celts 13

Won 2/3 of games

Spurs 15
Lakers 17
Bulls 8
Celts 11

Playoff Performance

Failed to make conference semis and/or missed playoffs

Spurs 13
Lakers 9
Bulls 19
Celts 17

Made conference finals

Spurs 10
Lakers 17
Bulls 8
Celts 10

Made NBA finals

Spurs 4
Lakers 14
Bulls 6
Celts 6

Won NBA Title

Spurs 4
Lakers 8
Bulls 6
Celts 4

Galileo's conclusions

The best NBA franchise since the merger is the Lakers, with the Spurs a close second.

However, the Spurs are the most remarkable franchise since they have had to deal with the anti-small market NBA conspiracy for 32 years and continue to maintain excellence year in and year out, bucking the odds.

:flag:

[Brazil]

Back to the discussion bulls vs. spurs.

Anyway no doubt Spurs 2nd or 3rd is a fantastic achievement for a "small market" city.

[layupdrill]

good breakdown.

[Galileo]

Back to the discussion bulls vs. spurs.

Anyway no doubt Spurs 2nd or 3rd is a fantastic achievement for a "small market" city.

Did you not read the numbers? The Bulls are not an elite franchise. They have missed the playoffs 13 times and had a sub-.500 record 16 times, out of the last 32 seasons.

They also finished 3rd or worse 20 times and won less than 50 games 23 times. They failed to make the conference semis 19 times.

They didn't do much before the merger either.

If you want to sit through two decades of failure, year after year after year, then go for it.

[romain.star]

Without MJ, the Bulls would be one of the worst NBA team ever

[Galileo]

Without MJ, the Bulls would be one of the worst NBA team ever

At least they had Bob Love.

[Cry Havoc]

Here in Chicago, the Bulls are a joke. They don't even talk about the team on the talk shows anymore, just about how horrible they are -- and Mr. Rose's bright future.

The Spurs have RARELY ever been out of the NBA's playoff picture as a fantastic team ever since D-Rob. Every team has a few down years, but the Spurs are almost always a contender. The Bulls are LUCKY to make the playoffs.

If people listened to the talk radio here in Chicago, the dynasty of Mr. Jordan has long passed. It's over. Done. Doesn't count for much anymore.

I'd much rather compete every year.

[Solid D]

What are the winning percentages (.000) since the merger?

[Galileo]

Here's the reference page:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

The Bulls have a winning percentage of .508 since 1967. (regular season only)

The Spurs are .599 since the merger and .579 including the ABA.

The Lakers are .631 since they came to LA (1961) and .616 since 1949.

The Celtics are .592 since 1947.

The Spurs are clearly the 3rd best franchise in NBA history, and the easily the best "new" franchise and as well the best small market franshise, and the best medium market franchise.

Looking at some other numbers, the Spurs franchise has made the playoffs 36 times since 1968.

That compares to 38 playoff appearances by the Knicks since 1947, 37 by the Hawks franchise since 1950, and 38 by the Pistons francise since 1949.

The only other franchise with more playoff appearances than the Spurs is Philly with 44 since 1950.

[Brazil]

Did you not read the numbers? The Bulls are not an elite franchise. They have missed the playoffs 13 times and had a sub-.500 record 16 times, out of the last 32 seasons.

They also finished 3rd or worse 20 times and won less than 50 games 23 times. They failed to make the conference semis 19 times.

They didn't do much before the merger either.

If you want to sit through two decades of failure, year after year after year, then go for it.

I read the numbers and 6>4. I'm not saying that bulls>spurs I think it's quite balanced but saying that the bulls are not an elite franchise with 6 titles + the best player ever it's quite :downspin:

[Solid D]

What are the winning percentages (.000) since the merger?


Here's the reference page:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

The Bulls have a winning percentage of .508 since 1967. (regular season only)

The Spurs are .599 since the merger and .579 including the ABA.

The Lakers are .631 since they came to LA (1961) and .616 since 1949.

The Celtics are .592 since 1947.

The Spurs are clearly the 3rd best franchise in NBA history, and the easily the best "new" franchise and as well the best small market franshise, and the best medium market franchise.


Thanks, so the winning percentages since the merger (1976-77) are?

