Last year we had a thread ranking the NBA teams of the 00s, using a modified formula based on Bob Sturm's NFL All-time rankings.

Now I have updated the numbers to account for All-time franchise rankings. I'm starting the count in 1977, because that is a logical starting point. Similar to all-time NFL rankings only looking at the Super Bowl era, it makes sense to only look at the Post-merger era for All-time NBA rankings.

Here's the simple points system we came up with last year:

Points gained for farthest round advanced in playoffs:
1st round 1
2nd round 3
Conference Finals 4
NBA Finals 6
Won Title 13

Bonus points (accounts for discrepancies between conferences, because it's usually easier to make the playoffs in the East):
Winning 50 games: +1 bonus point
Winning 60 games: +2 bonus points
Make playoffs with <41 wins: (-1) bonus point (teams shouldn't be rewarded for just making the playoffs with a less than .500 record)

All-time NBA Rankings (post-merger era):
Note: this accounts for the playoffs up to this point, so the Lakers or Celtics will get 7 more points if they win the title.

1 Los Angeles Lakers 229 points in 32 playoffs seasons with 9 titles
2 San Antonio Spurs 139 points in 30 playoffs seasons with 4 titles
3 Boston Celtics 131 points in 23 playoffs seasons with 4 titles
4 Chicago Bulls 120 points in 21 playoffs seasons with 6 titles
5 Detroit Pistons 104 points in 22 playoffs seasons with 3 titles
6 Philadelphia 76ers 89 points in 22 playoffs seasons with 1 titles
7 Phoenix Suns 89 points in 27 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
8 Houston Rockets 83 points in 24 playoffs seasons with 2 titles
9 Utah Jazz 81 points in 24 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
10 Oklahoma City Thunder 77 points in 21 playoffs seasons with 1 titles
11 Portland Trail Blazers 75 points in 28 playoffs seasons with 1 titles
12 New York Knickerbockers 61 points in 19 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
13 Milwaukee Bucks 54 points in 20 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
14 Dallas Mavericks 54 points in 16 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
15 Atlanta Hawks 51 points in 21 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
16 Indiana Pacers 46 points in 18 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
18 Denver Nuggets 44 points in 21 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
17 Cleveland Cavaliers 44 points in 17 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
19 Miami Heat 43 points in 14 playoffs seasons with 1 titles
20 Orlando Magic 37 points in 12 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
22 Washington Wizards 34 points in 15 playoffs seasons with 1 titles
21 New Jersey Nets 32 points in 16 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
23 Sacramento Kings 30 points in 14 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
24 New Orleans Hornets 25 points in 11 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
25 Golden State Warriors 19 points in 7 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
26 Minnesota Timberwolves 14 points in 8 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
27 Toronto Raptors 7 points in 5 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
28 Los Angeles Clippers 5 points in 4 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
29 Memphis Grizzlies 4 points in 3 playoffs seasons with 0 titles
30 Charlotte Bobcats 1 points in 1 playoffs seasons with 0 titles

Discussion: The Lakers are clearly the best franchise of all time

The Spurs and Celtics are battling for 2nd best. If the Celtics win the title this year they will pull to within 1 point.

The Suns and Jazz are the 2 best teams to not have a title.

The Wizards/Bullets and Heat are clearly the worst franchises with titles

There's a big dropoff after the top 5 franchises

There's another clear dropoff after the top 11 franchises

That's actually pretty cool.

It occurs to me that expansion teams are penalized in your system by the fact that they haven't been around as long, so they haven't had the same opportunity as the older teams to acquire points. This occurred to me while I was trying to figure out how the Clippers didn't come in dead last.

Maybe you should divide the total number of points earned by the total number available to each team. Might level the playing field a bit and put the clippers in their rightful place.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 6/1/2010 3:01p).]

Yeah I made a column that has average points per season, but I followed Sturm's logic that you shouldn't punish teams for being in existence for so long (though in the case of the Clippers we do want to punish them). And that method also puts the Heat above the Mavs, which can't happen in my rankings.

