Division Titles Comparison

[Darkwaters]

Winning your Division is just about the most minor team accomplishment that you can have in a season (you'd probably rather win a playoff series than your Division), but it is a title none the less and definitely worthy of praise and pride. I thought I'd compare the Spurs' Division Titles against the rest of the NBA. Because while playoff series, and to a certain degree championships, depend in part on getting hot and staying healthy, consistently winning your Division shows quality performance over many many years.

This does not take into account ABA or BBA Division Titles - only NBA.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic Division
Boston - 21
Brooklyn - 4
New York - 5
Philadelphia - 5
Toronto - 1

Central Division
Chicago - 9
Cleveland - 3
Detroit - 9
Indiana - 5
Milwaukee - 13

Southeast Division
Atlanta - 4
Charlotte - 0
Miami - 10
Orlando - 5
Washington - 7

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Northwest Division
Denver - 7
Minnesota - 1
Oklahoma City - 9 (includes Seattle Sonics history)
Portland - 4
Utah - 8

Pacific Division
Golden State - 2
LA Clippers - 1
LA Lakers - 23
Phoenix - 6
Sacramento - 3

Southwest Division
Memphis - 0
New Orleans - 1
Dallas - 3
Houston - 4
San Antonio - 19

Some interesting notes:

- While the Lakers have 23 Division Titles, 4 of them came while the Spurs were still in the ABA. Meaning that since 1976 they both have 19.
- The Celtics have 21 Division Titles, but 4 of them came while the Spurs were still in the ABA. Meaning that since 1976 the Celtics only have 17, or two fewer than San Antonio.
- Therefore: since 1976, when the Spurs joined the NBA, they are tied with the Lakers for the most Division Titles at 19.

- The only teams without Division Titles are Memphis and Charlotte. The LA Clippers got their first this season.
- Milwaukee has won a LOT more Division Titles than I would have thought. They're the 4th highest in the League (with only SA, LA Lakers and Boston ahead of them)
- The Knicks only have 5 Division Titles? For one of the "marquee" teams of the League, thats honestly pathetic.


While I was pulling this for laughs I thought I'd note all the teams that have losing records in the finals:

Brooklyn Nets (0-2 in Finals series)
New York Knicks (2-6 in Finals series)
Philadelphia (3-6 in Finals series)
Detroit (3-4 in Finals series)
Atlanta (1-3 in Finals series)
Orlando (0-2 in Finals series)
Washington (1-3 in Finals series)
OKC (formerly Seattle) (1-3 in Finals series)
Portland (1-2 in Finals series)
Utah (0-2 in Finals series)
Golden State (2-3 in Finals series)
Phoenix (0-2 in Finals series)

The Lakers didn't quite make the cut, being 17-15 in Finals series.
Boston is an impressive 17-4 in Finals series. However, they've only won 5 NBA Championships since 1976.

[racm]

Milwaukee once had a cat named Lew Alcindor on their roster, and they were pretty much to the 80s as the Suns were to the 2000s: Always good enough to finish with a top record, but kept running into a great team in the playoffs.

[barakz21]

Milwaukee once had a cat named Lew Alcindor on their roster, and they were pretty much to the 80s as the Suns were to the 2000s: Always good enough to finish with a top record, but kept running into a great team in the playoffs.

But didn't they have the Big O when this guy Alcindor was still with them?

[racm]

But didn't they have the Big O when this guy Alcindor was still with them?

Yeah. Went on to win 66 games and the Finals. KAJ then proceeded to pull a Dwightmare before it was cool.

[Harry Callahan]

The Spurs may have more than 19 division titles since the NBA-ABA merger (Its been 37 seasons). The Spurs used to be in the Eastern Conference and won the Central Division along the way. The also won the old Midwest Division when they were moved to the Western Conference.

By the way, the Lakers have always been in the Pacific Division. That has never changed.

[Gervin44Silas13]

I hate that The Lakers add the Minnesota NBA Titles....it dosent count...sorry those dont belong in LA

[Spur|n|Austin]

Nice info, thanks Darkwaters :tu

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

Pretty striking that the Bulls have won only 9 division titles but 6 championships, while the Spurs have won 19 division titles and 4 championships.

That means the Bulls were absolutely excellent but then faded, while the Spurs were a much more longterm, consistent team.


In my opinion, the Spurs are like the Tom Landry-coached Dallas Cowboys from 1966-1982; while not winning that many championships, a very consistently good team for a very long time.

[Obstructed_View]

I remember when it was a big deal for the Spurs to win a division title. They actually had banners up in Hemisfair. I try not to forget that when I'm counting my basketball blessings.

[smrattler]

I think the most minor accomplishment a team can make is "just" making it to the playoffs. I'll take a division title. Making it in the top 8 in your conference is nothing, 16 teams make the playoffs (most teams in the NBA).

[capek]

Pretty striking that the Bulls have won only 9 division titles but 6 championships, while the Spurs have won 19 division titles and 4 championships.

That means the Bulls were absolutely excellent but then faded, while the Spurs were a much more longterm, consistent team.


In my opinion, the Spurs are like the Tom Landry-coached Dallas Cowboys from 1966-1982; while not winning that many championships, a very consistently good team for a very long time.

Ya, if you take away Jordan's Bulls that franchise is nothing special. Championships are definitely how teams are measured in professional sports, but just as far as sustained excellence is concerned, there's really no franchise that has been more successful than the Spurs. OP if you have those links handy, and the time and inclination, you should make a list of playoff appearances per franchise since 1976. Spurs have only missed the playoffs what, 4-6 times since they've been in the NBA. I'm certain that is another stat that would put them well ahead of the pack. :tu

[Darkwaters]

Ya, if you take away Jordan's Bulls that franchise is nothing special. Championships are definitely how teams are measured in professional sports, but just as far as sustained excellence is concerned, there's really no franchise that has been more successful than the Spurs. OP if you have those links handy, and the time and inclination, you should make a list of playoff appearances per franchise since 1976. Spurs have only missed the playoffs what, 4-6 times since they've been in the NBA. I'm certain that is another stat that would put them well ahead of the pack. :tu

We've missed the playoffs four times. Ever.

