For a while now I've been trying to apply Bob Sturm's NFL Franchise Rankings to the NBA.

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/story/12th-Annual-Sturm-NFL-Franchise-Rankings?blockID=860443

I haven't done this in a few years, and this time I decided to simplify it to strictly follow Bob's formula as best as possible. Last time I did this was before 2011 so I was trying to tweak it to make regular season wins count so the Mavs could be higher.

Bob's method (looking to objectively rank NFL Franchises in the Super Bowl Era):

quote:

---

Here is how it works. Each Franchise gets 1 point for each season it makes the playoffs. Then, if it reaches the Conference Championship Game it gets a total of 3 points. If it makes the Super Bowl it gets 5, and if it wins the Super Bowl it wins the maximum total of points in a given year of 11. It used to be 10 for the Super Bowl, but I have adjusted it because I didn’t like the idea that 2 Super Bowl losses equaled a Super Bowl win. So, Now 11 points for a win and 5 for a loss in the Super Bowl.

I have been asked why no points are given for wins in the Wildcard round, but I decided that would not make sense with the idea that the playoffs have expanded over the years and there is no way to equalize a smaller field to a larger one. Also, a Wildcard win is not that big a deal anymore with 6 teams in the playoffs, so unless you reach the Conference Title game, no additional points beyond the 1 for making the post-season.

---

I'm adapting Bob's method by giving 1 point for making the 2nd round, 3 points for making the Conference Finals, 5 points for reaching the Finals, and 11 points for winning the Title.

I didn't want to give 1 point for just making the playoffs because it's not as much of an accomplishment in the NBA to just make the playoffs compared to the NFL. This also won't reward all those horrible Eastern Conference teams the past 15 years that made the playoffs with a losing record. Making the 2nd round is an accomplishment with few exceptions.

Rankings:



Discussion:

Lakers are far and away the greatest Post-Merger team

The Spurs, Celtics and Bulls are in a year to year battle for #2.

Phoenix and Portland are both fighting for a top 10 slot.

There's a significant dropoff after the top 9, then the top 15.

Miami is soaring up the charts, having only been around since 1989.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/25/2013 11:06p).]

Stats for the Houston Rockets are wrong. Top of my head, they've been to the Finals at least 3 times (vs Celtics, vs Knicks, and vs Magic). Also means that they've been to the conference finals at least 3 times as well.

[This message has been edited by RealTalk (edited 6/25/2013 11:04p).]

No it's right - it's just confusing. The list is for furthest round reached. The Rockets have reached the Finals 4 times - lost 2 times and won the title 2 times

LOL....I'm still confused. So if they've reached the finals 4 times, why you have them with only 2 on the spreadsheet?

[This message has been edited by RealTalk (edited 6/25/2013 11:11p).]

Think of it this way: (other than the titles column, which is self explanatory) the figures represent how many times the teams lost in that round. So the Rockets have 2 titles, and they lost in the finals 2 times as well. Same line of thinking for the other columns.

quote:

---

No it's right - it's just confusing. The list is for furthest round reached

---

Pretty awful way of explaining it, actually.

It makes sense in my head! The Rockets get 2 for losing the Finals 2 times (81, 86) and then 2 for Winning the Finals 2 other times (94, 95). 4 total Finals appearances accounted for. They only get listed 1 time per season for the furthest point attained. Every team listed in the "Finals" column is for a season they made it to the Finals and lost.

I just put the numbers on the sheet - I don't deal with the people

Source Data if you want to check for errors:

SF: lost in Semi-finals/2nd round
CF: lost in Conference Finals
F: lost in Finals
T: won Title

ha...I get it now. Should've read the excerpt you quoted more carefully.

Source data discussion:

The Wizards are a top 16 team despite winning just 1 playoff series the past 30 years. Start the list in 1980 and they're tied with the Clippers

The Jordan/Pippen Bulls appear to have the longest streak of winning at least one series (11 seasons 88-98)

Phoenix is the best franchise without a title, followed by Utah, New York and Indiana. Phoenix has never gone more than 4 years without winning a series - only the Lakers have been more consistent.

Indiana doesn't have many appearances but when they do they usually win multiple rounds.

Atlanta has really never made it past the 2nd round?

The Bucks were the most consistent winning team of the 80s outside the Lakers/Celtics.

The Pistons have had 2 great 7 year runs...and that's it

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/25/2013 11:56p).]

The Mavs have missed the 2nd round 5 of the last 7 years (after making the 2nd round 5 out of 6 years)

The Spurs have missed the 2nd round 5 of the last 21 years, and never missed it 2 years in a row.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/26/2013 12:00a).]

I think there should be a point for making the playoffs. It's not a big accomplishment but its one step up from the lottery.

I don't like the continuation of a franchise's records after they move. Just a personal preference.

