All-Time NBA Power Rankings

[murksiderock]

I do this typically at the end of a decade, and midway through, as halfway through a decade can see some serious fluctuations in standing. Anything less than five years doesn't add or subtract much on a legacy scale...

But at the end of a decade you get to look back and see how the order was rearranged. Like for instance, the Warriors weren't a Top 5 franchise 5 years ago. Anyway, this is how my list stands at the end of the '10s, getting ready for the '20s. I'll update it again in '24 (after the 20/21/22/23/24 seasons pass, and there will surely be more fluctuation)...

One last thing, measuring greatness isn't defined solely by how many championships won, there is a lot of context that goes into it. I'll be back for my NFL list when the '19 season ends...

 

[murksiderock]

1 Lakers
2 Celtics
3 Warriors
4 Spurs
5 Sixers
6 Bulls
7 Heat
8 Pistons
9 Knicks
10 Rockets

11 Thunder
12 Blazers
13 Hawks
14 Cavaliers
15 Bucks
16 Wizards
17 Suns
18 Jazz
19 Mavericks
20 Kings

21 Pacers
22 Magic
23 Raptors
24 Nuggets
25 Nets
26 Grizzlies
27 Clippers
28 Pelicans
29 Hornets
30 Wolves

 

[The Connoisseurs]

1 Lakers
2 Celtics
3 Warriors(can’t put them ahead of the spurs)
4 Spurs
5 Sixers( this is a super push)
6 Bulls(top 3)
7 Heat
8 Pistons
9 Knicks
10 Rockets

11 Thunder( you mean SuperSonics ?)
12 Blazers
13 Hawks
14 Cavaliers
15 Bucks (how is this high)
16 Wizards (what’s this doing so high ?)
17 Suns
18 Jazz(should possibly be higher )
19 Mavericks(should be higher)
20 Kings

21 Pacers(should be higher)
22 Magic
23 Raptors(should be way higher )
24 Nuggets
25 Nets( made multiple finals and our in work in the ABA .. should be higher)
26 Grizzlies
27 Clippers
28 Pelicans(should be last technically speaking)
29 Hornets
30 Wolves

I like the idea but I don’t know about the execution, you should base it off a point system and a greater explanation.


1 CHAMPIONSHIPS are a major factor and should be awarded the highest points.

2 winning your conference in the playoffs should be a point.

3 how far you go the post season

4 Years making the post season should be given points also


5 NBA record during the regular season.

6 iconic players and hall of fame players that put on your jersey and kept the franchise relevant Should be given minor points

7 statistics should be given points also

...etc..

 

[Brozay]

@murksiderock explain how you came to Warriors > Spurs & 76ers > Bulls ?

 

[High quality poster]

Lol at Bulls at 6.

 

[murksiderock]

I like the idea but I don’t know about the execution, you should base it off a point system and a greater explanation.


1 CHAMPIONSHIPS are a major factor and should be awarded the highest points.

2 winning your conference in the playoffs should be a point.

3 how far you go the post season

4 Years making the post season should be given points also


5 NBA record during the regular season.

6 iconic players and hall of fame players that put on your jersey and kept the franchise relevant Should be given minor points

7 statistics should be given points also

...etc..

I didn't detail my methodology eloquently but your Top 5 you listed were all weighted heavily...

@murksiderock explain how you came to Warriors > Spurs & 76ers > Bulls ?

•Warriors/Spurs

This was a close one but the Dubs edge em out to me. Warriors have been to The Finals more, won more Finals, played in the conference finals more, won the conference more, have a better win percentage in the conference finals while the Spurs have a losing conference Finals record...

The Spurs have the best regular season win% and fourth highest postseason win% ever, as well as second highest Finals win%, but I have to take into account all 6 of their Finals appearances came in one 15-year stretch that featured one player. This franchise's success rate looks really different without Tim Duncan...

The fact that they had GOAT-franchise level success with Duncan is why the rank so highly at #4. Without Duncan, this franchise was still good (.573 win%/47 win Avg annually), but they have ZERO conference championships/Finals appearances, and just eight 50-win seasons/three 60-win seasons in the 27 NBA seasons without Duncan---->in 16 season stretch of 1998-99 to 2013-14, the Spurs had 10 50-win seasons and 6 60-win equivalent seasons (they won at a 60+ win pace in both '99 and '12 lockout seasons)...

You'll see as I explain other rankings that I'm consistent and fair with this "one era of success" barometer. GOAT level success ranks you highly, but once you start comparing to franchises that have had multigenerational success, it has to be factored in that the Spurs never won the West a single time, not just once, without Duncan. So they have been "good" without him, but not good enough. That matters!

Contrastingly, the Warriors have had championship level success in the 2010s, 1970s, 1960s, and 1950s. They've had some pretty deep lows in there too, but they fact that they've picked themselves up and won at a high level around different ownership, management, coaching, and players, is something that should be weighed highly!

 

[Ohene]

Raptors way too low. Way

 

[murksiderock]

•Sixers/Bulls

Similarly, the Sixers have a higher lifetime win% than Chicago, more playoff appearances, have been to the playoffs 70% of their history (compared to 66% for Chicago, so the Sixers get to the postseason more), they've been to more NBA Finals across multiple eras, been to more ECF, and won the East more...