Here's the list sorted by average wins per season:

Previous rank / team / avg points per season / total seasons
1 Los Angeles Lakers 6.74 34
2 San Antonio Spurs 4.09 34
3 Boston Celtics 3.85 34
4 Chicago Bulls 3.53 34
5 Detroit Pistons 3.06 34
6 Philadelphia 76ers 2.62 34
7 Phoenix Suns 2.62 34
8 Houston Rockets 2.44 34
9 Utah Jazz 2.38 34
10 Oklahoma City Thunder 2.26 34
11 Portland Trail Blazers 2.21 34
18 Miami Heat 1.95 22
14 Dallas Mavericks 1.80 30
12 New York Knickerbockers 1.79 34
22 Orlando Magic 1.76 21
13 Milwaukee Bucks 1.59 34
15 Atlanta Hawks 1.50 34
16 Indiana Pacers 1.35 34
17 Denver Nuggets 1.29 34
19 Cleveland Cavaliers 1.29 34
24 New Orleans Hornets 1.14 22
20 Washington Wizards 1.00 34
21 New Jersey Nets 0.94 34
23 Sacramento Kings 0.88 34
26 Minnesota Timberwolves 0.67 21
25 Golden State Warriors 0.56 34
27 Toronto Raptors 0.47 15
29 Memphis Grizzlies 0.27 15
30 Charlotte Bobcats 0.17 6
28 Los Angeles Clippers 0.15 34

The Clippers fall to last place.

The top 11 are unchanged.

The 2 biggest gainers are the Magic (up from 22 to 15) and the Heat (up from 18 to 12)

Not surprising about Orlando and Miami. Those two franchises have been pretty good for expansion teams.

It is good, but I don't see the point in penalizing teams that make the playoffs < 500 if you are already giving a bonus for years that conferences are out of balance. That should make up for those instances, besides what's the difference between a 41-41 team & 40-42 or 39-43?

Plus, a lot of those sub-500 playoff teams come from years when there were like 23 teams in the league & the playoffs expanded. There had to be at least 2-3 sub-500 teams back then when only 7 teams didn't make the playoffs.

You can't penalize for sub-500 when it was pretty much impossible to not have at least a few in those years. At the least you can't penalize until post-expansion when there were enough teams to make it possible to have all playoff teams at 41 wins or better.

Look at 85-86 with 2 GOAT type teams in their dynasty runs, the 6, 7 & 8 seeds from both conferences were below 500.

[This message has been edited by Syd_X_Barrett (edited 6/1/2010 5:24p).]

cool stuff

I understand the criteria, the scoring system, the reason for only looking at post-merger results, the fact that this list is based on actual numbers instead of personal opinion, etc...

and I still have a hard time putting the Spurs above the Celtics. I do think that San Antonio is a solid #3 though.

I think that is pretty good.

I've been a big proponent of dividing NBA history into modern-era and historical era. Pre-merger and post-merger NBA are very different games. Look at the total number of rebounds, the 3-point line, the size of the players, etc. Nearly all the pre-merger players wouldn't fare that well in the current NBA.

quote:

---

and I still have a hard time putting the Spurs above the Celtics. I do think that San Antonio is a solid #3 though.

---

I dont. With the exception of one or two seasons the Spurs have been a 50 win franchise for the past 20 years with 4 Championships.

Boston sucked for about 17 years once the Larry Bird started to decline and then retired.

Good rankings.

Cant really disagree with the scoring method at all.

[This message has been edited by Kellso (edited 6/2/2010 9:00a).]

I just think Boston has had a greater impact on the sport, they have a longer list of memorable players and coaches, they've played in more memorable games, and the banners hanging from their rafters speak for themselves. Like I said, I understand that this ranking system only looks at post-merger stuff, and I agree with that method, but I think the Celtics get penalized the most by that system, and they get an exception in my book.

