Hollinger's All-Time Franchise Rankings

[FromWayDowntown]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

TOP 10
No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets
No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
No. 13: Detroit Pistons
No. 14: Miami Heat
No. 15: Orlando Magic
No. 16: New York Knicks
No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
No. 18: Denver Nuggets
No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
No. 20: Golden State Warriors
No. 21: New Jersey Nets
No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
No. 23: Washington Wizards
No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
No. 25: Sacramento Kings
No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
No. 27: Toronto Raptors
No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies

[honestfool84]

:wow

spurs over bulls?

[FromWayDowntown]

No. 3: San Antonio SpursComment Email Print Share By John Hollinger
ESPN.com

SAN ANTONIO SPURS:
62.05 POINTS PER SEASON (1967-2009)
Wins: 1,935
Playoff wins: 160.5
Series wins: 37
Titles: 4
All-Stars: 60
Best player: Tim Duncan
Best coach: Gregg Popovich
Best team: 1998-99 (37-13, won NBA title)

They may not have the tradition of the Lakers or Celtics, but in the two decades since they drafted David Robinson the Spurs have arguably been the most successful organization in sports. Nineteen of those 20 seasons resulted in playoff appearances, and an amazing 17 of them produced 53 wins or more (prorating for the 1998-99 season). The one season in that span when the Spurs weren't good (a 20-62 season in 1996-97 when Robinson went out with a back injury), they had the good fortune to win the lottery and draft Duncan.

Two years later they won their first title with one of the league's most underrated championship teams. With both Duncan and Robinson in their prime, it was virtually impossible to score in the paint against the Spurs, and over the final 53 games of the lockout-shortened season and playoffs they were a dominant 46-7.

San Antonio bracketed the Lakers' threepeat on the other side by winning again in 2003, and could have had a threepeat of its own if not for the infamous "0.4" shot by the Lakers' Derek Fisher in Game 5 of the conference semifinals a year later. The Spurs rebounded to beat the Pistons in seven tough games in 2005, and added a fourth title to their résumé with a four-game sweep of Cleveland in 2007. Again, they were one play from a possible threepeat -- a last-second three-point play by Dirk Nowitzki in Game 7 of the conference semifinals against Dallas in 2006 when the Spurs were up by three points.

The businesslike Spurs attract shockingly little attention despite their success, perhaps because it's so monotonous -- in 12 years with Duncan they've won at least 65 percent of their games every season and at least one playoff round 10 times.

Prior to that point they were almost the opposite, a franchise renowned for the scoring exploits of George "Iceman" Gervin but unable to win when it counted. San Antonio lost in the conference finals three times in the Gervin era, with the 1979 Eastern Conference finals loss against Washington the most painful -- the Spurs led 3-1 and had a lead in the fourth quarter of Game 7 but lost by two.

In their ABA days they also fell short, dropping a 1976 semifinal series in seven games to eventual champion New Jersey in the league's final season. That was one of only three ABA seasons they spent in San Antonio -- the others were in Dallas, where they were known as the Chaparrals and made the playoffs five times in six years.

The move down the highway earned them the relocation penalty, but in this case it had no effect on their ranking. With more wins than any other franchise except the Lakers since 1968-69, the Spurs are a comfortable No. 3 on this list.

[coyotes_geek]

:wow

spurs over bulls?

Take away the MJ era and the bulls haven't ever really done anything. Except for the mid-late 80s the Spurs have been consistently good, to great, throughout their history.

That being said I would think number of titles should trump everything else, so I wouldn't put the Spurs ahead of the bulls.

[FromWayDowntown]

:wow

spurs over bulls?

It's about his methodology, I think:

Intro to all-time NBA franchise rankings
By John Hollinger

My team is better than your team.

That simple argument is at the heart of sports. Fans can debate about players or strategies or countless other issues, but what tends to get hearts pounding the most is when fans start trading boasts about which side is better.

Almost immediately, the barbs will begin about the various sides' accomplishments. Celtics fans will throw their 17 championships in the face of anyone who dares challenge them; Lakers fans might answer with their 30 conference titles, while Spurs supporters will point out that their past decade is arguably the best of anyone's. And so on down the line, until we get to a few scattered Grizzlies supporters waiting meekly in the corner for a Clippers fan to walk by.

And that's where we step in. With six decades of history to fall back on, we can take a look in the rearview mirror and stack up each team's accomplishments from 1 to 30. Obviously we can't account for every single credit and debit over such a huge time frame, but it turns out that once we install some basic accounting principles, the list pretty much falls into place.

