Top 4 were easy. I'm sure some will argue flipping the Lakers/Celtics and the Spurs/Bulls. Even though the Bulls have more les, the Spurs have a sustained excellence. I'm surprised he didn't give any intangibles for the Spurs.
I would have maybe given them a "good guy" reputation or a "cap management" intangible. He gave a "no knuckleheads" intangible to the Suns.
Probably got cancelled out by the "market too small for anybody not born in SA to care about" intangible.
I'm still happy the Spurs got their fair share in this. I was a bit surprised out of the top 4... it took him a while to rank e.g. Houston, Detroit or NY compared to teams with no championships.
Also if you notice Orlando (and Shaq) are ranked ahead of teams with a higher score than them
Phoenix #5 with 0 les
The only team I would even consider for the top 10 with no les would be the Jazz. The Pistons should have easily been top 10.
Thank the good Lord for Tim Duncan. To see that we are ranked just below the Lakers and Celtics and above the Bulls is mind boggling.
It's amazing what Tim Duncan has done for this franchise. Some on here said pop would admit that kobe should be ranked higher all time than Duncan. I forgot who that person was but that person is nuts. We would have won zero les with Kobe.
no its mind bottling!.. "you know when things get crazy &your thoughts get all trapped like in a bottle" haha
THose rankings are re ed
pheonix at 5?
David Robinson looks like a kid who has to pee in that pic
Rankings were valid until I saw Suns at #5
The Spurs have missed the playoffs just 4 times in 34 NBA seasons. Just think about that and let it settle in. Chicago, outside of Jordan's tenure, is a sub .500 team. They'd probably be in the bottom 10. That's why the Spurs topped them in the rankings.
Exactly. Spurs fans have had an entertaining compe ive team to watch 90% of the seasons they have been in existence. Bulls fans have had good bball to watch less then 50% of their seasons.
The Spurs have made the playoffs the largest percentatge of their tenure than any other sports franchise.
Exactly I remember watching Hemisphere games and later Alamodome games with David Robinson, Sean, TC and Vinny Del Negro long before Tim Duncan arrived. They were good then too. And made the playoffs and were contenders up until Houston beat them in the WCF '95, I believe... Point is they were still as good as the Suns then, who haven't won anything yet...
Another piece by Hollinger by randomly putting in weights to each category and disguising it as some kind of quan ative measure.
Championships are worth 30 and regular season wins are worth 1 why? Is he saying that a 50-win team with one championship in 6 years, is as good as a 55-win team with zero championships?
Why are playoff series worth 4 points? Would winning 25 playoff series offset the effects of moving a team (deduction of 100 points). Winning 3 championships wouldn't offset a team moving? Really?
It's just totally random, with nothing to back up the scoring system.
This list is actually pretty fair. Hollinger uses a bunch of subjective numeric values to create a statistic that can be aggregately measured to simplify the process. Hollinger also believes it can't simply be quantified only using numbers, there still needs to be some subjectivity when making a list like this, which is why he adds in his "intangible" factor. I think if you take out the "intagible" factor you can make the process more simple (or complicated depending on how you look at it) by looking at the raw data and going from there. Side note - You have to consider both NBA and ABA years when making this list.
Of course you have to put the Lakers and Celtics at 1 & 2, and while the Celtics still have the edge in championships the Lakers have a franchise winning percentage of .619 (1st) as well as making the playoffs in an amazing 57 of 62 (92% also 1st) seasons over the C's at .594 while only making the playoffs in 48 of 64 (75%) seasons. With the difference in non-championship years you have to give the edge to the Lakers, especially since now they only trail the C's by 1 in the banner count.
The Spurs are correctly placed above the Bulls, and while you have to place the Bulls high on the list because of the Jordan era, the rest of their history is pretty ugly. Even with the 6 championships, and spectacular seasons which include 69-13 and of course 72-10, they still have a franchise winning percentage of only .509 and have made the playoffs in only 29 of 44 (66%) seasons, not that making the playoffs 2/3rds of the time can be looked at poorly, but without the Jordan years the Bulls don't crack to the top half of NBA franchises.
The Spurs meanwhile have the 3rd highest franchise winning percentage of all teams at .580 and are 4th all-time in championships. They have made the playoffs in 38 of 43 (88% - 2nd only to the Lakers) seasons, which is absolutely remarkable for a small market team. The disparity between all non championship years of the Spurs and Bulls unquestionably gives the Spurs the edge in this department.
I'm with some of the others saying that Phoenix should not be at number 5 on this list, but I wouldn't argue like some that if you're going to put a team with zero championships this high on the list it should be the Jazz. The Suns actually have the 4th best franchise win % at .561 and have made the playoffs in 29 of 42 (69%) seasons, while the Jazz are just behind them in win % at .546 and have made the playoffs in 24 of 36 (67%) seasons. These are without question the two best franchises to never win it all, and based off of the complete history of both franchises you have to give the edge to the Suns. Still, in terms of all-time franchise ranking you have to take something away from both them for never winning a championship. I think that the Suns and Jazz should be #7 & #8 on this list respectively, with Phoenix dropping two spots, and Utah dropping one.
As far as who should be 5 & 6 it's between the Sixers and the Trailblazers. The two teams are relatively close, but I think the edge here goes to Phili. The Sixers have a win % of .532 and have made the playoff in 45 of 61 (74%) seasons and have 3 championships. The Blazers are just ahead of them in win % at .534, and slightly behind in making the playoffs in 28 of 40 (70%) seasons, but only have 1 championship.
For 9 & 10 I'd go with the Pacers and Rockets respectively. The Pacers have a slightly lower win % at .505 and have made the playoffs in 27 of 43 (63%) seasons, and have 3 championships. The Rockets have a win % of .509 and have made the playoffs in 26 of 43 (60%) seasons, with 2 championships. These two teams have nearly identical win % and playoff appearance %, but with one more championship the edge goes to Indiana.
So here's my list of the Top 10 NBA Franchises:
1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Spurs
4. Bulls
5. Sixers
6. Trailblazers
7. Suns
8. Jazz
9. Pacers
10. Rockets
Last edited by Bito Corleone; 08-25-2010 at 03:52 AM.
HemisFair
My list:
1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. Spurs
5. Sixers
6. Blazers
7. Suns
8. Rockets
9. Jazz
10. Heat
Is it the past or future of the Heat that made you put them this high? They have a franchise win % of only .486. So if it's based on the past, I find it hard to justify ranking a losing franchise in the top 10.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