It's not that I'm trying to move the Spurs down... it's simply that I'm moving the Celtics up. I like the scoring system used, and although there are 1000 ways to rank franchises, it's tough to come up with a better system than this one. But as much as we all hate to admit it, pro basketball history is still pretty much the Lakers, Celtics, and everybody else, along with some interesting footnotes for teams like the Bulls and Spurs.

17 Championships, including 8 in a row and 11 out of 13. 21 retired numbers. 10 MVP awards. 33 Celtics in the Hall of Fame (15 if you exclude guys like Pete Maravich, Bill Walton, and Dominique Wilkins).

That's a lot of history. Yes, they went into a slump for about 12 years, but they're definitely back from that. While a large amount of their history is from pre-merger years, it's pretty tough to ignore because of the sheer magnitude of their accomplishments.

It's difficult to find a way to be fair in ranking teams from different eras, like it is in any sport. My personal opinion is that any legit basketball list should start with the Lakers and Celtics, and then you can rank them however you want after that.

I think the difficulty with that is how different the game is and how few teams there were. Did the Celtics dominate the 60s? Absolutely. Were there 1/3rd as many teams in the league then as there are now? Nope. It is a hell of a lot easier to dominate a league that has 8 teams - especially in a sport like basketball where 1-2 players make all the real difference. I just don't think a 1962 NBA Championship holds half the weight that a 2009 championship does. But in this comparison, they are clear in the opening that the comparison is for the post-merger era.

As long as the distinction is made of the era the comparison is taking place, the previous years are completely irrelevant and no concessions should be made for their run in the 60s.

I tried to find a pre-merger date to make the list but couldn't find a good place to start. There isn't another season where the NBA had a big expansion as they moved from 8 teams to ~20 teams - it was all gradual. And the biggest problem is factoring in the ABA teams before 1977. Given that many of the best players in the world were in the ABA in the mid-70's, you can't just ignore those championships. ESPN/Hollinger tried to do a similar ranking last year giving partial credit for ABA titles and it was a mess (he also factored in BS "stats" like attendance and number of impact players)

quote:

---

It is good, but I don't see the point in penalizing teams that make the playoffs < 500 if you are already giving a bonus for years that conferences are out of balance. That should make up for those instances, besides what's the difference between a 41-41 team & 40-42 or 39-43?

---

There isn't a special bonus point given just for when conferences are out of balance - only a bonus point for getting 50 wins or 60 wins. For example the 2010 8 seed/50 win Thunder get an extra point to give them more credit than the 8 seed/41 win Bulls. I made this change last year after Rockets fans were upset that it showed the Bucks having a better 00s decade than the Rockets.

quote:

---

Plus, a lot of those sub-500 playoff teams come from years when there were like 23 teams in the league & the playoffs expanded. There had to be at least 2-3 sub-500 teams back then when only 7 teams didn't make the playoffs.

---

This was an issue for only 5 seasons, 1984 to 1988. The playoffs expanded to 16 teams in 1984, but there were only 23 teams until 1989 and when they added 4 teams over 2 seasons.

If I took away that negative point then you could argue why do the 1986 8 seed/30 win Bulls get the same number of points as the 2009 8 seed/48 win Jazz?

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/2/2010 9:57a).]

quote:

---

I still have a hard time putting the Spurs above the Celtics

---

I think this is only because the Celtics are one of the league's premier franchises throughout their WHOLE history. But we are only talking post merger.

In the post-merger era, Boston has won 4 championships and cracked the 50-win mark 15 times. The Spurs have won 4 championships and cracked the 50-win mark 19 times. In the same span, Boston has had 13 losing seasons to SA's 7 losing seasons. The only real advantage Boston has on SA is that they have been to the finals more times, having lost to LA a few times. That said, you could make the case that SA was at a disadvantage in Finals appearances because the other "best" team in the league during their run was in the same conference.

