I'm going to go with Basketball-Reference.com and consider the first "NBA" season to be 1946-47.

Here is the raw (unadjusted) ranking of franchises by # of NBA titles won:
17 - Celtics
16 - Lakers
6 - Bulls
5 - Spurs
3 - Sixers/Nationals, Pistons, Warriors, Heat
2 - Knicks, Rockets
1 - Bullets/Wizards, Hawks, Sonics/Thunder, Blazers, Bucks, Mavs, Kings/Royals, Baltimore Bullets*
0 - everyone else

(* The Baltimore Bullets existed from the season ending in '48 to the season ending in '54. They folded, but did win a title in '48.)

Here's a history of the # of teams in the NBA by season (listed by the ending year of the seasons):
1947 = 11 teams [Including Celts, Knicks, Warriors]
1948 = 8
1949 =12 [Royals (Kings), Lakers, Pistons joined]
1950 = 17 [Hawks, Nationals (Sixers) joined]
1951 = 11
1952-53 = 10
1954 = 9
1955-61 = 8 [All 8 are still in the NBA: Celts, Knicks, Warriors, Nationals (Sixers), Pistons, Hawks, Royals (Kings), Lakers.]
1962-66 =9 [Bullets joined]
1967 =10 [Bulls]
1968 = 12 [Rockets, Sonics (Thunder)]
1969-70 = 14 [Bucks, Suns]
1971-74 = 17 [Blazers, Braves (Clips), Cavs] NBA went to 4 divisions, Eastern & Western Conferences for season ending '71
1975-76 = 18 [Jazz]
1977-80 = 22 [SPURS, Nuggets, Pacers, Nets] ABA merger
1981-88 = 23 [Mavs]
1989 = 25 [Heat, Hornets (Pelicans)]
1990-95 = 27 [Magic, T'wolves]
1996-2003 = 29 [Grizz, Raptors]
2004-present = 30 [Bobcats (about to be Hornets again)]

THEORY: It's much harder to win an NBA title in a league with 30 teams and a Finals in June than an league with 8 or 9 or 10 teams and the Finals in freaking April.

I propose that an NBA Title won in year Y is worth T[Y]/30, where T[Y] = # of teams in the NBA in year Y.

In other words, any team winning an NBA title from 1955 thru 1961 gets 8/30 for each title won. Any team winning an NBA title from 2004 to now gets 30/30 for each title won.

Here are the revised standings of adjusted NBA titles:
11.20 = Lakers
7.90 = Celtics
5.60 = Bulls
4.93 = Spurs
3.00 = Heat
2.73 = Pistons
1.80 = Rockets
1.37 = Nationals/Sixers
1.23 = Warriors
1.03 = Knicks
1.00 = Mavs
0.73 = Bullets/Wizards, Sonics/Thunder, Blazers
0.57 = Bucks
0.37 = Royals/Kings
0.27 = Hawks, Baltimore Bullets*

BOTTOM LINE: The Celtics amassed a lot of cheap titles early in the NBA. All things considered, the Lakers should really be considered the NBA standard all time, with the Spurs and Bulls just 3 modern titles away from overtaking the Celts.

Agreed for the most part, but you also need to consider the amount of expansion dilution in the formula as well somehow. Eventually, expansion dilution catches up and the league finds a talent equilibrium again.

Winning a title now or in the later 80's was probably the toughest time to win one while winning one in the 90's where 6 teams were added in 7 years was probably the easiest.

Also 2003 they went to 7 game series the 1st round.

TL;DR

Reader's Digest version for HSum:
Hakeem wears women's underwear.

A couple years ago... Some poster on this board was proclaiming anthony davis was hasheem thabeet 2.0... Pretty certain that poster was houston summitt.

^
Good memory. That is correct

I posted my own theory awhile back that also recognized the change in the NBA due to number of teams, free agency & salary cap putting a much higher value on the Bulls, then Lakers & now Spurs championships. But, I'm too lazy to look it up. Celtics fans told me I was crazy for devaluing their titles.

Good work.

I think you should consider ABA titles since those years many of the best players in the world played in the ABA. This gets the Nets and Pacers on the board.

Also you could consider rewarding all teams in the post merger era equally. Set Y=30 for all teams since 1977. I think there should be a clear difference between the pre and post merger eras.

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/28/2014 11:56p).]

how many teams came over from the ABA? 4? Not exactly the same as the AFL/NFL merger.

Yes only 4 teams merged, but it's more about the quality of play and the many basketball superstars that were in the ABA: Dr J, Moses Malone, Rick Barry, Spencer Haywood, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin, George McGinnis, Doug Moe, Dan Issel, David Thompson, Mel Daniels, Connie Hawkins, Billy Cunningham, etc

In the first year of the merger 4 of the 10 All-NBA selections were former ABA players - Dr J, Thompson, Gervin, McGinnis

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/29/2014 11:08a).]

If you are into a belief that there has been a dilution of talent, My belief is that the nba was must diluted during the mid 90s to early 2000s.

The league had expanded, but, unlike now, the level and number of euro players, or other international players (players who did not attend US high schools or college) was not as high as it is now.

It was probably the time with the greatest amount of USA players.

I just like dividing things with modern and old.

My preferred way to divide this is with the 1980 season. The brought in the era of the three-point line, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.