To start with, we set this up to look at things from the perspective of fans, as opposed to coaches or owners or -- God forbid -- statistical analysts.

Therefore, the rules are as follows:

1. Winning matters.

2. Winning in the playoffs matters more.

3. Winning a championship is far and away the best thing that can happen.

4. Watching superstars is amazing, even if the team around them isn't any good.

5. Intangibles matter: Fans want to like and admire the team they're cheering.

With those rules in mind, I set up a simple formula to award "points" for all the positives and rank the teams' accomplishments accordingly:

Regular-season wins are worth one point. This is the source of 82 percent of the points in this system, but it matters much more for non-contending teams.

Playoff wins are worth two points. You might argue that this tends to favor recent playoff teams since the current postseason is so much longer; on the other hand, it's a lot harder to accumulate these in a 30-team league than it was in an eight-team league.

Playoff series wins are worth four points. There's a big difference between 3-4 and 4-3, and having an added category for series wins reflects this fact. During some seasons the league had staggered playoff systems in which teams advanced with a bye, and in those years teams were awarded "phantom" playoff series wins for earning a bye.

Playoff losses don't matter. Nobody cares if they won 4-0 or 4-3. In fact, most fans end up with much fonder memories of a hard-fought 4-3 series then they do of a 4-0 rout.

Championships are worth 30 points. I settled on this while trying to balance out the dilemma of "Would you rather win one championship and stink for the next four years, or be halfway decent five years in a row?" I think nearly every fan would take the former over the latter, and I'm guessing a lot of Heat fans are nodding in agreement right now. Putting such a premium on championships gives us the right balance between being great and merely being competitive.

All-Star selections are worth two points each. Most fans would much rather watch superstar performers than ensemble casts, with the only exception being if it's a championship-caliber ensemble. For instance, ask a Hawks fan whether it was more fun to watch Dominique's teams in the '80s or Mookie Blaylock's in the '90s. The '90s teams were about as successful, but from a fan's perspective there's no comparison.

Relocation is a 100-point penalty. Changing cities is the ultimate failure for a sports franchise, leaving the fans in the former city out in the cold and forcing the team to build a new history with unfamiliar faces in a different locale. In a couple of instances I penalized teams 50 points for "half-relocations" -- Baltimore to Washington for the Bullets, Long Island to New Jersey for the Nets -- when they stayed in the same general region but likely had to cultivate a new base of ticket holders.

Intangibles matter too, and I created a separate category for special circumstances. For instance, the Blazers of the early part of this decade were perfectly respectable in terms of wins and losses, but few were eager to admit rooting for that team because of all the scoundrels littering the roster. This is the one part that's completely subjective, but for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles, player behavior, superstars and other major factors.

ABA playoff results count half. The NBA likes to pretend the ABA never happened when it presents historical results, but by the early 1970s the two leagues were of similar quality, and the best player in basketball (Julius Erving) was in the ABA. Still, I had to count the results at half because the league was so small at times. It's pretty easy to make a deep playoff run in a six-team league.

Once I summed up the total for each team, I divided by the number of seasons the team had played in the NBA; otherwise this system would be horribly unfair to expansion teams.

The result is a number of points per season for each team, and conveniently the average is almost exactly 50: 50.17, to be exact. In the following pages we'll get into where every team ranks and why.

[CubanMustGo]

Prior to that point they were almost the opposite, a franchise renowned for the scoring exploits of George "Iceman" Gervin but unable to win when it counted. San Antonio lost in the conference finals three times in the Gervin era, with the 1979 Eastern Conference finals loss against Washington the most painful -- the Spurs led 3-1 and had a lead in the fourth quarter of Game 7 but lost by two.


Aargh .. the pain, the pain .... make it stop !

[Old School 44]

I can agree with Spurs being third because of the overall consistency. The one thing that stands out is OKC at 12. You shouldn't be ranked (and definitely not that high) if you haven't been in existence for 2-3 years. That's like crowning Shaq the best three point shooter for going 2 for 2 beyond the arc for the year. (just an example, not sure if Shaq even shot a 3-pointer)

[Old School 44]

Sorry, for the last post. I guess I don't think of OKC as being the old Sonics.

[CubanSucks]

Celtics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lakers :bang

[Libri]

There have been no major losing droughts for the Spurs.

:flag:

[FromWayDowntown]

Sorry, for the last post. I guess I don't think of OKC as being the old Sonics.

