Reply With Quote
Back to the discussion bulls vs. spurs.
Anyway no doubt Spurs 2nd or 3rd is a fantastic achievement for a "small market" city.
Who's Best Since Merger? Spurs, Lakers, Bulls, Celts?
There have been 32 complete NBA seasons since the NBA/ABA merger. How do the top four teams stack up? Galileo takes a look:
Regular Season Performance:
Missed playoffs
Spurs 4
Lakers 2
Bulls 13
Celts 11
Sub-.500
Spurs 6
Lakers 3
Bulls 16
Celts 13
Fewer than 50 wins, projected over 82 games for strike year
Spurs 13
Lakers 9
Bulls 23
Celts 19
3rd or worse in Division
Spurs 8
Lakers 8
Bulls 20
Celts 14
Division les
Spurs 16
Lakers 16
Bulls 6
Celts 13
Won 2/3 of games
Spurs 15
Lakers 17
Bulls 8
Celts 11
Playoff Performance
Failed to make conference semis and/or missed playoffs
Spurs 13
Lakers 9
Bulls 19
Celts 17
Made conference finals
Spurs 10
Lakers 17
Bulls 8
Celts 10
Made NBA finals
Spurs 4
Lakers 14
Bulls 6
Celts 6
Won NBA le
Spurs 4
Lakers 8
Bulls 6
Celts 4
Galileo's conclusions
The best NBA franchise since the merger is the Lakers, with the Spurs a close second.
However, the Spurs are the most remarkable franchise since they have had to deal with the anti-small market NBA conspiracy for 32 years and continue to maintain excellence year in and year out, bucking the odds.
Back to the discussion bulls vs. spurs.
Anyway no doubt Spurs 2nd or 3rd is a fantastic achievement for a "small market" city.
good breakdown.
Did you not read the numbers? The Bulls are not an elite franchise. They have missed the playoffs 13 times and had a sub-.500 record 16 times, out of the last 32 seasons.
They also finished 3rd or worse 20 times and won less than 50 games 23 times. They failed to make the conference semis 19 times.
They didn't do much before the merger either.
If you want to sit through two decades of failure, year after year after year, then go for it.
Without MJ, the Bulls would be one of the worst NBA team ever
At least they had Bob Love.
Here in Chicago, the Bulls are a joke. They don't even talk about the team on the talk shows anymore, just about how horrible they are -- and Mr. Rose's bright future.
The Spurs have RARELY ever been out of the NBA's playoff picture as a fantastic team ever since D-Rob. Every team has a few down years, but the Spurs are almost always a contender. The Bulls are LUCKY to make the playoffs.
If people listened to the talk radio here in Chicago, the dynasty of Mr. Jordan has long passed. It's over. Done. Doesn't count for much anymore.
I'd much rather compete every year.
What are the winning percentages (.000) since the merger?
Here's the reference page:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/
The Bulls have a winning percentage of .508 since 1967. (regular season only)
The Spurs are .599 since the merger and .579 including the ABA.
The Lakers are .631 since they came to LA (1961) and .616 since 1949.
The Celtics are .592 since 1947.
The Spurs are clearly the 3rd best franchise in NBA history, and the easily the best "new" franchise and as well the best small market franshise, and the best medium market franchise.
Looking at some other numbers, the Spurs franchise has made the playoffs 36 times since 1968.
That compares to 38 playoff appearances by the Knicks since 1947, 37 by the Hawks franchise since 1950, and 38 by the Pistons francise since 1949.
The only other franchise with more playoff appearances than the Spurs is Philly with 44 since 1950.
I read the numbers and 6>4. I'm not saying that bulls>spurs I think it's quite balanced but saying that the bulls are not an elite franchise with 6 les + the best player ever it's quite
Thanks, so the winning percentages since the merger (1976-77) are?
I haven't calculated that. Its a good project for you.
Who's Best Since the David Robinson Era Began?
There have been 19 complete NBA seasons since the Admiral began? Galileo takes a look:
Regular Season Performance:
Missed playoffs
Spurs 1
Lakers 2
Bulls 7
Sub-.500
Spurs 1
Lakers 3
Bulls 7
Fewer than 50 wins, projected over 82 games for strike year
Spurs 3
Lakers 7
Bulls 11
3rd or worse in Division
Spurs 1
Lakers 6
Bulls 10
Division les
Spurs 11
Lakers 6
Bulls 6
Won 2/3 of games
Spurs 15
Lakers 9
Bulls 8
Playoff Performance
Failed to make conference semis and/or missed playoffs
Spurs 5
Lakers 7
Bulls 9
Made conference finals
Spurs 7
Lakers 7
Bulls 7
Made NBA finals
Spurs 4
Lakers 6
Bulls 6
Won NBA le
Spurs 4
Lakers 3
Bulls 6
Galileo's conclusions
The Spurs are the best team in the NBA since DRob entered the leagues. Over a 19 year period, which continues this season, the Spurs have bucked the odds as a small-market team with powerful forces stacked against them.