I'll agree with the bonus for playoffs and perhaps even a penalty for being in the lottery.

quote:

---

I don't like the continuation of a franchise's records after they move. Just a personal preference.

---

its really only an issue with the Thunder. Sturm kept all the NFL teams as one franchise when they moved except for the Ravens, which he called an expansion franchise in 1996. But that was an easy transition since Cleveland got the Browns back after only 3 years.

We'll have to address this when Seattle gets the Sonics back. Oklahoma can then have it's own row, but what if it's the Kings that move to Seattle? How do you merge the Kings and Sonics history? Confusing

Kobe-Duncan Era Rankings:



Spurs and Lakers obviously dominate the rankings, then there's a clear top 6 containing all the title winners.

But here's where the flaws in the rankings come out - when you look at a smaller sample size of seasons. Teams 7-13 loaded with spare Eastern teams that just took turns beating each other in the playoffs. Feels like Suns, Jazz, Blazers should be higher.

But in the end I still like the simple formula and think it evens out over 25 years.

Jordan Era:



The Rockets and Jazz are surprisingly close, then it's a large list of the teams that made the Finals once.

The bottom 10 teams all didn't win a series - compared to the Kobe-Duncan era where very team won a series except the Bobcats.

Bird-Magic Era:



Lakers clearly the best dynasty of the Era.

Fitting and symetrical that Pistons and 76ers are almost tied for 3rd.

The Bucks and Suns are the forgotten/underrated teams of the Era.

4 of the top 5 from the East.

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/26/2013 10:25p).]

Lakers and Suns only 2 teams to be top 10 for all 3 eras (Spurs and Pistons came close)

Because the playoffs are so easy to make (especially in the 80s) I feel like missing the playoffs should be a bigger deal.

Also, in the Kobe/Duncan era, getting to the Conference Finals in the West was a much bigger deal than getting to the Conference Finals in the very weak East. Often the team in the West missing the playoffs is better than several teams in the East. Like in 11, the Rockets were a lottery team, but would have been a 6th seed in the East and one game back from the 5th seed. In 09, the lottery bound Suns would have been 5th seed and one game from 4th seed in the East. In 08, the lottery Warriors would have been 4th seed in the East and the 10th seed Blazers would have been 6th seed. In 07, 5 teams in the West had > 50 wins. One team in the East did with 53 wins for Detroit. In 05, there were 6 West teams with > =50 wins and 2 East teams. In 04, the Jazz missed the playoffs despite being over .500 but the Celtics made the playoffs with just 36 wins.

It would be complicated, but it seems like there should be some kind of correction for SOS or playing in a MUCH tougher conference.

Heck, just this year I think the 5 seed in the East would have been tie-breakered out of the playoffs in the West, and both the 3 and 4 seeds would have been fighting on the bubble with a tougher WC schedule. Meanwhile, the 5-seed in the West would have been the 2-seed in the East.

quote:

---

Because the playoffs are so easy to make (especially in the 80s) I feel like missing the playoffs should be a bigger deal.

---

But you also shouldn't reward bad teams for making the playoffs and getting blown out in the 1st round. Hopefully by only rewarding for making the 2nd round over 35 years evens it out.

quote:

---

Also, in the Kobe/Duncan era, getting to the Conference Finals in the West was a much bigger deal than getting to the Conference Finals in the very weak East. Often the team in the West missing the playoffs is better than several teams in the East.

---

This does throw off the rankings. The 02 and 03 Nets would have likely been out in the 1st round in the West but they get 10 points - same as the entire Nash era Suns.

I know there are many lottery West teams that would been a mid-seed in the East, but they still had no guarantees of winning the first round series against the top 4 East seeds.

I'm going to break apart the lists and have separate Western and Eastern Conference rankings. I'll eliminate the reward for winning the Finals and make the top reward winning the Conference.

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/27/2013 11:39a).]

Western Conference Post-Merger Rankings: The value for winning the conference is set as the same as winning the title. Winning the conference gets you 7 points, more than twice as much as winning the 2nd round.



Big battle for top 5 between Houston, Phoenix, Utah, Portland

Big dropoff after top 8.

The bottom 5 teams are bad compared to the East bottom 5 --> Western Conference:Eastern Conference::SEC:Big 12

Eastern Conference Post-Merger rankings:



Big battle for #2 all-time

11 of the 15 teams have won the conference

Agree that you need to give a point for making the playoffs. The Mavs were one of the worst franchises for over a decade but do not get penalized for it because playoffs teams are not getting points.

Either put a -1 for lottery teams or add point for playoffs.

Same thing for the Denver Nuggets.

quote:

---

Either put a -1 for lottery teams or add point for playoffs.

---

Why not both?

I hate when teams move to a new city but keep the "franchise" stats... dumb at the very least the list should read Thunder / Sonics... but imo they should be seperate and when/if seattle gets a team again they can pick up where they left off... OKC should not get credit for seattle's wins