Hollinger's All-Time Franchise Rankings

[poop]

LOL at bucks over pistons.

[Extra Stout]

Definitely lol @ suns being #5, but if D'Antoni isn't their best coach, who is? Westphal got 'em to the finals, but 2 1/2 years later he got run out of town. Cotton Fitzsimmons had a decent run with them in the late 80s-early 90s, but they weren't anything spectacular.

John MacLeod coached them for 14 years, including the 1976 Finals appearance.

[CubanMustGo]

Apparently the Spurs got docked 100 points for their ABA relocation. WTF?

Probably for the relocation that brought the Dallas Chaparrals to SA in the first place.

[coyotes_geek]

John MacLeod coached them for 14 years, including the 1976 Finals appearance.

But D'Antoni would have taken the suns to the finals if not for David Stern!

Just kidding. Forgot MacLeod was there that long. You're right.

[Libri]

The first 30+ years was a losing drought.

Between 1973 and 1998 (25 years) the Spurs have only missed the playoffs 4 times. They have never missed the playoffs in consecutive years. Some may point to the dark ages of Spurs history, from 1983 to 1989, as a losing drought but even during this period the Spurs were able to make the playoffs 3 times. The Dallas Chaparrals missed the playoffs only once during their six year history. The Spurs have had a winning program since the beginning.

[JamStone]

Hollinger sure knows his mathematical formulas.

[da_suns_fan]

Cotton Fitzsimmons is the OBVIOUS best choice. Ask any Suns fan who been around at least as long as the KJ/Chambers era and they could tell you that.

They inducted the guy into the ring of honor.

[Spurs Brazil]

Suns at 5 is a joke

They never won anything

[picnroll]

Memphis behind the Clip joint? Is that for gifting Gasol to the Lakers?

[clubalien]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...Rankings-Intro

TOP 10
No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
No. 2: Boston Celtics
No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
No. 4: Chicago Bulls
No. 5: Phoenix Suns
No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
No. 7: Utah Jazz
No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
No. 9: Indiana Pacers
No. 10: Houston Rockets
No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
No. 13: Detroit Pistons
No. 14: Miami Heat
No. 15: Orlando Magic
No. 16: New York Knicks
No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
No. 18: Denver Nuggets
No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
No. 20: Golden State Warriors
No. 21: New Jersey Nets
No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
No. 23: Washington Wizards
No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
No. 25: Sacramento Kings
No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
No. 27: Toronto Raptors
No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies

I personally would have had

1.yankees
2.dallas cowboys
3.la lakers

[exstatic]

Take away the MJ era and the bulls haven't ever really done anything. Except for the mid-late 80s the Spurs have been consistently good, to great, throughout their history.

That being said I would think number of les should trump everything else, so I wouldn't put the Spurs ahead of the bulls.

Bulls don't even belong at #4. Even WITH the Jordan years, it's a sub .500 ballclub. And if it's les that trump everything, Boston would be #1, not LA.

[barbacoataco]

This list needs to give more credit for championships and history. The Pistons and Sixers should be higher. What he is really ranking is the most consistent team, with too much emphasis on regular season stats. I do think the Spurs should be over the Bulls, but I could see it going the other way too.

[SouthTexasRancher]

Sorry, for the last post. I guess I don't think of OKC as being the old Sonics.

They could have listed both but, then I guess they'd have to do that for several other teams like the Lakers, Kings, Jazz, etc.

[Kermit]

Probably for the relocation that brought the Dallas Chaparrals to SA in the first place.

ABA relocation. Why would that count in an NBA formula? It's (to use the parlance of our times) ing re ed.

[CubanMustGo]

ABA relocation. Why would that count in an NBA formula? It's (to use the parlance of our times) ing re ed.

We're talking Hollinger, remember. His formula trumps all. And since he gave partial credit for ABA playoff wins, I guess he feels justified in taking a full deduction for an ABA move.

Nobody ever said Hollinger was rational.

[Bob Lanier]

for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles.

What a goddamned asshole.

[rayray2k8]

This ranking is full of .

[Spurtacus]

Spurs and Bulls should be switched. WTF is Phoenix doing so high up there?

[TDMVPDPOY]

i would expect utah to be above phoenix

[Muser]

Celtics should be number 1, no question.

[L.I.T]

It's about his methodology, I think:

Intro to all-time NBA franchise rankings
By John Hollinger

Intangibles matter too, and I created a separate category for special cir stances. For instance, the Blazers of the early part of this decade were perfectly respectable in terms of wins and losses, but few were eager to admit rooting for that team because of all the scoundrels littering the roster. This is the one part that's completely subjective, but for several teams I subtracted or added 50 to 150 points based on playing styles, player behavior, superstars and other major factors.

Quintessential Hollinger. Trying to pass himself off as an impartial stathead, then fudging with the formula to get the result he wants. This is the ultimate bull . So, do you penalize the Detroit Pistons because their teams in the late 80s were "Bad Boys" on the court? Do you add points to the Lakers because they were just so damn stylish in the mid-80s?

Oh, Vinny Del Negro's hair sucked! Deduct 150 points from the Spurs! I love me some Kobe! Add 100 points! The Heat girls are hot! Add 150 points! Milwaukee is too cold! Deduct 25 points!

[exstatic]

Spurs and Bulls should be switched. WTF is Phoenix doing so high up there?

No, they shouldn't. Outside of one ten year period, the Bulls were abysmal. For 10 years, they're the Lakers, but for the other 33, they're the Clippers, and you think they belong in the top 3? WTF?

[Extra Stout]

Even WITH the Jordan years, it's a sub .500 ballclub.

False.

No, they shouldn't. Outside of one ten year period, the Bulls were abysmal.

False.

For 10 years, they're the Lakers, but for the other 33, they're the Clippers, and you think they belong in the top 3? WTF?

An strong opinion largely uninformed by facts.

[sonic21]

Celtics should be number 1, no question.

The Lakers should be #1.

They've missed the playoffs 5 times since 1948.

They've been to the Finals 30 times.

They're on their way to winning #15, 2 behind Boston


FTL

[coyotes_geek]

Just for conversation sake........

The Bulls minus their 10 best seasons, 1988-89 thru 1997-98.
Seasons: 32
Reg. Season win %: 0.443
Playoff series wins: 5 (0.156 per year)

The Clippers entire history.
Seasons: 39
Win %: 0.362
Playoff series wins: 2 (0.051/yr)

So it's a little harsh to say the Bulls minus one decade of MJ were Clippers bad, but not by as much as I would have thought. However, there is a team who compares a little closer.

The Minnesota Timberwolves.
Seasons: 20
Win %: 0.419
Playoff series wins: 2 (0.100/yr)

I didn't count playoff appearances because when the Bulls came into the league there were only 10 teams, and 8 of them made the playoffs.