[Galileo]

Thanks, so the winning percentages since the merger are?

I haven't calculated that. Its a good project for you.

:lol

[Galileo]

Who's Best Since the David Robinson Era Began?

There have been 19 complete NBA seasons since the Admiral began? Galileo takes a look:

Regular Season Performance:

Missed playoffs

Spurs 1
Lakers 2
Bulls 7

Sub-.500

Spurs 1
Lakers 3
Bulls 7

Fewer than 50 wins, projected over 82 games for strike year

Spurs 3
Lakers 7
Bulls 11

3rd or worse in Division

Spurs 1
Lakers 6
Bulls 10

Division Titles

Spurs 11
Lakers 6
Bulls 6

Won 2/3 of games

Spurs 15
Lakers 9
Bulls 8

Playoff Performance

Failed to make conference semis and/or missed playoffs

Spurs 5
Lakers 7
Bulls 9

Made conference finals

Spurs 7
Lakers 7
Bulls 7

Made NBA finals

Spurs 4
Lakers 6
Bulls 6

Won NBA Title

Spurs 4
Lakers 3
Bulls 6

Galileo's conclusions

The Spurs are the best team in the NBA since DRob entered the leagues. Over a 19 year period, which continues this season, the Spurs have bucked the odds as a small-market team with powerful forces stacked against them.

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs are second since the merger, but they aren't a close second. As much as I dislike LA and their fans, they've got that one wrapped up by a mile.

[DrHouse]

The Spurs still had talent, despite being in a small market due to fortuitous lottery picks and foresight to look at International players before it was popular. You don't win without talent and it doesn't matter how you get that talent IMHO.

[Solid D]

I haven't calculated that. Its a good project for you.

:lol

Aw man. Again? :p:

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs still had talent, despite being in a small market due to fortuitous lottery picks and foresight to look at International players before it was popular. You don't win without talent and it doesn't matter how you get that talent IMHO.

As someone who was in Orlando the day Shaq left, I have to tell you that it's exponentially easier to get talent when you're in LA. Shaq took less money to go to the Lakers, and Orlando is only now starting to show signs of recovering.

[Lakers_55]

Great post! I was planning more like the one I did comparing SA to Chicago. I'll bookmark this and see if there were any points left out that I wanted to make.

My next comparison was going to be Spurs vs. Celtics since the merger. Spurs are 4-0 in finals and second best winning percentage. This covers 3 eras, IceMan, Admiral, and TD. Celtics have the Bird era, and the curent and to be short lived one. Their finals mark is 4-2. Regular season mark dropped like a rock and I didn't tally it yet.

Next I was going to compare the Celtics and Bulls since the Russell era ended. Celtics are 6-2 since then, Bulls 6-0. Celtics add the Cowens, White, Havilecek era, Chicago just has the Jordan era. Both teams have major years of garbage which may drop them like a rock. Note, if I rank them since the merger, Chicago's 6-0 takes a bias over Celtics 4-2. By going back a few years, and when the Bulls did have a decent team with Bob Love, Jerry Sloan, etc, it becomes 6-0 versus 6-2, a closer match.

I think it's important to date things after the Russell era, because most of Boston's success goes back to those years. They haven't lived up to the Celtic Mystique at all since, and could be about the 4th best franchise since then.

I had no plans to write about the Lakers success within all this. It's kind of obvious we have done best since the merger as well as since the Russell era.

[Lakers_55]

Oh, and the best franchise since yesterday are the Spurs and Mavericks. They both won.



my attempt at humor.... :)

[Solid D]

2592 Regular Season Games (1976-77 through 2007-08 seasons)
Los Angeles 1686 Wins .650
San Antonio 1549 Wins .598
Boston 1442 Wins .556
Chicago 1318 Wins .508

[DrHouse]

As someone who was in Orlando the day Shaq left, I have to tell you that it's exponentially easier to get talent when you're in LA. Shaq took less money to go to the Lakers, and Orlando is only now starting to show signs of recovering.

I can't disagree with that. Still, the Lakers have been successful due to great ownership and GM's more than anything.

[SpursDynasty]

The argument should really be about the best cores....Certain teams dominate for short amounts of time...overall the best franchise has been the Spurs though.