It is easy to make the case (right now) that SA is the better overall team since the merger.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 6/2/2010 9:56a).]

quote:

---

It is a hell of a lot easier to dominate a league that has 8 teams - especially in a sport like basketball where 1-2 players make all the real difference.

---

It's like Kansas dominating the Big 8/Big 12 - not the same as winning the NCAA title.

quote:

---

In the post-merger era, Boston has won 4 championships and cracked the 50-win mark 15 times. The Spurs have won 4 championships and cracked the 50-win mark 19 times. In the same span, Boston has had 13 losing seasons to SA's 7 losing seasons. The only real advantage Boston has on SA is that they have been to the finals more times, having lost to LA a few times. That said, you could make the case that SA was at a disadvantage in Finals appearances because the other "best" team in the league during their run was in the same conference.

---

To further that point, here's the ranking of most playoffs appearances:

Rank / Team / Total Seasons / Total Playoffs Seasons
1 Los Angeles Lakers 34 32
2 San Antonio Spurs 34 30
3 Portland Trail Blazers 34 28
4 Phoenix Suns 34 27
5 Houston Rockets 34 24
6 Utah Jazz 34 24
7 Boston Celtics 34 23
8 Detroit Pistons 34 22
9 Philadelphia 76ers 34 22
10 Chicago Bulls 34 21
11 Oklahoma City Thunder 34 21
12 Atlanta Hawks 34 21
13 Denver Nuggets 34 21
14 Milwaukee Bucks 34 20
15 New York Knickerbockers 34 19
16 Indiana Pacers 34 18
17 Cleveland Cavaliers 34 17
18 Dallas Mavericks 30 16
19 New Jersey Nets 34 16
20 Washington Wizards 34 15
21 Miami Heat 22 14
22 Sacramento Kings 34 14
23 Orlando Magic 21 12
24 New Orleans Hornets 22 11
25 Minnesota Timberwolves 21 8
26 Golden State Warriors 34 7
27 Toronto Raptors 15 5
28 Los Angeles Clippers 34 4
29 Memphis Grizzlies 15 3
30 Charlotte Bobcats 6 1

The top 6 playoffs appearance teams are all in the Western Conference, and the Spurs are right up there with the Lakers. If the Spurs had stayed in the East they would have more Finals appearances.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/2/2010 10:04a).]

quote:

---

I think this is only because the Celtics are one of the league's premier franchises throughout their WHOLE history. But we are only talking post merger.

---

There's no question that's precisely why I feel the way I do. I stated as much in my posts.

I agree with everything that's been posted on the entire thread by each and every one of you. I won't be changing my mind, but like I said before, it's just my personal opinion anyway. I know what the numbers are, and I understand the analysis. I just can't bring myself to ignore 11 of their championships and all of those Hall of Famers.

I know this analysis only deals with post-merger stuff. You can have that. I'm talking about the franchise as a whole, and I think it's better than the Spurs.

quote:

---

It's like Kansas dominating the Big 8/Big 12 - not the same as winning the NCAA title.

---

That's not really a proper analogy, but there really isn't one out there, so ok...

Very hard to a normal person outside of san antonio to look at the spurs and celtics as "equal"

Celtics with 16 titles and the spurs 4
Celtics with 46 playoff appearances and the spurs with 28
Celtics with 19 finals appearances with the spurs going to 4.

The long line of Celtic greats compared to the spurs greats is not comparable. You can start at 1977 if it makes you feel better, but no comparison in the franchises. The last couple of decades I'll give you.

The thread title should not be "All-time NBA Franchise rankings" when your stats are only "post-merger".

It can't be both "post-merger" and "all-time".

quote:

---

The thread title should not be "All-time NBA Franchise rankings" when your stats are only "post-merger".

It can't be both "post-merger" and "all-time".

---

Agreed....

Any ranking that doesn't have Boston as the #1 or #2 franchise shouldn't be taken seriously.

I like the idea of using these formulas to determine the best teams. Texas Monthly had a similar approach to determine the best high school football programs of all time. They had teams dating all the way back to the 1930's.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2007-09-01/thelist.php

That's pretty funny. The outrage over trying put the lowly spurs over the great Celtics. That just goes to show that people will never put aside their perceptions and bias even when faced with the facts. The fact is the Celts were irrelevent during a very long stretch and then finally climbed out it by buying up a few stars. I'd argue they were a complete joke during a time when the whole conference was a joke. Remember Patino?

Boston has a great history, a great brand, and a large following. This ranking isn't based on any of those things. That's be like putting the Cincinatti Reds up there because they were great in the 70s and have a nice baseball tradition.

Boston Celtics in the 1960s= the Cincinatti Red Stockings in the 1860s = The Texas Aggies 1914-1921

Doesn't matter. The game has changed too much since then. The only difference is that baseball and football matured way earlier than basketball and the 60s Celtics are still fresh in the minds of old people. But in 100 years, no one is going to consider the premerger era with the post merger era. 8 Teams? No three point line? No shot clock for almost a decade. In 64, the Celtics averaged 110 FGA per game. This year? 76. They also shot 20% more FTs in 64 compared to now. Just a completely different game. Bill Russell was the dominant center of the time at 6'9 215. That's LeBron James minus 50 lbs of muscle dominating the league's paint for over a decade. Playing PF alongside Russell was 6'7 218lb Tom Heinson and 6'6 210lb Tom Sanders. Two guys that basically had Kobe Bryant's body.

Those NBA Champion Celtics didn't have a single player over 6'9 or a single player over 235lbs.

This year's Fun-N-Gun Suns (built to be lean and quick) have six players over 235 lbs and 6 guys taller than 6'9.

It is just a different game. And the pre-merger era is going to be thought of as such.

When it suits their purpose, Spur fans give credit to themselves for 50 win seasons. However when it suits their purpose, Spur fans give no credit to other teams for 50 win seasons.

I've seen most of the posters here discredit the Mavs for nice run. "Who cares about winning 50 games in regular season? It's only titles that matter." But this is the toilet paper thin facts they use to launch themselves over Bulls and Celtics...

I've seen most of the posters here discredit the Mavs/Rockets based on titles and deep playoff runs. "Rockets have 2 titles, Spurs have 4 titles - end of thread!" But we're gonna ignore that because it otherwise, we'd be looking up at Bulls and Celtics.

If you want to throw out the pre-merger NBA, that's fine. That doesn't mean you throw out common sense when discussing post-merger NBA.

quote:

---

When it suits their purpose, Spur fans give credit to themselves for 50 win seasons. However when it suits their purpose, Spur fans give no credit to other teams for 50 win seasons.

---

You are a ****ing moron. I swear to god, you are dumber than SimplyWarcraft.

quote:

---

If you want to throw out the pre-merger NBA, that's fine. That doesn't mean you throw out common sense when discussing post-merger NBA.

---

What common sense was thrown out? Hell, it was a MAVS FAN that started it and came up with the criteria.

If anything, this type of ranking does nothing but HELP the Mavs, because it ranks them up over teams that have won titles due to their 50-game win streak.

But don't let common sense get in the way of your illogical and unthought out ramblings.

I don't know if that guy is a Mavs fan and I don't really care. Nobody suggested that Mavs should ranked highly anyway.

I'll dumb it down, so that even Guitarsoup can understand.

The only reason that you're arguing is because somebody suggested the your favorite team isn't as accomplished as the Celtics. You could care less about the formula/system, so long as Spurs are on top. And the reason that you respond like a petulant brat is equally obvious. I'm right, you know it and that angers you.

Any system that ranks the Spurs above the Celtics is flawed.

The difference between winning 50 games and 48 games isn't monumental. It's not even statistically significant.

Making the NBA playoffs isn't anything to hang your hat on either. Giving teams credit for making a par is stupid.

Maybe you could tweak the formula. Come up with a coefficient that penalizes the Lakers. Call it the "large market factor". That way, the Spurs could have a higher score than the Lakers.

quote:

---

The only reason that you're arguing is because somebody suggested the your favorite team isn't as accomplished as the Celtics.

