They have less rings than bulls and never won back to back. I wouldn't call them a model franchise. Tim Duncan made them. Mj made the bulls. Mj accomplished more with less help. It has to be bulls.
The Spurs have been around for 1 less year than the Bulls, but they have significantly more wins, more playoff appearances, have played in a tougher conference, went to the playoffs for **20 consecutive years**, and have 1 less ring than the franchise who had arguably the greatest player ever and arguably the greatest coach ever.
They're a model of being consistently great.
And never won back to back. All that and never defended their title. They are the only franchise with that many rings and didn't win back to back. Bulls lakers celtics heat warriors all won back to back. I personally don't like to consider teams a dynasty unless they win back to back. Which Tim couldn't do. He didn't have that dominance in him.
Tim Duncan didn’t have the dominance in him but the spurs kept getting back. Have the best player of all time for all your wins should be a knock against the franchise.
I would go Spurs next. They have been in the league for 48 years, they have finished 1st in their division 22 times, won the championship 5 times, and missed the playoffs entirely 9 times (5 of them in the last 5 years), not to mention that they have the league's best historical win-loss percentage (59.6%), despite their slump in recent seasons. In comparison, the Warriors won 5 titles in that time span, and the Bulls won 6. But the Warriors finished 1st in their division only 5 of those years, missed the playoffs in 32 of them, and historically have won fewer than half of the games they have played (48.6%). The Bulls won their division in 8 of those seasons, missed the playoff entirely in 20 of those seasons, and historically have won 50.9% of their games, so about middle of the road in that regard. The Warriors have more success if you go back farther, so depending on how you weigh deep history I could see putting them over the Spurs, but overall as a franchise I would take the Spurs next for their sustained quality of play since entering the league.
Drafting Duncan in the one season that Robinson was out injured is actually diabolical work - in the best way possible, of course.
Now the Spurs have Wemby and the future looks even brighter.
Ayyy, I remember when they were ALWAYS top 2 in winning percentage, ALWAYS no matter WHATT!!
Most of the time they wouldn’t even be hyped up by ESPN no one lol until end of year they were top 2 they were on top of the game for a whileeeee. Duncan, Ginobili my favorite out of three and Parker then adding Leonard on top of that sheesh they were a beauty to watch
Agreed anyone could fuck it up but you’re talking about some of the most disciplined players the nba has seen. They were this way before they met Pop. Really it’s not meant to take anything away from him, just I believe that the admiral and the big fundamental were different and the fact that they were together actually elevated both of them
In that case aren’t the Miami Heat only relevant essentially because of Dwayne Wade, aren’t the Warriors only relevant essentially because of Steph. I know they have history too but it’s performances and recruitment from those two guys that allows these two teams to kind of be in the conversation for 3rd no?
I don’t disagree that those guys are foundational for how we view those franchises now but when was the last time a team finished last, got the first pick and after the rookie season they won the championship. Did not happen with wade, steph, Jordan, lebron. But it did happen after Duncan was drafted
Lol it does seem like those six are in a clear category by themselves. There's probably some teams that could argue they should be up there with the Heat since the heat didn't even come around till 89 I guess
Until around 2020 I’d say that the pistons had a better argument than the heat to be included in that category. But the pistons have been so bad for so long, and the heat have been generally great for almost 20 years so it’s a fair swap.
Milwaukee is a bit underrated. The Heat only started in 1989 and they have three titles and the consensus is they are above Milwaukee. Milwaukee has two titles, but they were good for the entire '80s. Every year in the 80s they made the playoffs and they only lost in the first round once. In 1983 they swept the Celtics and they also beat the 76ers once or twice in the early '80s iirc which was hard to do then. Even in the series they lost in the playoffs in the '80s to Boston and Philadelphia they were very competitive
Also outside the bad boys and going to work eras the pistons are usually bottom of the league. I would love to argue them above some others, but they lack sustained success. Think they are bottom 10 for winning percentage, and last I looked was prior to last season.
As a Bulls fan, the Bulls should not be anywhere close to the discussion. We were lucky Michael Jordan fell into our laps. Take out Jordan and the Bulls have had less success than any franchise in the league.
Well. The Warriors have 7 total 4 due to the fact we happened to luck into Curry. Two in the ancient times when they were not even in the Bay Area and one because of Rick Berry. I would not say the Warriors have even a good track record outside of recent times and a few years in the 70s and pre-Oakland/SF.
The Bulls may have lucked into Jordan but they won two three-peats. It is kind of ridiculous that even with that they have literally no other championships despite being in a large market. That's why they would be ranked lower than Boston, LA, SAS and Warriors. Jordan made you guys. Jordan is most of the legacy of the entire franchise. He is the best player that ever lived and thus that legacy is pretty large.
I heard you guys are re-tooling again and just got Josh Giddy. That is at least a bit exciting. I hope DeRozan ends up somewhere good. The NBA is always about getting lucky in the draft. Not necessarily the 1st pick either. Just the right pick.
If there is a debate it would be that this bulls dominance is way way better and bigger than the Spurs dominance. The Spurs never repeated so their claim of even ever having a "dynasty" is kind of weird.
Conversely, a think 'dynasties' are examples of bad franchises and a lack of dynasties are an example of good franchises, if they still win.
Congrats, Chicago drafted Jordan and it panned out, better than any draft pick ever. I'd argue it's harder to keep a franchise strong for a long time without relying on a handful of players to play exceptionally for a handful of years.
Franchises with multiple championships with different groups of guys stretched over decades, that always have a solid record despite who's on the team
>>>
franchises with a golden chapter or a few golden chapters thanks to a generational player but outside those highs are dogshit
Once in a while if your luck is right, anyone can go out and hook the big tuna. They could probably even land the fish themselves. But it's harder and takes more skill to go out and return with 4-5 decent fish every single day for 20 years, imo
A thing not mentioned here is the Spurs longevity is a slight bit overrated cuz they didn't really do much of anything outside of the Duncan era. I think they made the conference Finals once with Gervin(?) and once with Robinson obviously their sustained success is better than the Bulls, but it really is limited to 1 player as well in the Tim Duncan era so far in terms of titles.
Also, If you expand it out then they also had three overall no brainer top picks they lucked into since the overall odds were against them all three times. So if you're evaluating the organizations, I wouldn't necessarily say the Spurs had such a better organization over the years than the Bulls because they could have ended up with Keith Van Horn, Scoop Hebderson, and Armen Gilliam (he went #2 in 1987 behind Robinson) if they didn't luck out and hook the big tunas themselves.
Spurs always didn't pressure Duncan into an early retirement because they wanted control.
I think it's a sign of a good franchise if you can retain a stat player for 20 years, especially with only one bit of drama about leaving.
Kobe had a long tenure with the lakers as well, but the lakers cater to superstars more than they are a well rounded franchise, and Kobe was a superstar. Also Kobe being hard on his teammates and wanting to leave because they weren't building around him is more scandalous and telling of a bad franchise I think than refusing to allow the family on the plan, which they retracted as soon as it was ganna cause Duncan to leave. Even then, I think it's a plus for the lakers they were able to keep Kobe for 20 years.
And sure, the spurs have been gifted three no-brainer #1 picks, but that also shouldn't retract from their excellent track record of finding an maximizing the potential of young players. Ginobli, boner, Parker, leanord, etc all I can name that were either drafted by or traded for before a single game by the spurs. And I always feel spur role players have a way of getting known and doing more than their comps on other weaker franchises.
Jordan wasn’t retired in 95 and since the mid 80s the Rockets have consistently been competitive with the Olajuwon early year Rockets > championship Rockets > aging championship Rockets > Yao / Francis (later T Mac) > Harden Rockets
That being said fully aware they don’t have the rings, but they are definitely in the top 3rd of the league
It’s really only between Bulls or Spurs. Spurs success was longer but Bulls were straight dominant in the 90s. Vast majority of people would say Bulls
Spurs would have a bigger chance if they won back to back
And what have the Bulls successes looked like without Jordan? The Spurs were a pretty good team pre-Duncan. Other than his injury season, Robinson's teams made the playoffs every year pre-Duncan, several times with one of the top records in the league. Granted, not good enough to win it all, but one of the best teams in the league most of Robinson's seasons pre-Duncan. And we haven't even mentioned the Iceman years. Dude was a perennial 2-seed as a Spur with 4 scoring titles.
All of this to say, I don't know where we place the Spurs in all-time franchise rankings, but, come one, it's definitely higher than the Bulls.
I was more thinking that the bulls weren't a complete poverty franchise outside of Jordan, but the spurs are middle of the pack without Duncan.
I think you could make a decent case either way depending on what you care more about. The bulls had the best decade-long stretch in NBA history and are possibly the most culturally significant of all the NBA. The spurs' peak doesn't come close to Chicago's, and they aren't particularly popular. But they have better long term success, have influenced the way the NBA worked more than any other team, and have done more with less and are by far the greatest small market franchise. Just depends on how you look at it imo
(And honestly you could make a convincing case that the spurs are a better franchise than the Lakers. Lord knows if you swapped cities the San Antonio Lakers would be a poverty franchise worse than the kings and the LA Spurs probably wouldn't have missed the playoffs in the 21st century.)
Aside from the Celtics and Lakers, the most championships (and the number of decades with a championship):
Warriors: 7 (5)
Bulls: 6 (1)
Spurs: 5 (3)
I think the Warriors have to be #3, as they’re not 100% dependent on a single team/decade for every single one of their title, and do have the most championships of non-Celtics/Lakers team.
As a Warriors fan I don't think they can be no. 3 because their run from the early 90s post Webber to the the Curry years was so consistently atrocious. Being consistently good but not winning a championship should count. The Warriors have not been consistently good.
It’s not different, except the Lakers are still number 1 after as franchises go without the Minneapolis titles from decades ago. It doesn’t change anything.
Sixers/Philly gets a bump, and Warriors/SF/Oak are losing the Philly title numbers. It’s matters for those cities.
I mean the same way people are putting the spurs above the bulls because their success wasn’t all concentrated in a single decade you could do a similar thing to the celtics. The lakers have been far more consistently good past the 60s. The celtics have won twice in the past 37 years. The lakers basically win at least one ring every 10 years
Spurs vs Bulls is 5 vs 6. Not saying I agree but you could debate about it and be interesting.
Lakers without MN would be 18 vs 12. I don't know how you can argue that. Concentrated or not.
I’m good with not counting the rings from Minneapolis. Makes sense tbh. But let’s also not count the Celtics rings from before the merger.
Edit: For some reason I thought that a lot more than 4 teams were absorbed during the merger. It seems I was mistaken. I'm open to rethinking this, but it does seem like an unfair comparison to count a championship when there were like 8 teams as the same to a championship in the modern era.
Celtics shouldn’t count the stuff from before the ABA/NBA merger
Edit: For some reason I thought that a lot more than 4 teams were absorbed during the merger. It seems I was mistaken. I'm open to rethinking this, but it does seem like an unfair comparison to count a championship when there were like 8 teams as the same to a championship in the modern era.
By your logic I could see an argument for warriors at 2 over the Celtics, since 11 of 18 titles came from one team in an era with a wayyyyyy smaller league (from 8 teams to 14)
Decades are not a good indicator. Years are arbitrary. Bulls had 6 wins in 8 years, where they were the best team in the league and odds on favorite to win the championships - which they did within 6 games. Warriors won at least of the 2 of the last four not the odds favorite nor considered the best in the league.
Warriors may have 7, but 1 of those were 80 years ago.
While decades are somewhat arbitrary, it’s still worth noting if a team had success outside one insanely dominant run/dynasty.
It’s probably also worth checking total Finals appearances, since it is still better to make it to the finals and lose than to not make it at all.
And maybe even the number of outright bad seasons. Being consistently good is good, but rebuilds have utility too. So maybe this one isn’t really important.
TL;DR: Any metric is going to be imperfect and incomplete.
How about total playoff wins?
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-team-most-playoff-wins
According to this, the 76ers are 3rd (and also have 3 championships, all pretty spread out), but I don't see anybody else mentioning them.
Interesting metric. Not a bad idea. But it may help to weight the wins in later rounds, but that sounds like a lot more work, and can be pretty subjective as to the proper weighting.
There’s also most total finals appearances, where the 76ers are 4th to the Warriors’ 3rd.
That's kinda the logic that I was going with for total wins. It takes 4 wins to get to the next round, so teams with more wins, for the most part, will have a history of going deeper in the playoffs.
The downside to that metric is that teams that have been around since the founding of the league will have more of an advantage compared to newer teams.
Though if you're talking about the best franchise in NBA HISTORY, it might still be worth it to give those teams more of an advantage for being around longer. Kinda like ranking a guy like Vince Carter ahead of a guy like SGA in all-time rankings - the guy who did it for a much longer time gets a bonus.
While that may be true, maybe we should throw in franchises that have been pretty consistently good/great but never won a ring. As a franchise, Is it better to have 30 playoff years and no ring, or 10 playoff years with 2 rings?
What franchise with 0 rings has been as consistently good as the best non-Celtics/Lakers team for their franchise history?
The Spurs have 5 rings and made the playoffs in 39 of 48 NBA seasons (81%). They also have the all-time best franchise winning %.
The Heat have 3 rings and made the playoffs in 26 of 36 seasons (72%).
The 76ers have 3 rings and made the playoffs 54 of 75 seasons (72%).
Are you going to say the Jazz and Suns?
The Jazz have 0 rings and made the playoffs 31 of 50 seasons (62%).
The Suns have 0 rings and made the playoffs 33 of 56 seasons (59%).
Thanks for the stats. It was more of an interesting question about the value of a ring against long playoff success.
The thing about rings is that many teams who have championships probably would not have had them if they played against the 90s bulls, 2017-18 warriors, etc. There are a handful of teams that were so dominant that they may have denied otherwise great teams from attaining a ring.
Sure, but the Spurs do still have 5 rings, the highest win %, and a very high rate of making the postseason. Going up against the 90s Bulls or KD Warriors only takes away titles, not playoff appearances or regular season win %.
If we take rings out of the equation, I think the Spurs arguably have an even better argument, with an elite win % and an elite rate of making the postseason.
I agree, but I'm asking for franchises. I think it is an interesting question. Teams like utah have had great seasons but fell short. I would still count them as a great franchise, just not sure where they would rank. Maybe just outside the top 10.
I'm a Mavs fan, and I feel they fall into that category of a ring and otherwise up and down. I would definitely prefer up and down with a ring, than make the playoffs every year. Again, it will differ from person to person though. 100% opinion.
Celtics won 9 in a row back in the early days.
Minneapolis Lakers won three in the way back.
Then again in LA with Shaq and Kobe.
Jordan’s Bulls did three in a row twice, over an eight year period.
Bulls are third. Spurs are fourth.
Five in 15 doesn’t trump six in 8
Definitely the Spurs, who have the [best regular season record in the NBA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_NBA_win–loss_records), aggregating all their seasons together.
My team, the Wolves, is the worst overall, but maybe a couple more seasons like the last one and they'll catch the Clippers. If they go 82–0 next year that would do it.
I like the Spurs but I think the Warriors deserve close consideration. Like the Spurs won 2 of the 4 most important drafts in the last 40 years. The Warriors won in the 60s,70s, 10s and 20s and in the 90s had that really fun Mullin-Hardaway-Richmond run and the Baron Davis team in the aughts before Steph changed everything.
Bulls had an amazing run in the 90s, but haven't really been competitive since (except for.a blip with Derrick Rose), and weren't great before Jordan either.
And there was obvious organizational dysfunction during the Jordan era that contributed to the end of the era. I don't see how you can call the Bulls the 3rd best "franchise" - above organizations that have been successful over multiple generations of players.
The Warriors have actually been a pretty lousy franchise. Don’t let a few years of championships for you into thinking it’s always been that way. When I was a kid they were so bad every year.
I’ve been a Warriors fan all of my life. If you would have told me 15 years ago that they were even included in this conversation I’d have laughed in your face. I’ve seen more terrible basketball than I’d like to admit. I’m just happy they are in the conversation
As a warriors fan, think they might be top 5 but 3 is way to generous. We’re pretty bad for decades pre-curry. Spurs or Heat have been more consistent longer.
They were good in the 70's too.
After the celtics and Lakers, warriors and bulls have 6 championships and the spurs have 5. They are all in that conversation
No other nba team has more than 3
Spurs/Bulls/ Warriors - either one i could see spurs longevity, bulls had Mike and 3 threepeats, and warriors changed the modern game and dominated post seasons like crazy.
Kings are too high imo.
They've gone multiple generations without playing a finals game, let alone winning a chip. Their last championship was in the Truman administration. They also have the longest playoff drought in history and have multiple decade long streaks of not having a winning record. They also have gone 20 years to date without winning a playoff series.
I'd put the kings around 28th, only ahead of the pelicans, hornets, wolves, clippers, and grizzlies.
That’s fair, kings and wizards were tough to rank. I ended up putting any team with a chip above any team without one. But yeah it wouldn’t be unreasonable for either to be around 25-26
It's a distant 3rd with a bunch of contenders who have a limited window of being really good. Spurs, bulls, dubs. None of which have been consistently good. They had dynasty runs and that's about it.
Heat, as much as it pains me to say, have been consistent. I wish the answer was the Knicks or sixers.
I don’t think Celtics should realistically be considered 2nd, they only have 6 titles post merger - they’ve had as much success in 50 years as the bulls did in one decade
No disrespect to those 50s/60s Celtics teams, they were stacked, but they played in a league smaller than the current playoffs - it just shouldn’t count when considering the best franchises in league history
Homer take here. Pacers aren’t 3, but they may be a top 5. They’ve had great teams in the past 3 decades. Just ran into Jordan, Detroit stands, or Lebron, during each of their peaks. They’ve never been *bad* bad during that stretch.
Not The Spurs. They lucked out with Three Lottery wins to get Robinson Duncan and Wemby. We've seen how crappy they've been since and decades before. So only 1 run ib their history, though it was great. Lakers, Celtics haven't picked first in nearly 5 decades.
I'd say The Heat. Only been around less than 4 decades. They were good Pre-Wade in the nineties, then 2003-15 with Wade then LeBron and have made yhe Finals twice since 2020. Not many terrible seasons if any, in 35 years.
I'm not a Heat fan, btw
Spurs > Heat
It is so obviously the Spurs. They're a model franchise.
They have less rings than bulls and never won back to back. I wouldn't call them a model franchise. Tim Duncan made them. Mj made the bulls. Mj accomplished more with less help. It has to be bulls.
The Spurs have been around for 1 less year than the Bulls, but they have significantly more wins, more playoff appearances, have played in a tougher conference, went to the playoffs for **20 consecutive years**, and have 1 less ring than the franchise who had arguably the greatest player ever and arguably the greatest coach ever. They're a model of being consistently great.
And never won back to back. All that and never defended their title. They are the only franchise with that many rings and didn't win back to back. Bulls lakers celtics heat warriors all won back to back. I personally don't like to consider teams a dynasty unless they win back to back. Which Tim couldn't do. He didn't have that dominance in him.
What an arbitrary take. Is better to win back to back championships than win 2 in 3 years while making the PO x3 more?
Once is a fluke twice is proof. I still have him top 5
Tim Duncan didn’t have the dominance in him but the spurs kept getting back. Have the best player of all time for all your wins should be a knock against the franchise.
Nah I think Heat more
I would go Spurs next. They have been in the league for 48 years, they have finished 1st in their division 22 times, won the championship 5 times, and missed the playoffs entirely 9 times (5 of them in the last 5 years), not to mention that they have the league's best historical win-loss percentage (59.6%), despite their slump in recent seasons. In comparison, the Warriors won 5 titles in that time span, and the Bulls won 6. But the Warriors finished 1st in their division only 5 of those years, missed the playoffs in 32 of them, and historically have won fewer than half of the games they have played (48.6%). The Bulls won their division in 8 of those seasons, missed the playoff entirely in 20 of those seasons, and historically have won 50.9% of their games, so about middle of the road in that regard. The Warriors have more success if you go back farther, so depending on how you weigh deep history I could see putting them over the Spurs, but overall as a franchise I would take the Spurs next for their sustained quality of play since entering the league.
They also are the keepers of the golden child
As a Spurs fan, we are truly blessed.
Drafting Duncan in the one season that Robinson was out injured is actually diabolical work - in the best way possible, of course. Now the Spurs have Wemby and the future looks even brighter.
Ayyy, I remember when they were ALWAYS top 2 in winning percentage, ALWAYS no matter WHATT!! Most of the time they wouldn’t even be hyped up by ESPN no one lol until end of year they were top 2 they were on top of the game for a whileeeee. Duncan, Ginobili my favorite out of three and Parker then adding Leonard on top of that sheesh they were a beauty to watch
Never won back to back
That franchise is only relevant because David Robinson broke his foot. Downvote me to hell but prove me wrong
There are plenty of ways to fuck up a team with 2 generational players, SAS did the opposite, and did it for 20 straight years
Agreed anyone could fuck it up but you’re talking about some of the most disciplined players the nba has seen. They were this way before they met Pop. Really it’s not meant to take anything away from him, just I believe that the admiral and the big fundamental were different and the fact that they were together actually elevated both of them
You could say that about any team that’s been successful.
Getting the draft picks is one thing. You still have to develop them, make them adhere to the culture and find the pieces around them to win.