Yeah, that OKC ranking has everything to do with the Sonics being pretty consistently good in the late-70's and early 80's and again through much of the 90's. Those teams won a boatload of regular season games for long stretches.

Helps their ranking a lot, too, I suspect, to have all of the All-Star nods for Ray Allen, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, Jack Sikma, Lenny Wilkens, and Spencer Haywood.

[wildbill2u]

Aargh .. the pain, the pain .... make it stop !

I remember the thousands of us fans that greeted the team when it returned despite the loss. And we all contributed pennies to pay for Doug Moe's fine for speaking the truth toNBA power.

[timvp]

Celtics > Lakers

Sixers > Suns

I thought the Sonics kept their stats/history and it didn't transfer to the Thunder?

That's pretty low for the Pistons.

lol rockets

[Extra Stout]

The methodology is flawed. It gives too much weight to regular-season success and not nearly enough to championships. GIGO.

[jman3000]

The methodology is flawed. It gives too much weight to regular-season success and not nearly enough to championships. GIGO.

I think that's pretty much true... with the exception to the Bulls. In that case they did the exact opposite.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

So three-peating would end up being of less value than if a franchise relocated at some point in their history?

I wonder why the Pacers didn't get dinged for their part in the brawl.

[jman3000]

I think that's pretty much true... with the exception to the Bulls. In that case they did the exact opposite.

I take that statement back. Even though they've been a losing team for the majority of their history, dominating nearly a decade has to count for something.

[ShoogarBear]

LOL, Orlando and the Sonics over the Knicks. Hollinger does it again.

[ShoogarBear]

LOL, Bucks and Thunder over Pistons.

[Extra Stout]

lol Suns #5
lol Mike D'Antoni top coach

[Kermit]

Apparently the Spurs got docked 100 points for their ABA relocation. WTF?

[024]

go clips! i probably could be a better gm over there.

[coyotes_geek]

lol Suns #5
lol Mike D'Antoni top coach

Definitely lol @ suns being #5, but if D'Antoni isn't their best coach, who is? Westphal got 'em to the finals, but 2 1/2 years later he got run out of town. Cotton Fitzsimmons had a decent run with them in the late 80s-early 90s, but they weren't anything spectacular.

[Mal]

Playoff wins: 160.5


How the hell no - integer value there ?

[spurspf]

The first 30+ years was a losing drought.

What are you talking about? The Spurs have always been consistly good. Check how many division championships they have over the past 30 years. That being said, they always lost to the Lakers in the conference championships before '99. &%$^*&^

[poop]

LOL at bucks over pistons.

[Extra Stout]

Definitely lol @ suns being #5, but if D'Antoni isn't their best coach, who is? Westphal got 'em to the finals, but 2 1/2 years later he got run out of town. Cotton Fitzsimmons had a decent run with them in the late 80s-early 90s, but they weren't anything spectacular.

John MacLeod coached them for 14 years, including the 1976 Finals appearance.

[CubanMustGo]

Apparently the Spurs got docked 100 points for their ABA relocation. WTF?

Probably for the relocation that brought the Dallas Chaparrals to SA in the first place.

[coyotes_geek]

John MacLeod coached them for 14 years, including the 1976 Finals appearance.

But D'Antoni would have taken the suns to the finals if not for David Stern! :tongue

Just kidding. Forgot MacLeod was there that long. You're right.

[Libri]

The first 30+ years was a losing drought.

Between 1973 and 1998 (25 years) the Spurs have only missed the playoffs 4 times. They have never missed the playoffs in consecutive years. Some may point to the dark ages of Spurs history, from 1983 to 1989, as a losing drought but even during this period the Spurs were able to make the playoffs 3 times. The Dallas Chaparrals missed the playoffs only once during their six year history. The Spurs have had a winning program since the beginning.

[JamStone]

Hollinger sure knows his mathematical formulas.

[da_suns_fan]

Cotton Fitzsimmons is the OBVIOUS best choice. Ask any Suns fan who been around at least as long as the KJ/Chambers era and they could tell you that.

They inducted the guy into the ring of honor.

[Spurs Brazil]

Suns at 5 is a joke

They never won anything

[picnroll]

Memphis behind the Clip joint? Is that for gifting Gasol to the Lakers?

