Bigblackted4
Superstar
My Cavs actually belong higher than the Hawks. Even though we didn’t win a chip in the late 80s early 90s we were good then. Hawks don’t have any sustained periods of good.
All-Time NBA Power Rankings
- Thread starter murksiderock
- Start date
murksiderock
Superstar
All in all, once I started comparing metrics of Dallas vs these other teams, they lose out on balance. It's too long to fully into detail here, but just some cliffs that weighed heavily to me:
•Jazz have higher win percentages everywhere over Mavs except the Finals, and 1-1 vs 0-2 on that stage isn't a significant difference...
•same with Suns...
•Bucks, same as Suns and Jazz, and are also 1-1 just like Dallas in The Finals...
•Cleveland is more successful than Dallas at every level of the postseason. They have one trophy just like Dallas, but they've been there 5 times, compared to just twice for Dallas, which means one team was more successful at a higher level more times than the other...
•I can buy the debate for Mavs over Wizards and Hawks, though! So at best I can see them at 17, I don't know how you can make an argument Dallas is a Top 15 franchise...
•Thunder have been a more successful franchise across the board than Dallas...
Well, my power rankings are strictly based on historical performance, there is no bias to any particular period or era, but high levels of success in any era are weighed evenly...
I don't have recency bias, and I don't have old school bias. If you were successful in any era, it's all the same...
The NBA recognizes the Thunder as the same franchise that was the Sonics---->this is consistent, because the NBA recognizes a grip of other franchises the same way through relocation and rebranding. The Thunder haven't won a championship in OKC as the Thunder, but are recognized by the NBA as having a championship in Seattle as the Sonics (and will be unless and until the Sonics return to the NBA, at which point the league has said it will cede Sonics history to them, and OKC's franchise history will reorganize to originate in 2008). But that isn't the current reality, plus the Thunder have been highly successful in 11 years in Oklahoma...
Winning a championship is an exclusive club, but winning more than one is more exclusive. The Rockets are the lowest ranked multi-winner at #10. The Thunder organization have 'a' championship, haven't won in 40 years; the Blazers have 'a' championship, haven't won in 42 years; the Hawks have 'a' championship, haven't won in 61 years. On and on and on.....
Winning 'a' championship is significant, but there are examples out there that it can be a lightning in the bottle moment. What's more important is a franchise that exhibits consistency of winning; playoff appearances, 50 and 60 win years, multiple conference Finals and NBA Finals appearances, etc. Winning another trophy would start vaulting Toronto up the standings astronomically, but as it is, the Raptors haven't even MADE the playoffs more than missed it, and aren't a .500 team in either the postseason or the regular season. One championship doesn't change any of that...
murksiderock
Superstar
I don't think life is linear that way, as in, I don't apply the same rules in life to every single circumstance. That isn't how life works...
Saying that the guy that won more 6/6 is automatically more successful than the 3/9 is leaving out a lot of intangibles, many of which I already outlined. Let's add that it doesn't take into account the caliber of competition faced once entering the final round (five of the Sixers' 9 losses have been to the Lakers, who have had multiple dynasties). It doesn't take into account the strength of the organization in comparison to competition (ownership, management, coaching, player)...
And scaled down to individual level, it doesn't take into account that sometimes a person is able to take advantage of compromised circumstance...
But I dig your take though, its def food for thought for me!
YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy
Superstar
If you're going so back into time where you're giving credit to a team for rings they won in another city under a different mascot, something's wrong.
You're crediting the 76ers for a ring the Syracuse Nationals won? This is goofy. The Atlanta Hawks are above the cavs for a ring St. Louis won in 1958?
Cavs have been to the finals 5 times since their inception into the league in 1970 and have a ring to show for it. Overall they've been to the conference finals 7 times. Hawks have been to 0 Finals within that same period and 1 Conference Finals yet are ranked ahead of the Cavs at 13th? 1 Conference Finals appearance in 51 years as the Atlanta Hawks.
I don't understand this list.
You're crediting the 76ers for a ring the Syracuse Nationals won? This is goofy. The Atlanta Hawks are above the cavs for a ring St. Louis won in 1958?
