SAS: Most successful franchise since 1997.

[Brutalis]

I have seen that said many times here but with no links or proof.

???

[FromWayDowntown]

the Tim Duncan era has been the most exciting in the Spurs 32-year history … over the last eight seasons – since Duncan joined the team in 1997-98 – the Spurs have posted a regular season record of 438-186 … the team’s winning percentage of .702 during that span is the best of any team in the four major sports (MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL)

This was from the Peter Holt page in the
Spurs Media Guide (http://www.nba.com/media/spurs/mg0506_staff.pdf).

[gameFACE]

ESPN had something on this a couple of years ago.

[Brutalis]

This was from the Peter Holt page in the
Spurs Media Guide (http://www.nba.com/media/spurs/mg0506_staff.pdf).
Didn't see anything about the most successful franchise since 97.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's a pretty silly number, in a sense, because it's totally arbitrary to select 1997 as the starting point. The Patriots have pimped themselves as the only franchise in American professional sports to win 3 titles since 2001. Again, it's correct and impressive, but totally arbitrary.

[Jimcs50]

Spurs are 2nd most successful franchise in NBA history in winning percentage, 2nd only to Lakers.


How is that?

[FromWayDowntown]

Didn't see anything about the most successful franchise since 97.

Read the part that I quoted in my first post in this thread.

[Mr. Body]

Spurs are 2nd most successful franchise in NBA history in winning percentage, 2nd only to Lakers.


How is that?

Yeah, they passed the Celtics this year, didn't they?

[Extra Stout]

Read the part that I quoted in my first post in this thread.
The hang-up is the word "successful." In Arkansas, that word connotes living in a double-wide. I don't think any Spurs live in a double-wide.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, they passed the Celtics this year, didn't they?

Not yet.

FWIW -- in terms of BAA/NBA games here are the franchise standings (current franchises) as of the end of the 2005-06 regular season:

.615 - Los Angeles Lakers (2806-1759)
.593 - Boston Celtics (2770-1905)
.591 - San Antonio Spurs (1435-993)

.551 - Phoenix Suns (1698-1386)
.539 - Philadelphia 76ers (2426-2074)
.537 - Milwaukee Bucks (1656-1428)
.535 - Seattle Supersonics (1694-1472)
.535 - Utah Jazz (1388-1204)
.533 - Portland Trail Blazers (1556-1364)
.509 - Chicago Bulls (1654-1593)
.507 - New York Knickerbockers (2366-2305)
.498 - Houston Rockets (1577-1589)
.494 - Indiana Pacers (1200-1228)
.493 - Detroit Pistons (2249-2315)
.493 - Miami Heat (712-732)
.491 - Atlanta Hawks (2209-2293)
.485 - Orlando Magic (660-702)
.479 - Sacramento Kings (2187-2378)
.475 - NO/Oklahoma City Hornets (686-758)
.469 - Dallas Mavericks (984-1116)
.460 - Golden State Warriors (2148-2522)
.460 - Denver Nuggets (1117-1311)
.458 - Washington Wizards (1672-1975)
.445 - Cleveland Cavaliers (1299-1621)
.437 - Minnesota Timberwolves (595-767)
.429 - New Jersey Nets (1041-1387)
.392 - Toronto Raptors (341-529)
.364 - Los Angeles Clippers (1064-1856)
.340 - Memphis Grizzlies (296-574)
.268 - Charlotte Bobcats (44-120)

[nbascribe]

This is the following from the game notes that the media gets from the Spurs before each game:

Spurs Named No. 1 Franchise in Sports

According to ESPN The Magazine’s fourth annual Ultimate Standings fan poll the San Antonio Spurs are the best franchise in sports for the second time in the last ...after their first recognition on 2/4/04 by ESPN the Magazine as the best franchise in sports the Spurs are now the only franchise to have named the top franchise in all of sports twice since the poll’s debut...the Spurs finished second in last year’s poll to this year’s No. 2 franchise, the Detroit Pistons...in addition to being named the top franchise, the Spurs also took home the No. 1 spot in three other categories that were included in the poll--Fan Relations, Ownership and Players...to determine the No. 1 franchise in sports more than 30,000 fans participated in the Ultimate Standings poll online through ESPN.com from October to November 2005, giving grades to their favorite teams on the following seven categories:
Bang for the Buck (BNG)--Revenues directly from fans divided by wins in the past three years.
Fan Relations (FRL)--Ease of access to players, coaches and management.
Ownership (OWN)--Honesty; loyalty to players and city.
Affordability (AFF)--Price of tickets, parking and concessions.
Stadium Experience (STD)--Friendliness of environment; quality of game-day promotions.
Players (PLA)--Effort on the field; likability off it.
Coach/ Manager (CCH)--Strong on-field leadership.
Championships (CHA)--Titles already won or expected soon.
All Franchises
Team Overall BNG FRL OWN AFF STD PLA CCH CHA
1. San Antonio Spurs 1 3 1 1 6 6 1 3 5
2. Detroit Pistons 2 2 6 3 8 8 2 39 3
3. Pittsburgh Steelers 3 9 5 2 24 22 4 11 17
4. Indianapolis Colts 4 1 8 14 11 69 6 6 29
5. Anaheim Angels 5 4 9 30 5 10 26 8 1
NBA Teams
Team Overall BNG FRL OWN AFF STD PLA CCH CHA
1. San Antonio Spurs 1 3 1 1 6 6 1 3 5
2. Detroit Pistons 2 2 6 3 8 8 2 39 3
3. Indiana Pacers 12 14 60 4 15 4 30 15 38
4. Dallas Mavericks 15 23 7 22 33 2 25 28 44
5. Phoenix Suns 20 20 16 25 45 33 9 34 45

That is from the last playoff game notes for this season and answers Bru's first post of the thread.

Don't know of any other ESPN reference but the Spurs have been in the top 5 of this list since 2003.

[ShoogarBear]

Amazing that Phoenix is #4 in all-time winning percentage and have no championships, and either the Heat or the Mavs will have one.

[nbascribe]

Shows the consistency of the Suns making it to the playoffs SB.

That's a part of a good franchise. Even though you may not win the cupie doll, you should at least be in the running for it every year.

[FromWayDowntown]

Shows the consistency of the Suns making it to the playoffs SB.

That's a part of a good franchise. Even though you may not win the cupie doll, you should at least be in the running for it every year.

I think that's exactly what the list proves and I'm sure ShoogarBear knows that. I think SB's point was more about how strange that a team could have the sort of sustained success that the Suns have without ever once getting over the top.

It stands to reason that the list reflects better on teams that consistently make the playoffs, even if they aren't big winners at the end. Since the merger, the Spurs have missed the playoffs 4 times: 1984, 1987, 1989, and 1997. Couple that with several 60+ win seasons and a boatload of 50+ win seasons, and they're in the elite class that is historically heads-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of regular season winning percentage. It's about a sustained level of good play.

FWIW -- the number of playoff appearances for each franchise since 1977 (this is the 30th playoff season since the merger):

28 - LAL
26 - SA
26 - PRT
24 - PNX
21 - HOU
20 - BOS
20 - PHIL
20 - SEA
20 - NYK
20 - UTH
19 - DET
19 - MIL
18 - CHI
18 - IND
18 - ATL
17 - DEN
15 - NJN
14 - KC/SAC
13 - WAS
13 - CLE
12 - DAL
11 - MIA
9 - NO/CHA
8 - MIN
8 - ORL
6 - GST
4 - LAC
3 - MEM
3 - TOR

[ShoogarBear]

You may have just posted the two most amazing records of all: the Warriors have only made the playoffs 6 times in 30 years, and the Clippers only 4.

And don't forget the Spurs not making the playoffs in 1997 was a huge fluke, although one we're happy about. :smokin

[FromWayDowntown]

You may have just posted the two most amazing records of all: the Warriors have only made the playoffs 6 times in 30 years, and the Clippers only 4.

Perhaps more amazing still is the fact that half of the Clippers 4 playoff appearances have come since the last time the Warriors qualified for the post-season. Since 1994, the Clippers have danced twice, while the Warriors (or a proxy for them) has participated in 12 consecutive lotteries.


And don't forget the Spurs not making the playoffs in 1997 was a huge fluke, although one we're happy about. :smokin

No doubt.

:fro

[Darrin]

1997-98 is not a "out of the blue" number - it's when Tim Duncan came to town and the end of Michael Jordan's career in Chicago. Only the Indiana Pacers and San Antonio Spurs have gone without a losing season in that time. The Los Angeles Lakers and San Antonio Spurs are the only teams to win 3 or more titles in that timeframe. They have made the Conference Finals four times, an honor they share with the Pistons and Pacers. Only the LA Lakers have been in the Conference Finals more.

It's an arbitrary term, but the Spurs have been the most successful in the post-Jordan era.

[FromWayDowntown]

1997-98 is not a "out of the blue" number - it's when Tim Duncan came to town and the end of Michael Jordan's career in Chicago. Only the Indiana Pacers and San Antonio Spurs have gone without a losing season in that time. The Los Angeles Lakers and San Antonio Spurs are the only teams to win 3 or more titles in that timeframe. They have made the Conference Finals four times, an honor they share with the Pistons and Pacers. Only the LA Lakers have been in the Conference Finals more.

It's an arbitrary term, but the Spurs have been the most successful in the post-Jordan era.

True. And I'd think that if you did the calculation starting with pretty much any year since 1997-98, the Spurs would be at the top of the heap (other than one that only included 2005-06). It's arbitrary, but it isn't unreasonable.

Frankly, I'm more impressed by the all-time standings and the wide disparity between the top 3 and everyone else. I suspect that if you asked most average basketball fans to identify the top 3 winningest franchises in NBA history, they probably would get 2 of them, but not pick the Spurs as the 3rd.

I pointed this out somewhere else in discussing Gregg Popovich's record as a coach, but the 4 WCF appearances and the 3 Finals appearances would seem disappointing in the main. But if you think really hard about, the Spurs are .4 in 2004 and the last 30 seconds of Game 7 in 2006 from likely having made 4 straight Finals appearances and having appeared in 6 of 8 WCF since 1999.

[DubMcDub]

The thread title is most likely accurate, though I think you could make a case for a few other teams.

[FromWayDowntown]

The thread title is most likely accurate, though I think you could make a case for a few other teams.

I don't think the Spurs (or anyone else, really) has tried to play this off as Spurs success versus other's success, mostly because success is a very subjective term. You could try to quantify success in some fashion, but there would undoubtedly be quarrels concerning the factors considered.

I think the Spurs have played on the media statements that the franchise has the best winning percentage of any franchise in professional sports since 1997-98 -- that is a fact.

[GrandeDavid]

Well, I remember reading in the Express News last month, and I clipped the article but its at my house in San Antonio and I'm in Brazil at the moment, unfortunately, so I cannot share it, but it says that the Spurs are something like .590 all time in the playoffs. That's pretty damn good.

[DubMcDub]

I don't think the Spurs (or anyone else, really) has tried to play this off as Spurs success versus other's success, mostly because success is a very subjective term. You could try to quantify success in some fashion, but there would undoubtedly be quarrels concerning the factors considered.

I think the Spurs have played on the media statements that the franchise has the best winning percentage of any franchise in professional sports since 1997-98 -- that is a fact.

Well I'm just saying I think I agree with it, with only a slight reservation.

[GrandeDavid]

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, the Spurs have the best overall winning percentage in the league since 1997, or Tim's rookie year. Pretty special when you consider San Antonio's market size.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well I'm just saying I think I agree with it, with only a slight reservation.

