First, let's be clear. The 90's Bulls were the most dominant team in the history of sports.

That said, when you stand back and look at the whole of NBA history, can you put anyone above the Spurs outside of LA and Boston?

When your team has made the playoffs 40 out of 45 years in the league or some ridiculous number like that, has been the winningest team in all of sports for well over a decade, when your coach is the winningest current coach and second (or third?) all time, and the top 3 current winningest players in the league are all Spurs, it's tough to argue.

I'd go get you guys some hard numbers, but I'm lazy. But when you step back and look at it, it's pretty mind-boggling how consistently dominant this team has been.

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 2/14/2013 8:51a).]

quote:

---

The 90's Bulls were the most dominant team in the history of sports.

---

I stopped here. The bulls should have won 8 in a row.... but they did not.

Over a 19 year period... Celtics won 13 championships
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976
8 in a row.....

The league was not the same in the 60's. Can't really compare when all the talent is so concentrated in one or two teams.

But outside of that, agree or disagree with the main topic at hand?

Maybe.

Without looking at the actual numbers and going based one my gut:

1A. Celtics
1B. La Lakers

After that it gets pretty gray:

Spurs, Pistons, Bulls..... probably Spurs but Bulls would probably get a lot of people's vote around the country.

Then teams like 76ers, Heat, Nicks, Rockets.

Playoff appearances should not matter. Teams with below .500 records make the playoffs all the time.

quote:

---

The league was not the same in the 60's. Can't really compare when all the talent is so concentrated in one or two teams.

---

Then why did you ask us to compare?
I disagree by the way. There were only 8-12 teams. The concentration is still pretty much the same.



[This message has been edited by BBDP (edited 2/14/2013 9:49a).]

Bulls with the best 10 year run in NBA history (even over the Celtics back in the day), but they also show up twice on a list of the 50 worst NBA seasons and have the 10th best franchise winning percentage. 6 titles and 21 losing seasons.

The Spurs are 3rd best in all-time winning percentage, and have 4 titles to go with 6 losing seasons.

The Celtics have the second best winning percentage with 17 titles and 16 losing seasons.

The Lakers have the best winning percentage to go with 16 titles and 10 losing seasons.


Tier 1: Historical dominance over multiple periods.
Lakers
Celtics

Tier 2
Spurs - Historically very good, with a 15 year run of excellence
Bulls - Historically slightly below average, but with the best 10 year run in NBA history

Tier 3 - Multiple titles and solid winning percentage (in no particular order)
76ers
Knicks


Tier 4 - Multiple titles but long runs of mediocre to bad teams, or no titles but very good franchise winning percentages (in no particular order)
Pacers
Rockets
Heat
Suns
Jazz
Portland
OKC
Milwaukee
Pistons
Golden State


You could shift the break point on tier 3 and 4. Take a team like the Pistons... 3 titles, "name" team, but a losing record over their entire history. Knicks also have a franchise losing record (though that will change by the end of the season).

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 2/14/2013 10:16a).]

Spurs are probably #2 if you look at the post-ABA era. We have 35 years worth of data since the ABA folded.

The Spurs have only missed the playoffs 4 times since 1977. If you count the ABA, the Spurs have only missed the playoffs 5 times since 1967. Spurs have 4 titles since the merger.

Guitarsoup done brought out the spreadsheet.

Mavericks should definitely be in the conversation for top 5 all time.

quote:

---

Mavericks should definitely be in the conversation for top 5 all time.

---

Top 5 all time what?

All I know is that it's great to be a Spurs fan. Go Spurs Go!!

Well it depends on who you ask and what the criteria is....

They're #2 as posted above by one criteria.
They may have a different ranking based on championships.
They would be another number in terms of popularity.
In terms of value, moneywise, they would be ranked below most big market teams.

If you asked the media, they probably would mention Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and then maybe the Spurs.

In terms of getting the most bang out their buck, Spurs are #1.

But I would say that in terms of NBA history, they would be #4 at best. They would have to endure winning championships after Duncan's retirement to really say that they would beat the Bulls. What hurts the Spurs in my opinion is that they have never won two championships in a row.

This being an odd year though, they have a decent chance to win it all.

quote:

---

What hurts the Spurs in my opinion is that they have never won two championships in a row.

---

The Celtics never have since the NBA had less than 15 teams.

Are the Pistons more impressive because they won 89-90 back to back than the Spurs for winning over 60% of their games every year for 15 years plus won 4 titles in that time?

quote:

---

They would have to endure winning championships after Duncan's retirement to really say that they would beat the Bulls.

---

I can see an argument for the Bulls over the Spurs, but it's not that the Spurs need to show they can win without Duncan.

The Bulls never won a title without Jordan. The Bulls were even more dependent on one player for their success than Spurs have been. The Spurs have been good since they entered the NBA; they passed the torch from the Iceman to the Admiral to the Big Fundamental, resulting in just 6 sub-.500 seasons out of 36 (17%).

Meanwhile, the Bulls have actually been below average except when Jordan was here. They've finished below .500 46% of the time, and if you take out the Jordan era they finished below .500 56% of the time.

quote:

---

Mavericks should definitely be in the conversation for top 5 all time.

---

That's adorable.

quote:

---

The Celtics never have since the NBA had less than 15 teams.

Are the Pistons more impressive because they won 89-90 back to back than the Spurs for winning over 60% of their games every year for 15 years plus won 4 titles in that time?

---

Not necessarily, but the debate isn't between Spurs and Pistons but more so between SA and Chicago.

However, Detroit has won titles with two different groups of players and the Spurs championships have come with Duncan at the helm. In order to be considered an elite organization you have to have won multiple titles, multiple titles in a row(Bulls) or with different cast of players.