Cavs have been to the finals 5 times since their inception into the league in 1970 and have a ring to show for it. Overall they've been to the conference finals 7 times. Hawks have been to 0 Finals within that same period and 1 Conference Finals yet are ranked ahead of the Cavs at 13th? 1 Conference Finals appearance in 51 years as the Atlanta Hawks.
I don't understand this list.
YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy
Superstar
You don't think that's how life works because you're not thinking.
You don't have to apply the same rules in life to every single circumstance and no one is asking or telling you to. But when it comes to measuring success, in order to have an intelligent conversation and not an exercise in babble, your output and success rate are the measurables used to determine success. That is how intelligent people discuss and determine success.
Have you taken statistics?
How can they be below teams that have 0 chips?
murksiderock
Superstar
It's an All-Time list, the NBA still counts the Nationals in the Sixers history, correct? They count the Hawks time in St. Louis as part of the Hawks history, right?
If we start creating arbitrary disqualifying criteria, alot if teams are in trouble. The Celtics won 13 of their 17 trophies before the NBA/ABA absorption (1976-77 season), and went to 14 of their 21 before then. They would still be looked at as highly successful but the magnitude changes once we start disqualifying shyt...
Five of the Lakers championships came in Minnesota, do they not count?
I'm not setting some arbitrary markers, I have consistency weighing all organization's franchise histories equally. There would be some significant fluctuation in rankings if we start adding disqualifies that the NBA recognizes otherwise...
Hawks and Cavs are a coin flip to me, and of course the Cavs have been more successful in the modern era/since the merger and advent of the 3 pointer. My list would look differently if I was only going from since then...
murksiderock
Superstar
Lol how condescending of you...
Nah, I never took statistics, but this isn't an IQ test. This is a fluid list that can change as different criteria is added or subtracted, save your condescension, bruh man!
YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy
Superstar
No one is testing your IQ, but your list will always be terrible with no consistency or logic behind it. Adding or subtracting things on a whim leads to a whimsical output.
Columbo
Lieutenant
It would be more interesting if it was actually all time teams playing against eachother. And the Celtics wouldnt be the 2nd best, maybe top 5 still though. The Rockets would be higher up
murksiderock
Superstar
The recent thread of the NBA not really pushing Denver or even Miami the way they do a select few markets, got me in the mindset to update my All-Time power rankings. My '23 update:
1 Lakers
2 Celtics
3 Warriors
4 Sixers (+1)
5 Spurs (-1)
6 Pistons (+2)
7 Knicks (+2)
8 Bulls (-2)
9 Heat (-2)
10 Thunder (+1)
11 Bucks (+4)
12 Rockets (-2)
13 Hawks
14 Cavs
15 Blazers (-3)
16 Pacers (+5)
17 Wizards (-1)
18 Suns (-1)
19 Jazz (-1)
20 Mavs (-1)
21 Nets (+4)
22 Kings (-2)
23 Nuggets (+1)
24 Raptors (-1)
25 Magic (-3)
26 Clippers (+1)
27 Grizzlies (-1)
28 Pelicans
29 Hornets
30 Wolves
Bolding the teams who haven't changed in my rankings the last 4 years. Teams I've given the biggest leaps to:
Pacers, Bucks/Nets, Pistons/Knicks, Sixers/Thunder/Nuggets/Clippers...
Teams who had the biggest drops:
Blazers, Bulls/Heat/Rockets/Kings, Spurs/Wizards/Suns/Jazz/Mavs/Raptors/Grizzlies...
The biggest thing I think that impacted me this time, in addition to how these teams have performed over the past 4 years, are the inclusion of pre-NBA success, which I didn't really value several years ago. The Pacers were 3x champs in the ABA, that explains their big leap...
I kind of like the idea for the thread, but it would help if your criteria was more outlined. Like why would the Pistons and Knicks move up two spots from where they were ranked in 2019? Seems kind of arbitrary
Celtics - most HOFers, tied most rings, better head to head record vs Lakers in the finals
Lakers
Everyone else
Lakers
Everyone else