The Spurs are second since the merger, but they aren't a close second. As much as I dislike LA and their fans, they've got that one wrapped up by a mile.
The Spurs still had talent, despite being in a small market due to fortuitous lottery picks and foresight to look at International players before it was popular. You don't win without talent and it doesn't matter how you get that talent IMHO.
Aw man. Again?I haven't calculated that. Its a good project for you.
As someone who was in Orlando the day Shaq left, I have to tell you that it's exponentially easier to get talent when you're in LA. Shaq took less money to go to the Lakers, and Orlando is only now starting to show signs of recovering.
Great post! I was planning more like the one I did comparing SA to Chicago. I'll bookmark this and see if there were any points left out that I wanted to make.
My next comparison was going to be Spurs vs. Celtics since the merger. Spurs are 4-0 in finals and second best winning percentage. This covers 3 eras, IceMan, Admiral, and TD. Celtics have the Bird era, and the curent and to be short lived one. Their finals mark is 4-2. Regular season mark dropped like a rock and I didn't tally it yet.
Next I was going to compare the Celtics and Bulls since the Russell era ended. Celtics are 6-2 since then, Bulls 6-0. Celtics add the Cowens, White, Havilecek era, Chicago just has the Jordan era. Both teams have major years of garbage which may drop them like a rock. Note, if I rank them since the merger, Chicago's 6-0 takes a bias over Celtics 4-2. By going back a few years, and when the Bulls did have a decent team with Bob Love, Jerry Sloan, etc, it becomes 6-0 versus 6-2, a closer match.
I think it's important to date things after the Russell era, because most of Boston's success goes back to those years. They haven't lived up to the Celtic Mystique at all since, and could be about the 4th best franchise since then.
I had no plans to write about the Lakers success within all this. It's kind of obvious we have done best since the merger as well as since the Russell era.
Oh, and the best franchise since yesterday are the Spurs and Mavericks. They both won.
my attempt at humor....
2592 Regular Season Games (1976-77 through 2007-08 seasons)
Los Angeles 1686 Wins .650
San Antonio 1549 Wins .598
Boston 1442 Wins .556
Chicago 1318 Wins .508
I can't disagree with that. Still, the Lakers have been successful due to great ownership and GM's more than anything.
The argument should really be about the best cores....Certain teams dominate for short amounts of time...overall the best franchise has been the Spurs though.
Here's how I rank them:
1. Magic/Kareem Lakers of the 80's - 5 championships - 9 NBA Finals in Magic's first 12 seasons...What other team reached the NBA Finals 9 times in 12 seasons?
2. Duncan/Parker/Manu Spurs - 3 championships in 6 seasons, this one is still in the making...Above Chicago because they are the winningest franchise in pro sports since 1997 up to 2009. MJ's Bulls didn't have that kind of consistency over 12 seasons.
3. Jordan/Pippen/Phil Jackson Bulls of the 90's - 6 championships in 8 seasons. MJ got away with a lot, and if he doesn't make a bucket here or a bucket there, the Bulls don't have as many championships.
4. Larry Bird/Kevin McHale Celtics - Another team to win 3 championships in 6 seasons, I rank these lower than the Spurs because the Spurs are still going, these guys are retired and can't win any more championships, these guys didn't maintain consistency for 12 years.
So, those are the dominating cores of these 4 franchises. All other teams outside the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and 2000's Spurs haven't achieved much.
I like how you left out the Kobe and Shaq years of 3 in 3 and 4 final appearances in 5 years. Plus winning a load of games and being 15-1 in the playoffs in year 2 of their run. Still, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend.
That was 1999-2004. Short window there.
Yeah, that sort of absurdity is par for the course with SD.
There's no way to make a straight-faced argument that the Lakers haven't been the class of the league since the merger. Two clearly-defined dynasties, the best winning percentage in regular season games in the association, 17 conference finals appearances, 14 NBA Finals appearances, and 8 les with two entirely different core groups.
It pains me as a Spurs fan, but nobody comes close to that degree of success and (really) excellence.
This entire debate, as Galileo's first post noted, is really about how you fill out the 2, 3, and 4 spots.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