Because after all, we are comparing franchises and not just players right?

Using your chart:
Spurs only have 4 championships for their 31 total playoff appearances, that's 13% (the lowest among those teams on the chart). They also have 4 championships for their 25 seasons with 60% winning percentage, that's 16%! (Also the lowest among those teams on the chart.)

You just can't say that they're a top 3 NBA franchise with those kinds of numbers. They're consistently good, yes, but not elite.

[This message has been edited by AggieBaller98 (edited 2/15/2013 2:05p).]

Sorry I missed your post Ulrich and you're right that without Michael, Chicago wouldn't even be in the discussion. However, because both teams are being compared as a top 3 franchise, I give the nod to Chicago because they have had two 3-peat championship years which has resulted in them having more championships than the Spurs.

[This message has been edited by AggieBaller98 (edited 2/15/2013 2:05p).]

quote:

---

Using your chart:
Spurs only have 4 championships for their 31 total playoff appearances, that's 13% (the lowest among those teams on the chart). They also have 4 championships for their 25 seasons with 60% winning percentage, that's 16%! (Also the lowest among those teams on the chart.)

---

Breaking the numbers out that way, you're penalizing teams for having good seasons where they didn't win the title. For example:
Team A: Made the playoffs 20 times, won 2 titles. 10% "title winning percentage"
Team B: Made the playoffs 4 times, won 2 titles. 50% title winning percentage.

You're telling me that Team B was more successful than Team A? Team A is getting penalized for being pretty good even when they aren't NBA Champion good, whereas Team B is rewarded for being bad any time they aren't NBA Champion Good. I don't see how that makes sense.

I don't have a problem with putting the Bulls over the Spurs. I personally count sustained success over the longterm when it comes to scoring a franchise's entire history, and the Spurs also had a true dynasty that got them multiple titles to differentiate them from teams like the Suns. That said, the Bulls do have more titles, which is a perfectly valid criterion to make the decision.

quote:

---

In order to be considered an elite organization you have to have won multiple titles, multiple titles in a row(Bulls) or with different cast of players.

---

According to who?


As Ulrich pointed out, your argument makes no sense.

Would it really be better for your franchise to be bottom ten over top 5 every year? According to your metrics, yes.

I'd also argue that winning consecutive titles isn't much different than winning 2 out of 3, though 6 titles in 8 years is on a different level altogether.

I don't see how the Spurs "only" winning 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 9 keeps them from being a dynasty, particularly when they were battling the Shaq/Phil/Kobe Lakers. In a 7-year period, the Lakers and Spurs won 3 titles each. The Lakers got theirs consecutively, but the Spurs capped each end of that run by knocking the Lakers out of the playoffs on the way to the title. Which was the more dominant team?


That's just a general principle for when people say the Spurs were somehow less great because they never had two titles in a row. The Bulls when the "best dynasty" award easily, and three straight indicates that they are clearly the best team in the league whereas 3 out of 5 means they are very good but there is competition.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 2/15/2013 3:26p).]

-I only like to look at the post-merger Era NBA, just like I only like to look at the Super Bowl Era NFL. Does anyone care now that the Lions, Browns and Colts dominated the NFL in the 50s? Why should I care so much about the Celtics dominating the 60s against 7 other teams? And the NBA game was played so differently pre-1970s. Plus in the ABA Era many of the greatest players in the world weren't even in the NBA.

-I'd like to simplify things and focus only on playoffs success. In the NBA the best team almost always wins the playoff series, and the regular season is a great indicator for playoffs success. It's a huge anomaly if a lower seed wins a title or even makes it to the Finals. So it's fine to just look at the playoffs and ignore the regular season. If you make it to the 2nd round then you are a great team. Period. Yes occasionally one conference is overloaded but it should even out over 35+ years.

Post-Merger (1977-present) Franchise Rankings:

Tier 1:
Lakers - far and away the best franchise of the post-merger Era. No contest

Tier 2 - 4+ titles, dynasties, all 3 have a solid case for the #2 slot and it changes year to year right now as they are all currently good:
Celtics
Bulls
Spurs

Tier 3 - 3 titles, 2 big 7 year runs, but not enough for tier 2 and not bad enough for Tier 4
Pistons

Tier 4 - multiple titles and Finals appearances, general sustained long term success
76ers
Sonics/Thunder****
Rocklets

Tier 5 - multiple titles/Finals appearances and long term success
Heat
Suns - only 1 Finals trip but I didn't realize they've been to 8 Conference Finals (multiple times each decade)
Blazers
Jazz
Mavericks
Knicks

Tier 6 - have done at least *something* - Finals appearances or many solid playoffs runs
Pacers
Wizards
Bucks - best of the non-title winners in the Bird-Magic Era
Magic
Cavaliers
Nets
Hawks - 0 Conference Finals but 12 first round wins
Nuggets - 3 Conference Finals, 11 total series wins

Tier 7 - 0 Finals appearances, limited playoffs wins
Kings
Warriors
Hornets
Timberwolves
Clippers
Grizzlies
Raptors

Tier 8 - lolcats
Bobcats


****WTF is going to happen to the records when the Sonics come back next year? (see http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/) Do they get back the Sonics records from the Thunder like the Cleveland Browns did? And then the Kings become a defunct franchise and the Thundere become an expansion franchise? That makes the most sense to me. Especially since the Thunder really did have a clean break with no Sonics star players playing for both franchises (Durant only played in Seattle one year so it doesn't have to count). Poor Kings.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 2/16/2013 5:42p).]

Mavs were a top 3-4 franchise of the Kobe Era, THE worst franchise of the Jordan Era, a borderline top 10 franchise of the Bird-Magic Era, and so far trending down for the Lebron Era

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 2/16/2013 6:47p).]