We've also won the lottery two of those times. Chew on that for a second.

[Darkwaters]

Does the fact that the Knicks only have 5 Division Titles and 2 Championships not surprise anybody else? I guess I just never realized how generally unimpressive they've been throughout their existance. Sure they've been to 8 finals, but they lost 6 of them. They just always get hyped and people talk them up, but they're not an overly "stacked" franchise. I kind of always figured that they had a bunch of banners in the rafters from the 40's, 50's and 60's like the Lakers and Celtics.

[tesseractive]

The Lakers didn't quite make the cut, being 17-15 in Finals series.
Boston is an impressive 17-4 in Finals series. However, they've only won 5 NBA Championships since 1976.
IMO, 17-15 is a much more impressive record than 17-4, unless you think that this year's Lakers showing was better than 2008, when they lost to the Celtics in the Finals.

The consistency involved in playing in 32 finals over the years is a close cousin to the kind of consistency the Spurs have shown in winning 50 games for 14 years in a row. I hate the Lakers, but I give them their due.

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

I've always thought the Lakers-Celtics rivalry is a bit like the Cowboys-Steelers rivalry.

[Darkwaters]

IMO, 17-15 is a much more impressive record than 17-4, unless you think that this year's Lakers showing was better than 2008, when they lost to the Celtics in the Finals.

The consistency involved in playing in 32 finals over the years is a close cousin to the kind of consistency the Spurs have shown in winning 50 games for 14 years in a row. I hate the Lakers, but I give them their due.

Eh, I'm really not THAT impressed when I look at the numbers and do a little analysis.

13 of those Finals appearances come before 1970, at that time the league had like 8-10 teams. Some of the other ones come in the early 70's when the league only had about 16 teams. Frankly, it's much more difficult to win a championship when there are 29 other teams fighting for it than when there are 7. So the sheer volume of championship appearances and wins doesn't do much for me to be honest. But I will agree that the Lakers have been a great team. Theres a period where they were the #1 seed in the playoffs for 9 seasons in a row. And they do have a lot of championships in the more modern NBA as well, obviously.

Still, the Lakers have so many advantages over a team like San Antonio or Milwaukee as to make it obscenely unfair.

[Obstructed_View]

Eh, I'm really not THAT impressed when I look at the numbers and do a little analysis.

13 of those Finals appearances come before 1970, at that time the league had like 8-10 teams. Some of the other ones come in the early 70's when the league only had about 16 teams. Frankly, it's much more difficult to win a championship when there are 29 other teams fighting for it than when there are 7. So the sheer volume of championship appearances and wins doesn't do much for me to be honest. But I will agree that the Lakers have been a great team. Theres a period where they were the #1 seed in the playoffs for 9 seasons in a row. And they do have a lot of championships in the more modern NBA as well, obviously.

Still, the Lakers have so many advantages over a team like San Antonio or Milwaukee as to make it obscenely unfair.

By that logic, you have to take away all of the stats from the old era, because two teams bought up all the talent, and everyone else was their farm system. There were only two rounds in the playoffs before 1966.

[Darkwaters]

By that logic, you have to take away all of the stats from the old era, because two teams bought up all the talent, and everyone else was their farm system. There were only two rounds in the playoffs before 1966.

I'd say the logic is sound then. I'm not saying that those years never existed or didn't happen. I'm just saying that they don't impress me nearly as much as a Championship won in today's league with 3-4 times more teams and more competition.

[Gervin44Silas13]

To me the Championships of the Celtics and Minn Lakers are paper Champions.....8 to 10 teams in a small league....after the 1976 ABA expansion the NBA became more competative....the Spurs and Nuggets were teams that came out with winning records....I feel however the leauge screwed themwhen the Spurs became the 1st ABA team to get to a Conference Final in 1979....they werent alowed to be on TV....hmmmmmm?

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought this was interesting: in Tim Duncan's era (1997-98 forward), the Spurs have won 30 playoff series.

There is only one other franchise (Lakers) that has even played in 30 playoff series.

For the sake of comparison, here is the total number of playoff series played by each franchise since the beginning of the 1998 playoffs:

42 -- LA Lakers (32-10)
41 -- San Antonio (30-11)(2013 Finals pending)
27 -- Miami (17-10)*
25 -- Detroit (16-9)
24 -- Dallas (13-11)
24 -- Indiana (13-11)*
23 -- Boston (14-9)
20 -- Utah (9-11)
18 -- Phoenix (8-10)
17 -- New Jersey/Brooklyn (9-8)
17 -- Philadelphia (7-10)
16 -- OKC/Seattle (8-8)
16 -- Chicago (8-8)
16 -- Orlando (6-10)
15 -- New York (7-8)
14 -- Cleveland (8-6)
13 -- Sacramento (5-8)
13 -- Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets (4-9)
13 -- Portland (4-9)
12 -- Atlanta (4-8)
12 -- Denver (2-10)
10 -- Milwaukee (2-8)
9 -- Memphis (3-6)
9 -- Minnesota (2-7)
9 -- Houston (1-8)
6 -- Toronto (1-5)
5 -- LA Clippers (2-3)
5 -- Washington (1-4)
4 -- Golden State (2-2)
1 -- Charlotte Bobcats (0-1)