Here's how I rank them:

1. Magic/Kareem Lakers of the 80's - 5 championships - 9 NBA Finals in Magic's first 12 seasons...What other team reached the NBA Finals 9 times in 12 seasons?

2. Duncan/Parker/Manu Spurs - 3 championships in 6 seasons, this one is still in the making...Above Chicago because they are the winningest franchise in pro sports since 1997 up to 2009. MJ's Bulls didn't have that kind of consistency over 12 seasons.

3. Jordan/Pippen/Phil Jackson Bulls of the 90's - 6 championships in 8 seasons. MJ got away with a lot, and if he doesn't make a bucket here or a bucket there, the Bulls don't have as many championships.

4. Larry Bird/Kevin McHale Celtics - Another team to win 3 championships in 6 seasons, I rank these lower than the Spurs because the Spurs are still going, these guys are retired and can't win any more championships, these guys didn't maintain consistency for 12 years.

So, those are the dominating cores of these 4 franchises. All other teams outside the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and 2000's Spurs haven't achieved much.

[Medvedenko]

The argument should really be about the best cores....Certain teams dominate for short amounts of time...overall the best franchise has been the Spurs though.

Here's how I rank them:

1. Magic/Kareem Lakers of the 80's - 5 championships - 9 NBA Finals in Magic's first 12 seasons...What other team reached the NBA Finals 9 times in 12 seasons?

2. Duncan/Parker/Manu Spurs - 3 championships in 6 seasons, this one is still in the making...Above Chicago because they are the winningest franchise in pro sports since 1997 up to 2009. MJ's Bulls didn't have that kind of consistency over 12 seasons.

3. Jordan/Pippen/Phil Jackson Bulls of the 90's - 6 championships in 8 seasons. MJ got away with a lot, and if he doesn't make a bucket here or a bucket there, the Bulls don't have as many championships.

4. Larry Bird/Kevin McHale Celtics - Another team to win 3 championships in 6 seasons, I rank these lower than the Spurs because the Spurs are still going, these guys are retired and can't win any more championships, these guys didn't maintain consistency for 12 years.

So, those are the dominating cores of these 4 franchises. All other teams outside the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and 2000's Spurs haven't achieved much.

I like how you left out the Kobe and Shaq years of 3 in 3 and 4 final appearances in 5 years. Plus winning a shit load of games and being 15-1 in the playoffs in year 2 of their run. Still, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend.

[SpursDynasty]

I like how you left out the Kobe and Shaq years of 3 in 3 and 4 final appearances in 5 years. Plus winning a shit load of games and being 15-1 in the playoffs in year 2 of their run. Still, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend.

That was 1999-2004. Short window there.

[FromWayDowntown]

I like how you left out the Kobe and Shaq years of 3 in 3 and 4 final appearances in 5 years. Plus winning a shit load of games and being 15-1 in the playoffs in year 2 of their run. Still, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend.

Yeah, that sort of absurdity is par for the course with SD.

There's no way to make a straight-faced argument that the Lakers haven't been the class of the league since the merger. Two clearly-defined dynasties, the best winning percentage in regular season games in the association, 17 conference finals appearances, 14 NBA Finals appearances, and 8 titles with two entirely different core groups.

It pains me as a Spurs fan, but nobody comes close to that degree of success and (really) excellence.

This entire debate, as Galileo's first post noted, is really about how you fill out the 2, 3, and 4 spots.

[FromWayDowntown]

That was 1999-2004. Short window there.

So your list has 2 teams that won 3 in 6 years and you think a team that won 3 titles and 4 conference titles over a 5 year span didn't last long enough to count towards the Lakers' successes?

Really?

[SpursDynasty]

So your list has 2 teams that won 3 in 6 years and you think a team that won 3 titles and 4 conference titles over a 5 year span didn't last long enough to count towards the Lakers' successes?

Really?

Those Celtics had 5 NBA Finals in 8 seasons, including 4 straight in 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. The reason I don't put the Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson Lakers on the list is because it took a Portland collapse in 2000, a rigged Kings series in 2002, and a bullshit Fisher shot in 2004 to even get those championships or conference championships. Take all of that out, and you're left with one championship in 2001.

