Ranking the NBA franchises

[WayOutWest]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Lakers

1. LOS ANGELES LAKERS: 78.71 POINTS PER SEASON (1947-2009)

Wins: 2,970
Playoff wins: 393
Series wins: 101
Titles: 14
All-Stars: 125
Best player: Magic Johnson
Best coach: Phil Jackson
Best team: 1971-72 (69-13, won NBA title)
Intangibles: +150. Endless stream of superstars -- on the court and in the seats.

Magic. Kareem. The Logo. Kobe. Shaq. When it comes to superstars, the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny -- their all-time starting five would crush any other team's; in fact, it might be better than that of the rest of the league's put together. So star-studded is their legacy that I left Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor and George Mikan off my five-man team that opened this paragraph, also neglecting the likes of James Worthy, Bob McAdoo and Gail Goodrich.

And those big names won, too. Although the Celtics have more championships, the Lakers have more of everything else -- wins, playoff wins, playoff series wins and conference titles. About the only thing that hurts L.A. in the all-time rankings is the penalty for relocating from Minnesota to Los Angeles in the 1950s.

The story begins with the Mikan years up north, where he led Minneapolis to five championships in six seasons in the formative years of the NBA. As the league's first dominant big man, he established something of a tradition.

Since then, the Lakers have almost always had at least one monstrous big man -- Mikan, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Pau Gasol -- and one electrifying perimeter star to go with him (Magic, Jerry West, Baylor, Kobe).

About the only thing the Lakers haven't been able to do is best the Celtics head-to-head. In 11 meetings against Boston in the Finals, L.A. has prevailed just twice -- both coming with Magic and Kareem's teams under Pat Riley in the 1980s. In that regard, Baylor's Minneapolis team got the ball rolling in 1958-59 in the team's last season before heading west, and in the '60s, Chamberlain and West were foiled by the Celtics five times.

Ultimately, those Lakers broke through with a 69-13 season in 1971-72 that featured a 33-game winning streak -- still a record for North American pro team sports -- to win the team's first title in L.A.

After a brief lull in the late '70s, they would get five more rings when Magic arrived to join forces with Kareem. Although there was one more painful loss to Boston interposed -- a seven-game defeat in 1984 -- L.A. avenged it by becoming the first team in nearly two decades to repeat as champs, winning in 1987 and 1988. A hamstring injury to Magic Johnson in the Finals the next year derailed the Lakers' quest for a three-peat, but they would get one a decade and a half later after Phil Jackson came to Tinseltown to guide Shaq and Kobe.

That team provided plenty of last-second excitement -- most notably the alley-oop from Kobe to Shaq that cemented a Game 7 conference finals comeback win over Portland in 2000 -- and produced one of the most dominant playoff runs in history with a 15-1 romp through the field in 2001.

Amazingly, the franchise has missed the playoffs only five times in its 61 years -- for some perspective, the Bobcats have needed just five years to match L.A.'s total. The Lakers are now playing in their sixth Finals in the past decade, and should they win, they'll be only two titles behind the hated Celtics.

[SPURSX3]

SA @ number 3 was impressive.  Compared to the history of the top two, it is a big deal IMO.

[WayOutWest]

SA @ number 3 was impressive.  Compared to the history of the top two, it is a big deal IMO.

I was very surprised they were ranked above the Bulls.

[Lurker]

SA @ number 3 was impressive.  Compared to the history of the top two, it is a big deal IMO.

I was very surprised they were ranked above the Bulls.

Spurs have been a more consistant playoff performer than the Bulls.  Jordan has more titles but outside his career the Bulls have been pretty mediocre.

[westkoast]

SA @ number 3 was impressive.  Compared to the history of the top two, it is a big deal IMO.

I was very surprised they were ranked above the Bulls.

Spurs have been a more consistant playoff performer than the Bulls.  Jordan has more titles but outside his career the Bulls have been pretty mediocre.

And don't look to be changing that any time soon.

The top teams that made the list are represented pretty well on this board. 

[rickortreat]

Cep't Hollinger is wrong about the rankings.  How does Phoenix with 0 Championships rank ahead of Philadelphia?  What criteria is he using to decide which franchise is best? If it's Championships, it's the Celtics, NOT the Lakers. If it's the collection of talents over the history of the Franchise, it's the Celtics. There's no sound logic behind Hollinger's rankings this time.  Just his biased weighting which devalues
Championships, IMO.

If it's entertainment value, that's pretty subjective. Did all those years watching Dr. J make up for only winning 1 Championship? All things considered over my lifetime, I'd rather have been a Celtic or Laker fan if my idea of a good time was parades and Championship celebrations.  It's either winning or money that should determine the rankings, and because of inflation, money can't be used without serious and uncertain recalculations. So it's winning that matters and winning championships that matters most.

[westkoast]

Cep't Hollinger is wrong about the rankings.  How does Phoenix with 0 Championships rank ahead of Philadelphia?  What criteria is he using to decide which franchise is best? If it's Championships, it's the Celtics, NOT the Lakers. If it's the collection of talents over the history of the Franchise, it's the Celtics. There's no sound logic behind Hollinger's rankings this time.  Just his biased weighting which devalues
Championships, IMO.

If it's entertainment value, that's pretty subjective. Did all those years watching Dr. J make up for only winning 1 Championship? All things considered over my lifetime, I'd rather have been a Celtic or Laker fan if my idea of a good time was parades and Championship celebrations.  It's either winning or money that should determine the rankings, and because of inflation, money can't be used without serious and uncertain recalculations. So it's winning that matters and winning championships that matters most.

You must not have read the article Rick.  The reason the Lakers were ranked ahead of the Celtics is because of the long lapse of time between their last championship with Larry Bird and their recent one with Kevin Garnett.  The Lakers had won 5 titles in that same stretch of time and had 8 finals appearances.  Again with the Laker hate causes blindness.  YOUR BIAS is devaluing winning consistently over the years and making the playoffs 9 times out of 10.   In the last 20 years the Lakers have won 4 titles and the Celtics 1. 

The reason they picked the Suns over the Sixers is that they've had much more success over the past 15 years.  Both have made it to the finals once and lost.  Though the Suns had been a contender for the title the last 5.  Do I agree with them?  I don't know.  The Sixers have a rich history, a title, and have actually been to the finals in the last 10 years.  The Suns 'rich history' starts with Barkley in the 90s (IMO) and is about to end once Nash goes. 

[rickortreat]

If your going to compare franchises you compare their entire history and entire body of work, not what they've done recently.  Hollinger's logic is garbage.  Why does a title in 1955 count less than one in 2005?  That's nonesense.  So does the discounting of great players who played when the league was smaller.  The talent was better years ago thanks to the dillution of talent. and the teams' increased familiarity made it harder to post as good a record. 

If Hollinger wants to say that LA has passed Boston as the NBA's supreme franchise, then he should say that he's putting more weight on recent events.  The Championship totals and number of all-stars is overwhelming in favor of the Celtics.  And Jackson may have more titles than Auerbach, but he also has more losses in the finals too, and a lower winning percentage.

It's not Laker hate that demands a level playing field but fair, objective analysis. Of course you want to agree with it because of it's conclusions.  The logic is still crap.

[Derek Bodner]

Why does a title in 1955 count less than one in 2005?

Because most of the people reading his article weren't alive in 1955.

[Joe Vancil]

There've been 4 Celtic titles since I started watching basketball;  there've been 4 Laker titles this decade.  (That is dependent, of course, on how you define "decade"...but I digress.)

While the Celtic tradition is a grand one, the fact is that to a person like me, it's more stuff of legend than it is what I've seen. 

In my lifetime, the Lakers have been the league's most dominant franchise.  Part of that is because in the '80's, the Lakers were pretty much alone in the Western Conference, whereas Boston and Philly were always battling it out.  Unless LA was playing in Boston or Philly, the late game every weekend was somebody versus LA.  (It was *SO* boring...Boston or Philly versus somebody, and then somebody versus LA.  If I never see Larry Bird play against Magic Johnson again, I'm okay with that.  I've seen it PLENTY.)

I think the article hit the nail squarely on the head.  Most of my gripes are about lower teams, as well as some question about why Detroit is as low as it is.

[westkoast]

I don't see how a title in 1955 is comparable to a title in say 2007. The game has evolved immensely and the number of talented athletic players is literally 25 to 1 compared to then.  You have people all over the world honing their skills and working to improve their weaknesses on the court.  Not to mention players in general have seemed to get faster and stronger (probably due to training techniques that have been developed over the years).

Joe what other teams did you have an issue with?  I question the Pacers being over the Houston Rockets who went back to back.

[WayOutWest]

If your going to compare franchises you compare their entire history and entire body of work, not what they've done recently.  Hollinger's logic is garbage.  Why does a title in 1955 count less than one in 2005?  That's nonesense.  So does the discounting of great players who played when the league was smaller.  The talent was better years ago thanks to the dillution of talent. and the teams' increased familiarity made it harder to post as good a record. 

I agree, you can't discount titles from "back in the day".  The only problem I have with titles in the 60's was the Celtics were like the Yankees in that they bought up the best talent.  Not all of their buying was above the board from what I've read.

If Hollinger wants to say that LA has passed Boston as the NBA's supreme franchise, then he should say that he's putting more weight on recent events.

It's not that he's putting more weight on recent events, it's the FACT that the Lakers don't go into the toilet between Championships and the Lakers don't go "ringless" for double decades at a time.

The Championship totals and number of all-stars is overwhelming in favor of the Celtics.

 

This is a blind Laker hate comment rick.  So TWO championships is overwhelming?  That's just BLINDNESS!  I don't know how you can say the Celtics have an overwhelming advantage in all-stars.  It's either Laker hate blindness or you just don't know much about basketball history.  In fact I would say it's the Lakers who have an overwhelming advantage in all-stars.  You're either blind or clueless rick, which is it?

Of the top of my head:
Mikam
West
Baylor
Wilt
Kareem
Magic
Worthy
Shaq
Kobe

Then you have guys who probably made the all-star game or were close to making the team:
MacAdoo
Wilkes
Nixon
Green
Scott
Gasol
Odom
Jones
Rice
NVE
Grant
Horry

And Jackson may have more titles than Auerbach, but he also has more losses in the finals too, and a lower winning percentage.

Durring the Finals I saw a blurb about PJ vs Red, I think it showed PJ has him beat in EVERY catagory, including winning % in reg and playoffs.  PJ does have more losses but how does that outweight PJ having Red beat in every winning catagory?  Blindness!

It's not Laker hate that demands a level playing field but fair, objective analysis. Of course you want to agree with it because of it's conclusions.  The logic is still crap.

Nope, it's clearly Laker hate or an inability to perform an analysis.

[Laker Fan]

Cep't Hollinger is wrong about the rankings.  How does Phoenix with 0 Championships rank ahead of Philadelphia?  What criteria is he using to decide which franchise is best? If it's Championships, it's the Celtics, NOT the Lakers. If it's the collection of talents over the history of the Franchise, it's the Celtics. There's no sound logic behind Hollinger's rankings this time.  Just his biased weighting which devalues
Championships, IMO.

If it's entertainment value, that's pretty subjective. Did all those years watching Dr. J make up for only winning 1 Championship? All things considered over my lifetime, I'd rather have been a Celtic or Laker fan if my idea of a good time was parades and Championship celebrations.  It's either winning or money that should determine the rankings, and because of inflation, money can't be used without serious and uncertain recalculations. So it's winning that matters and winning championships that matters most.

While you make a good point about Phoenix being ranked ahead of Philly, in fact I agree with you on that one, I think you miss the overall point he was making consistency in terms of quality on the floor, no way in the world Boston beats LA in overall product and consistency of putting very competitive teams out there year in year out. In fact, over the last 25 years, which is well more than half their history, Utah BLOWS AWAY Phoenix AND Philly, but their first 8-9 years were so bad I can see why they rank where they are, same goes for Houston, Detroit clearly is better than them or the Pacers in terms of quality for very long stretches. This is exactly why Boston ranks below Los Angeles.

If Hollinger wants to say that LA has passed Boston as the NBA's supreme franchise, then he should say that he's putting more weight on recent events.  The Championship totals and number of all-stars is overwhelming in favor of the Celtics.  And Jackson may have more titles than Auerbach, but he also has more losses in the finals too, and a lower winning percentage.

I don't believe it is recent events, it is overall history. LA has put 30 team in the Finals, at least 2 teams in EVERY decade since their founding. While Boston was in a 20 year Finals drought from 87-07, LA was putting 9 teams in the Finals, winning 5, which more than makes up for Boston's incredible run through the '60's, because at that time LA was still right there, in the Finals 7 times, regardless of whether they lost all 7 to Boston, the point is consistency. Boston has had 1 stretch of 10 years without a Finals appearance, 1 stretch of 20 years, LA has had 1 stretch of 6 and 1 stretch of 8. Since the inception of the Finals MVP, LA beats Boston 11-6, but even if it went back to the NBA's founding, it would still be likely 16-16, and LA is the only losing team to have a player named Finals MVP (Jerry West). Teams fans don't have the rabid HATRED of other teams like they do LA, and it is BECAUSE of their incredible success.

I would hardly call their championships overwhelmingly in favor of Boston. When you get into the rarified air of these 2 teams Finals success, 17-15 is hardly "overwhelming". 30 Finals trips to 17 however, IS overwhelming in terms of Finals trips and that does give Boston an overwhelmingly higher winning percentage, but again, overall success seems to be the criteria and that edge clearly favors LA. Same argument for all stars, how is 128-125 overwhelming? Over the course of their long histories, that is a virtual dead heat. LA beat them in overall wins (2,970-2,961), overwhelmingly in playoff wins (397-309), overwhelmingly in series wins (102-85), and decidedly in overall quality.

[Joe Vancil]

I don't see how a title in 1955 is comparable to a title in say 2007. The game has evolved immensely and the number of talented athletic players is literally 25 to 1 compared to then.  You have people all over the world honing their skills and working to improve their weaknesses on the court.  Not to mention players in general have seemed to get faster and stronger (probably due to training techniques that have been developed over the years).

Joe what other teams did you have an issue with?  I question the Pacers being over the Houston Rockets who went back to back.

I think it's ridiculous to rank the Thunder at 12 - ahead of Detroit, Miami, New York, and Dallas - especially when the franchise is a year old.  Please keep in mind that *SEATTLE* still owns the Sonic franchise and records, as negotiated with the NBA, and even if not, I'd still say Detroit, Miami, NY, and Dallas should be ahead of them.

How is Washington behind the Hawks?  How are the Clippers not dead last?  Denver, Cleveland, and Golden State ahead of Washington?  Grizzlies behind the Clippers - the team that DEFINES what it means to lose?  Orlando ahead of Dallas - when Dallas has won more finals games?  Why is Golden State - who has actually won a title before being hopeless for a long time - behind Denver - who was hopeless for a long time.  And New Jersey that low, when they've had more recent success than New York, and had ABA success?

Shouldn't Portland be ahead of Utah?  And I can't see Detroit being any lower than 9.