Absolutely. But not having one of the best players to play the game on your team would have a great effect on how the franchise is viewed
In that case aren’t the Miami Heat only relevant essentially because of Dwayne Wade, aren’t the Warriors only relevant essentially because of Steph. I know they have history too but it’s performances and recruitment from those two guys that allows these two teams to kind of be in the conversation for 3rd no?
I don’t disagree that those guys are foundational for how we view those franchises now but when was the last time a team finished last, got the first pick and after the rookie season they won the championship. Did not happen with wade, steph, Jordan, lebron. But it did happen after Duncan was drafted
Magic? Bill Russell? Both 1st or 2nd draft picks that won chips in year 1 or 2
Yep I wonder what magic could’ve been if he wasn’t removed from the league. And I’m pretty sure those are considered the top franchises yea?
They werent considered the best before those guys
Spurs.
Spurs
Boston, LA, San Antonio, Warriors, Bulls, Heat is my guess for top 5.
*6
That's what I meant, lol.
Lol it does seem like those six are in a clear category by themselves. There's probably some teams that could argue they should be up there with the Heat since the heat didn't even come around till 89 I guess
Until around 2020 I’d say that the pistons had a better argument than the heat to be included in that category. But the pistons have been so bad for so long, and the heat have been generally great for almost 20 years so it’s a fair swap.
Milwaukee is a bit underrated. The Heat only started in 1989 and they have three titles and the consensus is they are above Milwaukee. Milwaukee has two titles, but they were good for the entire '80s. Every year in the 80s they made the playoffs and they only lost in the first round once. In 1983 they swept the Celtics and they also beat the 76ers once or twice in the early '80s iirc which was hard to do then. Even in the series they lost in the playoffs in the '80s to Boston and Philadelphia they were very competitive
Also outside the bad boys and going to work eras the pistons are usually bottom of the league. I would love to argue them above some others, but they lack sustained success. Think they are bottom 10 for winning percentage, and last I looked was prior to last season.
As a Bulls fan, the Bulls should not be anywhere close to the discussion. We were lucky Michael Jordan fell into our laps. Take out Jordan and the Bulls have had less success than any franchise in the league.
Well. The Warriors have 7 total 4 due to the fact we happened to luck into Curry. Two in the ancient times when they were not even in the Bay Area and one because of Rick Berry. I would not say the Warriors have even a good track record outside of recent times and a few years in the 70s and pre-Oakland/SF. The Bulls may have lucked into Jordan but they won two three-peats. It is kind of ridiculous that even with that they have literally no other championships despite being in a large market. That's why they would be ranked lower than Boston, LA, SAS and Warriors. Jordan made you guys. Jordan is most of the legacy of the entire franchise. He is the best player that ever lived and thus that legacy is pretty large. I heard you guys are re-tooling again and just got Josh Giddy. That is at least a bit exciting. I hope DeRozan ends up somewhere good. The NBA is always about getting lucky in the draft. Not necessarily the 1st pick either. Just the right pick.
Yeah Spurs, no debate
If there is a debate it would be that this bulls dominance is way way better and bigger than the Spurs dominance. The Spurs never repeated so their claim of even ever having a "dynasty" is kind of weird.
Conversely, a think 'dynasties' are examples of bad franchises and a lack of dynasties are an example of good franchises, if they still win. Congrats, Chicago drafted Jordan and it panned out, better than any draft pick ever. I'd argue it's harder to keep a franchise strong for a long time without relying on a handful of players to play exceptionally for a handful of years. Franchises with multiple championships with different groups of guys stretched over decades, that always have a solid record despite who's on the team >>> franchises with a golden chapter or a few golden chapters thanks to a generational player but outside those highs are dogshit Once in a while if your luck is right, anyone can go out and hook the big tuna. They could probably even land the fish themselves. But it's harder and takes more skill to go out and return with 4-5 decent fish every single day for 20 years, imo
A thing not mentioned here is the Spurs longevity is a slight bit overrated cuz they didn't really do much of anything outside of the Duncan era. I think they made the conference Finals once with Gervin(?) and once with Robinson obviously their sustained success is better than the Bulls, but it really is limited to 1 player as well in the Tim Duncan era so far in terms of titles. Also, If you expand it out then they also had three overall no brainer top picks they lucked into since the overall odds were against them all three times. So if you're evaluating the organizations, I wouldn't necessarily say the Spurs had such a better organization over the years than the Bulls because they could have ended up with Keith Van Horn, Scoop Hebderson, and Armen Gilliam (he went #2 in 1987 behind Robinson) if they didn't luck out and hook the big tunas themselves.
Spurs always didn't pressure Duncan into an early retirement because they wanted control. I think it's a sign of a good franchise if you can retain a stat player for 20 years, especially with only one bit of drama about leaving. Kobe had a long tenure with the lakers as well, but the lakers cater to superstars more than they are a well rounded franchise, and Kobe was a superstar. Also Kobe being hard on his teammates and wanting to leave because they weren't building around him is more scandalous and telling of a bad franchise I think than refusing to allow the family on the plan, which they retracted as soon as it was ganna cause Duncan to leave. Even then, I think it's a plus for the lakers they were able to keep Kobe for 20 years. And sure, the spurs have been gifted three no-brainer #1 picks, but that also shouldn't retract from their excellent track record of finding an maximizing the potential of young players. Ginobli, boner, Parker, leanord, etc all I can name that were either drafted by or traded for before a single game by the spurs. And I always feel spur role players have a way of getting known and doing more than their comps on other weaker franchises.
For sure the Spurs. What they did in that small market means a lot.
3. Spurs 4.Bulls 5. warriors 6. pistons 7. rockets Imo
Rockets are hard to justify when their only 2 championships are from when Jordan was retired And no Heat on your list is insane
Jordan wasn’t retired in 95 and since the mid 80s the Rockets have consistently been competitive with the Olajuwon early year Rockets > championship Rockets > aging championship Rockets > Yao / Francis (later T Mac) > Harden Rockets That being said fully aware they don’t have the rings, but they are definitely in the top 3rd of the league
The Rockets nonetheless had two of the toughest paths to the title in 94 and 95, particularly 95 where they beat 4 teams that averaged 59 wins.
Jordan lost to the Magic in 95... People need to stop pretending he didn't play
Jordan only played 6 seasons. What are you talking about? /s
He played 17 games smart guy
Soooo 20% plus playoffs??? He was still putting up 50. Dude just lost, smart guy
Regardless, Rockets aren’t above heat in all time rankings
Make your own list then, stud muffin
8. Heat 9. 76ers 10. Bucks
It’s really only between Bulls or Spurs. Spurs success was longer but Bulls were straight dominant in the 90s. Vast majority of people would say Bulls Spurs would have a bigger chance if they won back to back
Yeah, but the question was franchise history, not highest peak. Hard to argue with the Spurs historical success over their entire history.
I mean, there wasn't much success to speak of before or after tim Duncan.
And what have the Bulls successes looked like without Jordan? The Spurs were a pretty good team pre-Duncan. Other than his injury season, Robinson's teams made the playoffs every year pre-Duncan, several times with one of the top records in the league. Granted, not good enough to win it all, but one of the best teams in the league most of Robinson's seasons pre-Duncan. And we haven't even mentioned the Iceman years. Dude was a perennial 2-seed as a Spur with 4 scoring titles. All of this to say, I don't know where we place the Spurs in all-time franchise rankings, but, come one, it's definitely higher than the Bulls.
I was more thinking that the bulls weren't a complete poverty franchise outside of Jordan, but the spurs are middle of the pack without Duncan. I think you could make a decent case either way depending on what you care more about. The bulls had the best decade-long stretch in NBA history and are possibly the most culturally significant of all the NBA. The spurs' peak doesn't come close to Chicago's, and they aren't particularly popular. But they have better long term success, have influenced the way the NBA worked more than any other team, and have done more with less and are by far the greatest small market franchise. Just depends on how you look at it imo (And honestly you could make a convincing case that the spurs are a better franchise than the Lakers. Lord knows if you swapped cities the San Antonio Lakers would be a poverty franchise worse than the kings and the LA Spurs probably wouldn't have missed the playoffs in the 21st century.)
>Vast majority of people would say Bulls This thread says otherwise
Aside from the Celtics and Lakers, the most championships (and the number of decades with a championship): Warriors: 7 (5) Bulls: 6 (1) Spurs: 5 (3) I think the Warriors have to be #3, as they’re not 100% dependent on a single team/decade for every single one of their title, and do have the most championships of non-Celtics/Lakers team.
As a Warriors fan I don't think they can be no. 3 because their run from the early 90s post Webber to the the Curry years was so consistently atrocious. Being consistently good but not winning a championship should count. The Warriors have not been consistently good.
The warriors first championship was literally before black people were allowed to play
Warriors shouldn’t count Philly stuff though.
Is that different from the Lakers’ Minneapolis stuff?
It’s not different, except the Lakers are still number 1 after as franchises go without the Minneapolis titles from decades ago. It doesn’t change anything. Sixers/Philly gets a bump, and Warriors/SF/Oak are losing the Philly title numbers. It’s matters for those cities.
Lakers are number two you mean behind Boston (?)
>the Lakers are still number 1 after as franchises go without the Minneapolis titles No, they are not.
I mean the same way people are putting the spurs above the bulls because their success wasn’t all concentrated in a single decade you could do a similar thing to the celtics. The lakers have been far more consistently good past the 60s. The celtics have won twice in the past 37 years. The lakers basically win at least one ring every 10 years
Spurs vs Bulls is 5 vs 6. Not saying I agree but you could debate about it and be interesting. Lakers without MN would be 18 vs 12. I don't know how you can argue that. Concentrated or not.
I’m good with not counting the rings from Minneapolis. Makes sense tbh. But let’s also not count the Celtics rings from before the merger. Edit: For some reason I thought that a lot more than 4 teams were absorbed during the merger. It seems I was mistaken. I'm open to rethinking this, but it does seem like an unfair comparison to count a championship when there were like 8 teams as the same to a championship in the modern era.
Celtics shouldn’t count the stuff from before the ABA/NBA merger Edit: For some reason I thought that a lot more than 4 teams were absorbed during the merger. It seems I was mistaken. I'm open to rethinking this, but it does seem like an unfair comparison to count a championship when there were like 8 teams as the same to a championship in the modern era.
By your logic I could see an argument for warriors at 2 over the Celtics, since 11 of 18 titles came from one team in an era with a wayyyyyy smaller league (from 8 teams to 14)
I can’t believe you actually wrote that trash
I don’t agree. The Celtics have a title in 6 decades. Even with your 11 of 18 number, that still leaves 7 to the Warriors’ 5 in that same timeframe.