---

Not at all. I'm a huge stat geek. I love any discussions like this.

However, the Aggies shut out TWO entire seasons in the 1910s. Not a single point scored on A&M as they went undefeated. Is that ever brought up in the discussions of best defensive teams ever? Not a chance. It was a different game.

If you want to look at every season, then there is no question that the Celtics and Lakers are far and away the two most successful teams. I, and many other informed people, believe the game was so different in the early years of the NBA (remember we had a game where the two teams scored less than 40 points COMBINED, then we had teams that averaged 110 shots per game - about 30% more than today in a game that lasts the same duration. No 3-point line. The game isn't at all like what it was 40 years ago.

quote:

---

You could care less about the formula/system, so long as Spurs are on top.

---

Nope. I think if you are looking at the post-merger - or really any time period - only the Lakers can be on top. The Spurs are with the next group of teams that includes the Celtics and Bulls. Then everyone else is below that. And it really doesn't matter what time period you want to look at the NBA in, the Spurs are one of the top 4 franchises, no questions asked.

quote:

---

I'm right, you know it and that angers you.I'm right, you know it and that angers you.

---

Nothing you do angers me. You amuse me.

quote:

---

I don't know if that guy is a Mavs fan and I don't really care. Nobody suggested that Mavs should ranked highly anyway.

---

But if you wanted to just base it on titles, the Mavs would be among the bottom of the barrel. All those 50-win seasons would be for nothing, because they didn't bring home the hardware.

quote:

---

The difference between winning 50 games and 48 games isn't monumental. It's not even statistically significant.

---

Didn't you just blast Spurs fans for not giving the Mavs credit for their 50-win streak, and in the same breath you are discounting it. Like SimplyWarcraft, you are just a moving target. You don't really understand any of this, so you change your target to move it around. Its hilarious.

So when Spur fans agree that it is good for giving credit for having a good season, you disagree to try to prove some asinine point that has no rationale.

quote:

---

Making the NBA playoffs isn't anything to hang your hat on either. Giving teams credit for making a par is stupid.

---

Making the playoff separates the good teams from the crummy teams. How far you get further separates the wheat from the chaff. So going farther gets you more points. Thats pretty simple.
Then you can judge how good a franchise has been by more than just titles.

Does knowing that the Mavs, the Clippers, the Grizzlies, the Bobcats and the Hornets all have zero championships tell you anything about the relative success of the franchises? Nope.

So a team with more success over a longer period like the Mavs should have credit for that success, while the Clippers should look bad for playing so many years and failing to do anything remotely successful.

You aren't right on any of this. In fact, the more you type, the more obvious it is that you don't really understand it.

If you can come up with a better way rank franchise success to reward teams that have been consistently successful like the Mavs while penalizing teams that have been consistently horrible like the clippers without ranking wins in a season, playoff appearances, depth of playoff runs, and championships, I would love to hear it.

Maybe if there was a way to weight championships?

Post-merger championships could be weighted stronger. Pre-merger NBA and ABA championships could carry a weaker weight. You could weight each championship by number of teams in the league at that time or something. Or maybe weight each championship by decade or era, but it could get pretty subjective that way.

I really don't have an opinion on who should be #2. Spurs and Celts are both great franchises. At this point I think it's safe to say winning a title now is much more difficult then in the 70's, which gives the Spurs an edge. But I also agree that it becomes extremely hard to ignore the history of dominance the Celtics have had over certain periods.

To say that the Celtics have X amount of total titles or that the Spurs have X amount titles and 50 win seasons post-merger are equally oversimplified arguments. There are so many factors that can get pretty subjective (personally I think subjective things like overall historical importance to the league should be considered) it's really difficult to pin one over the other. It's not my intention to straddle the fence on this one, but rather I really can't make a rock solid argument for either team with the dearth of overall information that should be considered.