Even then, it's still only 5 seasons of championship contention for the Lakers. The Bird Celtics contended for the championship for a longer span, as have the Spurs. Nothing against those Lakers, but they got things to go their way because of luck rather than actual skill.

[DrHouse]

The 2001 Lakers are hands down the best team since the 80's Lakers and Celtics.

Shaq in his absolute prime. Kobe in his athletic prime.

Incredible role players like Horry, Fox, and Fisher all playing at a high level. Once the Lakers started clicking at the end of the season they straight steam-rolled their way to the championship. I'm sure Spurs fans would love to forget the epic beatdown they received in the WCF that year the same way Lakers want to forget Game 6 last season.

[Galileo]

The 2001 Lakers are hands down the best team since the 80's Lakers and Celtics.

Every squirrel finds a nut.

[Lakers_55]

. The reason I don't put the Shaq/Kobe/Phil Jackson Lakers on the list is because it took a Portland collapse in 2000, a rigged Kings series in 2002, and a bullshit Fisher shot in 2004 to even get those championships or conference championships. Take all of that out, and you're left with one championship in 2001.


Fail, Fail, Fail.

You discredit the Lakers for the Portland collapse, but don't discredit the Celtics for our game 4 collapse in 2008. At least you credit the Lakers for the 80's where we came from 17 behind in game four at Boston in 1987. Both the latter two game 4's effectively ended the series, putting one team up 3-1 instead of 2-2 with game 5 on the road.

The series against the Kings wasn't rigged. I don't see any ref doing time for calls in that series. I do see one behind bars who reffed in a series in 2007 between the Suns and the team that eliminated them. If either was rigged, the latter series is more likely. However, no one goes there and I certainly won't. I didn't care what happened there, all I cared about was cheering on west in the finals and they didn't disappoint.

Fisher's shot in 2004 wasn't bullshit, you know that. Look in the archive thread about it, he should have had 0.6 to shoot, but he still did it in 0.4, and legally. As Shaq said postgame, one lucky shot deserves another.

[Yorae]

I just hope we don't regress, like the bulls after jordan left, by the time Duncan retires.

[Lakers_55]

I just hope we don't regress, like the bulls after jordan left, by the time Duncan retires.

Your history says you won't. Lakers and Spurs lead the NBA on rebuilding. Like death and taxes, both teams will be contending and winning titles while the Celtics and Bulls far further behind.

[Russ]

As someone who was in Orlando the day Shaq left, I have to tell you that it's exponentially easier to get talent when you're in LA. Shaq took less money to go to the Lakers, and Orlando is only now starting to show signs of recovering.

Agreed but with one caveat.

The Spurs have always had an ultraloyal fan base which has helped offset some of the small market disadvantages.

For example, when Shaq indicated he would be testing free agency, the Orlando paper published a poll in which the majority of Orlando folks said essentially "good riddance."

When Duncan explored free agency, the city of SA engaged in an outpouring of love for TD which bordered upon beseeching. One guy even got on a billboard and vowed to stay there till Duncan re-signed with the Spurs.

Don't know if it made a difference, but it couldn't have hurt.

[DazedAndConfused]

As much as I hate to admit it, the Spurs will not become a garbage team once Duncan retires....at least not for long. They have great ownership and management, they will find a way to get good again.

[Obstructed_View]

I can't disagree with that. Still, the Lakers have been successful due to great ownership and GM's more than anything.

Jerry West is awesome, but he didn't exactly do anything when he was anywhere else. Trading Elmore Smith when his value was highest was pretty good, but everyone knew Kareem was going to end up back in LA. Again, it's easy to be a good owner when other teams can't even use their Bird rights to compete for their own free agents.

[Obstructed_View]

For example, when Shaq indicated he would be testing free agency, the Orlando paper published a poll in which the majority of Orlando folks said essentially "good riddance."

The poll actually asked if they thought Shaq was worth 100 million dollars. Put anybody on the planet's name on a poll worded like that, and you'll get an overwhelming no. Shaq didn't leave because of the fanbase, he wanted to be a Laker from the time he was at Cole and everybody knew it. Whoever won that draft lottery was going to lose him to the Lakers eventually. That's power that you can't buy. It's good for you if you're a Laker fan.