The NBA was very different in the 70s and I see a much clearer dividing line in 1980 than say in 1977 for the merger.

The Sonics, Blazers, Bullets, Warriors were 4 of the last 5 champions in the 70s, but the Magic Lakers and Bird Celtics really signaled a new era in the NBA.

Not a lot of 70s NBA stars really made a dent in the 80s. Mainly just Kareem and Dr. J.

The best time for the sport was the 80s

I'd have no problem taking the 80s lakers/celtics/pistons teams to beat any of the 2000-now era lakers/spurs/heat teams

especially if the rules allowed actual defense to be played like back in the day.

quote:

---

The Celtics 17 titles are a joke. I think the OP came up with a pretty good system for valuing each Championship.

---

The Lakers also won a few cheapies in Minn with a Mikan. Just go watch some of those highlights. Its all slow and unathletic white guys jogging around. Meanwhile Mikan is 7ft tall and stands there like a statue dominating.

When Russell won his first title, the league FG% was 38%. Not a single player that year had a FG% equal to the league average this year. Russell was 5th in the NBA at .427.

quote:

---

I'd have no problem taking the 80s lakers/celtics/pistons teams to beat any of the 2000-now era lakers/spurs/heat teams

especially if the rules allowed actual defense to be played like back in the day.

---

If you play by 80s rules I think you're right, but if you play by current rules the 2012-2014 Spurs and Shaq/Bryant Lakers would win. The Spurs in particular intentionally designed the team for the current rules post-2008, so I don't think it makes sense to penalize them for that. The Heat at their peak and the early Duncan Spurs are more of a tossup in either era's rules.

Spurs are the best NBA franchise of the last 20 years.

any of the 90s bulls teams wipe the floor with SA

Dropkick Murphy, I presume?

Isn't he in jail or something?

quote:

---

any of the 90s bulls teams wipe the floor with SA

---

Selective memory at its finest.

Who the toughest Finals opponent that Chicago faced in their six title run? The Barkley Suns? The Malone/Stockton Jazz?

I'd stack the 2013/14 Heat and the 2005 Pistons up against anyone the Bulls beat.

I'd expect a Jordan Bulls vs. 2013 or 2014 Spurs would go a lot like the 2013 NBA Finals. Could go either way in 6 or 7 games, coming down to who makes a play at the end of the game. I don't see either team wiping the floor with the other.

The Spurs just did, by the way, "wipe the floor" with a 2-time defending champion that featured the best player in the league, with all apologies to KD (who the Spurs also beat 4-2).

I know the Bulls broke through a great Detroit team to get their first Finals. But SA in 2014, who blew out a 2 time defending champ by a total point differential unseen in the previous 67 NBA Finals, would not be blowout fodder to ANYONE.

^ What he said. Here's something I'm sure will cause an uproar with the Metroplexuals:

2014 Spurs would beat the 2011 Mavs.

quote:

---

Who the toughest Finals opponent that Chicago faced in their six title run? The Barkley Suns?

---

Without a doubt. '93 Suns may have actually been the better team. Can't even begin to say that about any of the Utah teams.

quote:

---

2014 Spurs would beat the 2011 Mavs.

---

So what. Getting through Kobe, Durant, and Lebron with a 12-4 record speaks for itself, and doesn't need any comparisons.

As a lifelong Mavs fan, I tend to agree with GS about 1980. When I was a little boy, I asked my dad if there was pro basketball, and he said yes, but that nobody really cared about it. Then, Bird and MJ happened, the NBA changed forever, and Dallas got a team...our attitude toward pro basketball changed.

cute that OP tried to create this whole scenario to inflate the importance of his spurs. no bias at all. 3 more "modern titles" and you're still sitting at half of the number the lakers/celtics have.
can you do the same thing with aggie football? i am not a spurs fan, but i would love to be able to ignore the a&m-texas series from 1940-1975. lets create a gimmick that makes each of those games only worth 0.25 games, and the games since 1975 count 2x.

NO need to change a thing to show the Spurs importance in history. Since they joined the NBA, only the Bulls and Lakers have more titles and only the Lakers have made the playoffs more. The Spurs are by any measure one of the greatest franchises in NBA history.

right. which is why this whole concept is a stupid exercise in masturbation.

I don't think so.

I think an NBA title today is significantly more difficult than it was in a day when you could trade the draft picks for the IceCapades to coffee to the other teams town or to have the best player at a position retire because they got a nice job offer from an insurance agency. Or because there was no salary cap and you were rich and there was no free agency so you could keep players from leaving anyway. It wasunquestionably a different game then.

quote:

---

cute that OP tried to create this whole scenario to inflate the importance of his spurs. no bias at all.

---

Call it what you want, but like I said in this thread, Spurs are the best NBA franchise of the past 20 years, by any measure. This is not up for debate, and you're just showing your bias/ignorance if you argue otherwise.

Just my opinion... and hey maybe I'm way off base here... But it's tougher to win the 15 team Western Confernce today with 3 best of 7 series than it was to win the 1960 NBA title, in an 8 team league where 6 teams made the playoffs and the the two division winners got byes to the NBA semifinals. (The first round for the other 4 teams was best of 5.)

Again, maybe I'm way the hell out on a limb.

Or not.