Decades are not a good indicator. Years are arbitrary. Bulls had 6 wins in 8 years, where they were the best team in the league and odds on favorite to win the championships - which they did within 6 games. Warriors won at least of the 2 of the last four not the odds favorite nor considered the best in the league. Warriors may have 7, but 1 of those were 80 years ago.
While decades are somewhat arbitrary, it’s still worth noting if a team had success outside one insanely dominant run/dynasty. It’s probably also worth checking total Finals appearances, since it is still better to make it to the finals and lose than to not make it at all. And maybe even the number of outright bad seasons. Being consistently good is good, but rebuilds have utility too. So maybe this one isn’t really important. TL;DR: Any metric is going to be imperfect and incomplete.
How about total playoff wins? https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/nba-team-most-playoff-wins According to this, the 76ers are 3rd (and also have 3 championships, all pretty spread out), but I don't see anybody else mentioning them.
Interesting metric. Not a bad idea. But it may help to weight the wins in later rounds, but that sounds like a lot more work, and can be pretty subjective as to the proper weighting. There’s also most total finals appearances, where the 76ers are 4th to the Warriors’ 3rd.
That's kinda the logic that I was going with for total wins. It takes 4 wins to get to the next round, so teams with more wins, for the most part, will have a history of going deeper in the playoffs. The downside to that metric is that teams that have been around since the founding of the league will have more of an advantage compared to newer teams. Though if you're talking about the best franchise in NBA HISTORY, it might still be worth it to give those teams more of an advantage for being around longer. Kinda like ranking a guy like Vince Carter ahead of a guy like SGA in all-time rankings - the guy who did it for a much longer time gets a bonus.
While that may be true, maybe we should throw in franchises that have been pretty consistently good/great but never won a ring. As a franchise, Is it better to have 30 playoff years and no ring, or 10 playoff years with 2 rings?
What franchise with 0 rings has been as consistently good as the best non-Celtics/Lakers team for their franchise history? The Spurs have 5 rings and made the playoffs in 39 of 48 NBA seasons (81%). They also have the all-time best franchise winning %. The Heat have 3 rings and made the playoffs in 26 of 36 seasons (72%). The 76ers have 3 rings and made the playoffs 54 of 75 seasons (72%). Are you going to say the Jazz and Suns? The Jazz have 0 rings and made the playoffs 31 of 50 seasons (62%). The Suns have 0 rings and made the playoffs 33 of 56 seasons (59%).
Thanks for the stats. It was more of an interesting question about the value of a ring against long playoff success. The thing about rings is that many teams who have championships probably would not have had them if they played against the 90s bulls, 2017-18 warriors, etc. There are a handful of teams that were so dominant that they may have denied otherwise great teams from attaining a ring.
Sure, but the Spurs do still have 5 rings, the highest win %, and a very high rate of making the postseason. Going up against the 90s Bulls or KD Warriors only takes away titles, not playoff appearances or regular season win %. If we take rings out of the equation, I think the Spurs arguably have an even better argument, with an elite win % and an elite rate of making the postseason.
2 rings. Those rings are the ultimate goal. Ask any great that never won, if they would give up some playoff runs for a ring. Every one of them would.
I agree, but I'm asking for franchises. I think it is an interesting question. Teams like utah have had great seasons but fell short. I would still count them as a great franchise, just not sure where they would rank. Maybe just outside the top 10.
Would the Jazz trade history with say the Raptors or the Nuggets? I think they would. But that's just my opinion.
You may be right. But as a fan, I'm not fully sold. Having long stretches of great seasons may outweigh a team with one ring and mostly bad seasons.
I'm a Mavs fan, and I feel they fall into that category of a ring and otherwise up and down. I would definitely prefer up and down with a ring, than make the playoffs every year. Again, it will differ from person to person though. 100% opinion.
Warriors then spurs then bulls
Spurs > Warriors > Bulls > 76'ers > Heat/Knicks
How are the bulls not third?
They haven't been good in 10+ years and before that another 10
They have done almost nothing outside the 90s
They had a 90's run, and unfortunately that was damn near about it.
Lebron
timberwolves fan enters the chat….
Spurs
Either Spurs or Bulls
Spurs. Winning 50 games straight for like 20 years is absolutely ridiculous
Celtics won 9 in a row back in the early days. Minneapolis Lakers won three in the way back. Then again in LA with Shaq and Kobe. Jordan’s Bulls did three in a row twice, over an eight year period. Bulls are third. Spurs are fourth. Five in 15 doesn’t trump six in 8
It's easily the Warriors. They have 7 titles across 4 eras (40s, 50s, 70s, 15-22), Chicago has 1 less title but all in the 90s, SAS all with Duncan.
Definitely the Spurs, who have the [best regular season record in the NBA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_NBA_win–loss_records), aggregating all their seasons together. My team, the Wolves, is the worst overall, but maybe a couple more seasons like the last one and they'll catch the Clippers. If they go 82–0 next year that would do it.
I’m going with Warriors next.
Warriors. They have 7 championships and 4 of them are somewhat recent
The Sixers have the 3rd most playoff and regular season wins in all of NBA history
Spurs
There's a debate about #3? I thought it was widely agreed upon that it's the Spurs
Spurs. Outside the Jordan era bulls have been sort of irrelevant. The warriors could have an argument but for my money I'd take the spurs.
1) Lakers and Celtics 3) Spurs 4) Warriors 5) Bulls
I like the Spurs but I think the Warriors deserve close consideration. Like the Spurs won 2 of the 4 most important drafts in the last 40 years. The Warriors won in the 60s,70s, 10s and 20s and in the 90s had that really fun Mullin-Hardaway-Richmond run and the Baron Davis team in the aughts before Steph changed everything.