[Lakers_55]

Jerry West is awesome, but he didn't exactly do anything when he was anywhere else. Trading Elmore Smith when his value was highest was pretty good, but everyone knew Kareem was going to end up back in LA. Again, it's easy to be a good owner when other teams can't even use their Bird rights to compete for their own free agents.

Bill Sharman was still coaching the Lakers and Jerry West worked as a scout when Laker owner Jack Kent Cooke and I believe general manager Fred Schaus worked out the deal for Kareem in 1975. West retired as a player in 1974, and took Sharman's place as coach in 1976-7. Bill then moved up to GM. West replaced him later, I don't recall exactly when.

[Obstructed_View]

Fisher's shot in 2004 wasn't bullshit, you know that. Look in the archive thread about it, he should have had 0.6 to shoot, but he still did it in 0.4, and legally. As Shaq said postgame, one lucky shot deserves another.

There were .8 seconds on the clock when Timmy's shot went through the hoop. Fish also got his shot off in less than .4 anyway.

BTW, Shaq only said Duncan's shot was lucky because it was over him. Manu was man enough to say Fish's shot was a good play.

[Obstructed_View]

Bill Sharman was still coaching the Lakers and Jerry West worked as a scout when Laker owner Jack Kent Cooke and I believe general manager Fred Schaus worked out the deal for Kareem in 1975. West retired as a player in 1974, and took Sharman's place as coach in 1976-7. Bill then moved up to GM. West replaced him later, I don't recall exactly when.

That's correct. I didn't mean to imply that Zeke traded for Kareem.

[DazedAndConfused]

Duncan's shot just before Fisher's .4 WAS lucky. Not only was he well outside his range, he was fading back, and trying to shoot over Shaq who was playing picture perfect defense.

Fisher's shot was really just a catch and shoot off a curl. It was infinitely easier to make despite having 0.4 on the clock.

[Lakers_55]

That's correct. I didn't mean to imply that Zeke traded for Kareem.

Zeke from Cabin Creek! This off-topic discussion shows our ages, but that's ok. :) Sometimes, those yesteryears run together, easy to confuse them.

[exstatic]

Here in Chicago, the Bulls are a joke. They don't even talk about the team on the talk shows anymore, just about how horrible they are -- and Mr. Rose's bright future.

The Spurs have RARELY ever been out of the NBA's playoff picture as a fantastic team ever since Iceman. Every team has a few down years, but the Spurs are almost always a contender. The Bulls are LUCKY to make the playoffs.

If people listened to the talk radio here in Chicago, the dynasty of Mr. Jordan has long passed. It's over. Done. Doesn't count for much anymore.

I'd much rather compete every year.

FIFY

[Obstructed_View]

Duncan's shot just before Fisher's .4 WAS lucky. Not only was he well outside his range, he was fading back, and trying to shoot over Shaq who was playing picture perfect defense.

Fisher's shot was really just a catch and shoot off a curl. It was infinitely easier to make despite having 0.4 on the clock.

Duncan historically hits those shots, but since you refer to Fisher's shot as a "catch and shoot", as though he didn't fling it up with his left hand, we won't bother having the conversation. I already said Fisher's shot was good, but Shaq saying Duncan's shot was lucky is typical sour grapes for Shaq when he gets owned, and Lakers fans of all people should recognize that.

[jonnybravo]

As someone who was in Orlando the day Shaq left, I have to tell you that it's exponentially easier to get talent when you're in LA. Shaq took less money to go to the Lakers, and Orlando is only now starting to show signs of recovering.



Shaq did NOT take less money than the Orlando offer.

[jonnybravo]

Duncan historically hits those shots, but since you refer to Fisher's shot as a "catch and shoot", as though he didn't fling it up with his left hand, we won't bother having the conversation. I already said Fisher's shot was good, but Shaq saying Duncan's shot was lucky is typical sour grapes for Shaq when he gets owned, and Lakers fans of all people should recognize that.

Yeah, Duncan has a long, storied history of fadeing away from 21' and leaning towards his right.

They both were fucken prayers.