The Bulls have one decade of success, 1988-89 to 1997-98, that is GOAT-level, which is why they reach #6 overall. This franchise averages 38 wins/year outside if that decade (.463), is 0-3 in ECF (so never make a Finals), and has just one 60-win season in their entire history outside of 1988-1998 window...

Philly is one of the oldest teams and has been a championship finalist in every decade besides the 90s and 10s. Again, multigenerational success, around different ownership, management, coaching, and players, compared to literally one decade, the 90s, that the Bulls have even advanced to The Finals. The Bulls franchise is WOAT-level outside of the 1988-1998 box----->.463 win% outside of that decade would place them with the 23rd-highest/8th-worst lifetime win% of all 30 franchises. The Spurs never won a conference without Duncan, so this us a consistent application, but their win% is significantly higher without Duncan than the Bulls are without Jordan, which speaks to the organizational ineptitude in Chicago for 43 of their 53-year existence...

Also, as fans, we gotta stop using "more rings" as blind validation. It is not an embarrassment that the Sixers have lost 6 Finals (3 wins), it is an illustration that they've been great enough to reach the championship round a lot, in multiple eras----->you gotta get their to even have a chance to win it. There are no points for being old franchise that has had success, but rarely, if ever, gotten to The Finals--->Kings, 71 years old, only one Finals appearance; Bucks, 51 years old, only two Finals appearances...

You're not a more successful franchise for losing in the championship round less, because you got there less...

Also, if I take into account the caliber of players who played at HOF level in a Sixer jersey compared to the Bulls, this starts to turn into a blowout...

The only argument for the Bulls over Philly is the 90s. As it is, that isn't enough, but that era was GOAT level and still makes them a Top 6 franchise...

 

[murksiderock]

Raptors way too low. Way

I don't think so, but I'll listen to arguments. Where would you put them?

In 24 years, the Raptors have still missed the playoffs (14 times) more than they've made the playoffs (10 times). Lifetime regular season win% is .470, which is 38.5 wins/yr, that's near the bottom of The League...

Lifetime postseason win% is .453, they've been swept in over 20% of their playoff series. This franchise doesn't have a strong history, and I caution against being blinded by this year's championship. Several other franchises ahead of them have greater legacies of winning--->the fact the Raptors are in the midst of a 6-year consecutive playoff run, and won a title, are what rank them as high as #23. No other team with at least one championship is lower than Toronto, and only one team with a higher lifetime win% (Denver) is lower. Without the recent run of success Toronto would very possibly be at the very bottom, but as it is, at this point they haven't won enough to offset the legacy of losing as an organization throughout the majority of their history...

 

[El Bombi]

@ The Mavericks being that low.

@ some of the franchises over them.

 

[murksiderock]

@ The Mavericks being that low.

Who do they belong in front of?

 

[El Bombi]

Who do they belong in front of?

11 Thunder
13 Hawks
14 Cavaliers
15 Bucks(Debatable)
16 Wizards
17 Suns
18 Jazz

 

[Ohene]

I don't think so, but I'll listen to arguments. Where would you put them?

In 24 years, the Raptors have still missed the playoffs (14 times) more than they've made the playoffs (10 times). Lifetime regular season win% is .470, which is 38.5 wins/yr, that's near the bottom of The League...

Lifetime postseason win% is .453, they've been swept in over 20% of their playoff series. This franchise doesn't have a strong history, and I caution against being blinded by this year's championship. Several other franchises ahead of them have greater legacies of winning--->the fact the Raptors are in the midst of a 6-year consecutive playoff run, and won a title, are what rank them as high as #23. No other team with at least one championship is lower than Toronto, and only one team with a higher lifetime win% (Denver) is lower. Without the recent run of success Toronto would very possibly be at the very bottom, but as it is, at this point they haven't won enough to offset the legacy of losing as an organization throughout the majority of their history...

i dont think you know how power rankings work. Power rankings are meant to overweigh the current. Raptors have been balling outnow for 5 years in a row. And even then...you have them listed below teams who havent won a championship. Winning a championship is a very exclusive club and should boost a team much higher. There is absolutely no reason they shouldnt be above the Thunder at #11.

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

•Sixers/Bulls


You're not a more successful franchise for losing in the championship round less, because you got there less...

You're more successful if you can accomplish more than someone who has been given more opportunities than you. If your output and rate of success is higher, then you are more successful. The bulls "got there less" but accomplished more.

If someone goes to the finals 9 times and only wins 3, they are not more successful than someone who goes to the finals 6 times and wins all 6 times. That is like saying someone who goes to the line 9 times, but makes 3 shots is a better FT shooter than the person who shot 6 for 6 from the line. Kudos to getting to the line more, but you're not a better FT shooter because of it. No brownie points for participation.

In all walks of life, the person who accomplishes more in less time than another person is always considered more successful. Failing isnt credit worthy in determining success.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

As long as the GOAT franchise Boss Angeles Lakers are #1 that’s all that matters. :kbshrug: