The Best and Worst NBA Teams Since [YEAR]

[FromWayDowntown]

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/7/30/5951329/spurs-lakers-clippers-chart-best-worst-nba-franchises

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4834938/Best-Since-NBA.png

[Captivus]

So the Spurs are the best team ever?

[spurraider21]

regular season championships tbh

[ElNono]

It's actually pretty interesting there's somewhat of an hegemony also on the worst team column (Clippers, Wolves)... there's no reason why those teams would be there for so long other than inept management...

Thanks for sharing.

[spurs1990]

Can someone explain the table a little further?

I can buy that the Spurs have the best cumulative record from 2005-2014. So does the table mean that there is a tie in record from 2004 until now? Why are there breaks in years?

[D-rob fan]

No tie. From the article, it says the spurs have had best record since 1987. The breaks in the years is just to make the table shorter. You can see it goes by every 5 years from 1990 and earlier.

Also, this chart is dynamic and can change if the spurs get worse in subsequent years and if another team gets better. So say, spurs go winless this year and OKC gets the best record. The spurs would then lose a few of these years since this winless season would make their cumulative win/loss % plummet.

[mudyez]

Damn!...Still got some work to do...I was born in '79 and can't live in a world with more Lakers wins than Spurs wins.

[Hoops Czar]

Nobody could stop those Spurs teams of the '50's. I'm surprised the Celtics didn't get mentioned. I guess winning 11 championships in 13 years does nothing for your resume. My bias detector just broke reading this article.

[vander]

Nobody could stop those Spurs teams of the '50's. I'm surprised the Celtics didn't get mentioned. I guess winning 11 championships in 13 years does nothing for your resume. My bias detector just broke reading this article.

because the 90's

[D-rob fan]

Yeah exactly as Vander stated. Boston isn't on here because of how badly they played in the 90s.

Like I said this chart is dynamic if you keep adding on years. The spurs could disappear completely from this chart if we end up losing.

Even though the spurs didn't exist in the 50s, they show up cause the Lakers % drops below the spurs if u include those earlier lakers years. It's technically correct that we have the best record since 1950.

This would mean an expansion team could technically take over every year since 1950 if they had the best win%.

[Obstructed_View]

Nobody could stop those Spurs teams of the '50's. I'm surprised the Celtics didn't get mentioned. I guess winning 11 championships in 13 years does nothing for your resume. My bias detector just broke reading this article.

Agreed. Kudos to the Spurs fan who came up with this measuring device, however.

[spurs1990]

OK thanks for the explanation.

In other words the Spurs have the best record in the history in the league.

Let's see if the national media will mention this fact even once.

[Obstructed_View]

It's actually pretty interesting there's somewhat of an hegemony also on the worst team column (Clippers, Wolves)... there's no reason why those teams would be there for so long other than inept management.


http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Zyxru3J0--/18f21u6kxavirjpg.jpg
VS
http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sterling-stiviano.jpg

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Nobody could stop those Spurs teams of the '50's. I'm surprised the Celtics didn't get mentioned. I guess winning 11 championships in 13 years does nothing for your resume. My bias detector just broke reading this article.

"This chart uses cumulative win-loss percentage data since each year denoted. So a proper sentence using the table data would be: "Since [YEAR], [TEAM 1] has the NBA's best record and [TEAM 2] has the NBA's worst record."

You can't read or you can't understand?

[Richie]

I dislike the table for a number of reasons, but the idea that the Spurs are the 'best team' since 1950 is absurd considering the team was founded in '67.

Does this mean if an expansion team somehow managed to win 62 games they would become the 'best team since 1950' too? Because that's basically what this table would say. The precedent would be the Bucks, who after drafting Kareem after the franchises first season spent 4 of the next 5 seasons as a 59+ win team.

Basically, the table is a horrible use of statistics.

[Captivus]

It's actually pretty interesting there's somewhat of an hegemony also on the worst team column (Clippers, Wolves)... there's no reason why those teams would be there for so long other than inept management...

Thanks for sharing.

Either that or the first GMs made such a bad job that even though the others did well they couldnt compensate the initial disaster. (hope my english makes sense).

[exstatic]

I dislike the table for a number of reasons, but the idea that the Spurs are the 'best team' since 1950 is absurd considering the team was founded in '67.

Does this mean if an expansion team somehow managed to win 62 games they would become the 'best team since 1950' too? Because that's basically what this table would say. The precedent would be the Bucks, who after drafting Kareem after the franchises first season spent 4 of the next 5 seasons as a 59+ win team.

Basically, the table is a horrible use of statistics.

They hypothetically could, although it would be very unlikely. They'd drop off, just like the Bucks did, when they lose.

I think they stack the odds against new expansion teams, now. In 1988, the Hornets and Heat were shunted back to picks # 8 and 9. In 1989, the Magic and T'Wolves picked at #10 and 11. In 1995, the Grizz and Raps picked #6 and 7.

[PublicOption]

JUST WIN, BABY!

[Jimcs50]

Spurs did not exist in the 60s, much less the 50s. This is fucked up

[ElNono]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Zyxru3J0--/18f21u6kxavirjpg.jpg

Always had mad respect for Dr Buss, despite the overall Lakers hate... GOAT owner in more ways than one...

[Obstructed_View]

Always had mad respect for Dr Buss, despite the overall Lakers hate... GOAT owner in more ways than one...

True, but Donald Sterling is a legendarily poor owner. There were a lot of years that the Clippers had good talent and just let it go because Sterling wasn't willing to pay for them. He could let free agents go and count on high draft picks to get him new talent and keep fans just interested enough to keep showing up, plus the market was so huge that fans of visiting teams would snatch up tickets. Elgin Baylor should have accused Sterling of calling him a coon 20 years ago.

[ElNono]

True, but Donald Sterling is a legendarily poor owner. There were a lot of years that the Clippers had good talent and just let it go because Sterling wasn't willing to pay for them. He could let free agents go and count on high draft picks to get him new talent and keep fans just interested enough to keep showing up, plus the market was so huge that fans of visiting teams would snatch up tickets. Elgin Baylor should have accused Sterling of calling him a coon 20 years ago.

Yeah, Sterling was terrible. You have to wonder if his Alzheimer made him forget he was supposed to keep sucking as an owner, tbh

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Zyxru3J0--/18f21u6kxavirjpg.jpg
VS
http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sterling-stiviano.jpg

Thank God it's now:::

http://i.imgur.com/VEvzUTH.jpg

VS

http://i.imgur.com/VOI1eec.jpg

[Obstructed_View]

Someone get that billionaire an NBA ball for God's sake.