[clubalien]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

TOP 10
No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets
No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
No. 13: Detroit Pistons
No. 14: Miami Heat
No. 15: Orlando Magic
No. 16: New York Knicks
No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
No. 18: Denver Nuggets
No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
No. 20: Golden State Warriors
No. 21: New Jersey Nets
No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
No. 23: Washington Wizards
No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
No. 25: Sacramento Kings
No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
No. 27: Toronto Raptors
No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies


I personally would have had

1.yankees
2.dallas cowboys
3.la lakers

[exstatic]

Take away the MJ era and the bulls haven't ever really done anything. Except for the mid-late 80s the Spurs have been consistently good, to great, throughout their history.

That being said I would think number of titles should trump everything else, so I wouldn't put the Spurs ahead of the bulls.

Bulls don't even belong at #4. Even WITH the Jordan years, it's a sub .500 ballclub. And if it's titles that trump everything, Boston would be #1, not LA.

[barbacoataco]

This list needs to give more credit for championships and history. The Pistons and Sixers should be higher. What he is really ranking is the most consistent team, with too much emphasis on regular season stats. I do think the Spurs should be over the Bulls, but I could see it going the other way too.

[SouthTexasRancher]

Sorry, for the last post. I guess I don't think of OKC as being the old Sonics.


They could have listed both but, then I guess they'd have to do that for several other teams like the Lakers, Kings, Jazz, etc.

[Kermit]

Probably for the relocation that brought the Dallas Chaparrals to SA in the first place.

:bang

ABA relocation. Why would that count in an NBA formula? It's (to use the parlance of our times) fucking retarded.

[CubanMustGo]

:bang

ABA relocation. Why would that count in an NBA formula? It's (to use the parlance of our times) fucking retarded.

We're talking Hollinger, remember. His formula trumps all. And since he gave partial credit for ABA playoff wins, I guess he feels justified in taking a full deduction for an ABA move.

Nobody ever said Hollinger was rational.

[Bob Lanier]

for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles.
What a goddamned asshole.

[rayray2k8]

This ranking is full of shit.

[Spurtacus]

Spurs and Bulls should be switched. WTF is Phoenix doing so high up there?

[TDMVPDPOY]

i would expect utah to be above phoenix

[Muser]

Celtics should be number 1, no question.

[L.I.T]

It's about his methodology, I think:

Intro to all-time NBA franchise rankings
By John Hollinger

Intangibles matter too, and I created a separate category for special circumstances. For instance, the Blazers of the early part of this decade were perfectly respectable in terms of wins and losses, but few were eager to admit rooting for that team because of all the scoundrels littering the roster. This is the one part that's completely subjective, but for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles, player behavior, superstars and other major factors.



Quintessential Hollinger. Trying to pass himself off as an impartial stathead, then fudging with the formula to get the result he wants. This is the ultimate bullshit. So, do you penalize the Detroit Pistons because their teams in the late 80s were "Bad Boys" on the court? Do you add points to the Lakers because they were just so damn stylish in the mid-80s?

Oh, Vinny Del Negro's hair sucked! Deduct 150 points from the Spurs! I love me some Kobe! Add 100 points! The Heat girls are hot! Add 150 points! Milwaukee is too cold! Deduct 25 points!

[exstatic]

Spurs and Bulls should be switched. WTF is Phoenix doing so high up there?

No, they shouldn't. Outside of one ten year period, the Bulls were abysmal. For 10 years, they're the Lakers, but for the other 33, they're the Clippers, and you think they belong in the top 3? WTF?

[Extra Stout]

Even WITH the Jordan years, it's a sub .500 ballclub.False.


No, they shouldn't. Outside of one ten year period, the Bulls were abysmal.False.


For 10 years, they're the Lakers, but for the other 33, they're the Clippers, and you think they belong in the top 3? WTF?
An strong opinion largely uninformed by facts.

[sonic21]

Celtics should be number 1, no question.

The Lakers should be #1.

They've missed the playoffs 5 times since 1948.

They've been to the Finals 30 times.

They're on their way to winning #15, 2 behind Boston


FTL

[coyotes_geek]

Just for conversation sake........

The Bulls minus their 10 best seasons, 1988-89 thru 1997-98.
Seasons: 32
Reg. Season win %: 0.443
Playoff series wins: 5 (0.156 per year)

The Clippers entire history.
Seasons: 39
Win %: 0.362
Playoff series wins: 2 (0.051/yr)

So it's a little harsh to say the Bulls minus one decade of MJ were Clippers bad, but not by as much as I would have thought. However, there is a team who compares a little closer.

The Minnesota Timberwolves.
Seasons: 20
Win %: 0.419
Playoff series wins: 2 (0.100/yr)

I didn't count playoff appearances because when the Bulls came into the league there were only 10 teams, and 8 of them made the playoffs.