I'm just saying that the number that is used to prove the winningest point is one that nobody could really disagree with.

If you wanted to talk success, yeah, I'd agree that there are other things that enter into the mix and other franchises that warrant consideration.

[DubMcDub]

I'm just saying that the number that is used to prove the winningest point is one that nobody could really disagree with.

If you wanted to talk success, yeah, I'd agree that there are other things that enter into the mix and other franchises that warrant consideration.

Well I said I believe the thread title was probably accurate...the thread title says "Most successful", which, as you said, is subjective. It doesn't say simply "best winning %".

Anyway it seems a bit like you're arguing with me over nothing since I pretty much agreed with the OP.

[nbascribe]

okay why we bickering over this? Numbers don't lie people. And if everyone is agreeing on what's the outcome, what's the deal. This ain't Washington, D.C. or the Pennsylvania senate trying to pass a helmet law.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I remember reading in the Express News last month, and I clipped the article but its at my house in San Antonio and I'm in Brazil at the moment, unfortunately, so I cannot share it, but it says that the Spurs are something like .590 all time in the playoffs. That's pretty damn good.

It would be incorrect. The Spurs are among the franchise leaders in all-time playoff winning percentage -- they're 4th behind LA, Chicago, and Boston -- with a 128-114 record: a .529 winning percentage.

For those who dare to dream, here are the to-the-moment franchise winning percentages, all-time, for the 7 franchises that are currently over .500 in playoff games:

.601 - Los Angeles Lakers (382-254)
.578 - Boston Celtics (288-210)
.569 - Chicago Bulls (151-114)
.529 - San Antonio Spurs (128-114)
.522 - Philadelphia 76'ers (204-187)
.517 - Detroit Pistons (168-157)
.506 - New York Knicks (179-175)

[Brutalis]

The hang-up is the word "successful." In Arkansas, that word connotes living in a double-wide. I don't think any Spurs live in a double-wide.
Thanks dude.... appreciate it.

[ducks]

Spurs are 2nd most successful franchise in NBA history in winning percentage, 2nd only to Lakers.


How is that?


amazing since pop and cheap holt are key people of spurs :lol

[exstatic]

Damn, FWD is right. He made me go back and check my spreadsheet, and the starting figures I had were from nba.com's web page and covered up through 2001-2002. I then went back in and added 2002 again. Duh. Sorry folks, looks like next year we should pass the Celtics.

As an aside, if SA wins 61 games next year, they will have averaged 60 wins over a 6 year period. Fucking amazing.

[ShoogarBear]

Damn, FWD is right. Blind squirrel. Nut. Monkeys. Hamlet.

[gospursgojas]

28 - LAL
26 - SA
26 - PRT
24 - PNX
21 - HOU
20 - BOS
20 - PHIL
20 - SEA
20 - NYK
20 - UTH
19 - DET
19 - MIL
18 - CHI
18 - IND
18 - ATL
17 - DEN
15 - NJN
14 - KC/SAC
13 - WAS
13 - CLE
12 - DAL
11 - MIA
9 - NO/CHA
8 - MIN
8 - ORL
6 - GST
4 - LAC
3 - MEM
3 - TOR

So the Spurs have only missed the playoffs 4 times since the merger???

Thats freaking amazing

[NBA Junkie]

I have seen that said many times here but with no links or proof.

???

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/marty_burns/12/08/spurs/index.html

I realize that this article is from late 2004, but, also remember that the Spurs regular season record is 107-39 since that article was published. All they have done since then is fortify their stronghold as the winningest team in the four major sports during that time.

And, yes, Tim Duncan has an awful lot to do with that.

[T Park]

And, yes, Tim Duncan has an awful lot to do with that

No question.

[polandprzem]

Yeah Tim Duncan got dominated by Dirk Nowitzki. How sad is that.
Next year Amare will ick his as