Celtics, lakers ,bulls...in that order Then spurs, warriors or pistons.
Bulls had an amazing run in the 90s, but haven't really been competitive since (except for.a blip with Derrick Rose), and weren't great before Jordan either. And there was obvious organizational dysfunction during the Jordan era that contributed to the end of the era. I don't see how you can call the Bulls the 3rd best "franchise" - above organizations that have been successful over multiple generations of players.
Heat are 100% above the pistons
Nah it's either warriors or the bulls for sure.
Spurs?
Ooo good call. Yeah they're in that conversation too.
The Warriors have actually been a pretty lousy franchise. Don’t let a few years of championships for you into thinking it’s always been that way. When I was a kid they were so bad every year.
Can say the same or even worse about the bulls All they did was draft the GOAT, were always bad before and afterward
I’ve been a Warriors fan all of my life. If you would have told me 15 years ago that they were even included in this conversation I’d have laughed in your face. I’ve seen more terrible basketball than I’d like to admit. I’m just happy they are in the conversation
As a warriors fan, think they might be top 5 but 3 is way to generous. We’re pretty bad for decades pre-curry. Spurs or Heat have been more consistent longer.
They were good in the 70's too. After the celtics and Lakers, warriors and bulls have 6 championships and the spurs have 5. They are all in that conversation No other nba team has more than 3
Warriors, spurs, heat, bulls
I’d say Bulls but Warriors or Spurs aren’t far behind
Spurs/Bulls/ Warriors - either one i could see spurs longevity, bulls had Mike and 3 threepeats, and warriors changed the modern game and dominated post seasons like crazy.
1. Celtics 2. Lakers 3. Spurs 4. Warriors 5. Bulls 6. Pistons 7. Heat 8. Sixers 9. Bucks 10. Knicks 11. Rockets 12. Mavs 13. Cavs 14. Hawks 15. Nuggets 16. Blazers 17. Sonics 18. Raptors 19. Bullets/Wizards 20. Royals/Kings 21. Suns 22. Jazz 23. Pacers (excluding ABA) 24. Nets (excluding ABA) 25. Magic 26. Thunder 27. Clippers 28. Grizzlies 29. T-wolves 30. Hornets 31. Pelicans
Kings are too high imo. They've gone multiple generations without playing a finals game, let alone winning a chip. Their last championship was in the Truman administration. They also have the longest playoff drought in history and have multiple decade long streaks of not having a winning record. They also have gone 20 years to date without winning a playoff series. I'd put the kings around 28th, only ahead of the pelicans, hornets, wolves, clippers, and grizzlies.
That’s fair, kings and wizards were tough to rank. I ended up putting any team with a chip above any team without one. But yeah it wouldn’t be unreasonable for either to be around 25-26
I would probably go: 3. Bulls 4. Spurs 5. Golden state 6. The heat 7. Pistons 8. 76ers 9. Knivks 10. Rockets
Thunder
#norings
Bulls, then San Antonio for me.
It's a distant 3rd with a bunch of contenders who have a limited window of being really good. Spurs, bulls, dubs. None of which have been consistently good. They had dynasty runs and that's about it. Heat, as much as it pains me to say, have been consistent. I wish the answer was the Knicks or sixers.
Spurs have been way more consistent for way longer and more titles.
I don’t think Celtics should realistically be considered 2nd, they only have 6 titles post merger - they’ve had as much success in 50 years as the bulls did in one decade No disrespect to those 50s/60s Celtics teams, they were stacked, but they played in a league smaller than the current playoffs - it just shouldn’t count when considering the best franchises in league history
You're right they shouldn't be considered 2nd, they're 1st..
Homer take here. Pacers aren’t 3, but they may be a top 5. They’ve had great teams in the past 3 decades. Just ran into Jordan, Detroit stands, or Lebron, during each of their peaks. They’ve never been *bad* bad during that stretch.
Ain’t no way the Pacers are 3 without a single NBA title
I said they aren’t 3? Also 4 ABA banners. Lakers have 0 ABA banners. It’s science.
Bulls > Warriors > Spurs > Heat would be my next 4. This is kind of based around a healthy mix of championships, MVP’s, and overall popularity.
In what world are the Spurs ahead of the Bulls and the Warriors lol.
20+ years of being a top team.
They haven’t had a winning season since 2018
How many winning seasons have the bulls had in literally any amount of years you want
How many teams have three peated twice in a decade
Top two are Celtics Lakers, but I wouldn’t call it a debate, Celtics are #1.
The lakers have been far more consistently competitive than the celtics. Post merger they have won only 6 rings
First 5 Lakers titles weren’t even in LA foh with that shit lmao. 18 > 12, 18 > 17, 2024 > 2020, foh lmaooooo
And the franchise that won half of the celtics rings is in Atlanta
U wot m8
Not The Spurs. They lucked out with Three Lottery wins to get Robinson Duncan and Wemby. We've seen how crappy they've been since and decades before. So only 1 run ib their history, though it was great. Lakers, Celtics haven't picked first in nearly 5 decades. I'd say The Heat. Only been around less than 4 decades. They were good Pre-Wade in the nineties, then 2003-15 with Wade then LeBron and have made yhe Finals twice since 2020. Not many terrible seasons if any, in 35 years. I'm not a Heat fan, btw
Lakers Celtics warriors spurs heat bulls