All-Time NBA Power Rankings

[murksiderock]

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

Well I basically reevaluated and flipped their positions with the Bulls and Heat...

The Chicago Bulls are 57 years old and aside from one 15-year period of relevance, they've been bad and sometimes even worse than that. For roughly 73% of their history, they've been irrelevant. The 6 championships keeps them Top 10 but both the Pistons and Knicks have been more consistently relevant, and simply, more consistently good, than the Bulls have been...

With Miami I think it's more about longevity, the longer they stick around and stay good, they'll pass Detroit and New York to me. The deciding factor, Miami is on a 25-year stretch where they've never missed the playoffs more than two years in a row, and that only happened once. Miami's history before then is basically nothing. The Knicks and Pistons have both had periods of relevance during Miami's 25-year run, but both have esteemed histories prior to the Heat's rise...

So for Miami it just they haven't been doing it quite long enough...

 

[LurkGod]

Well I basically reevaluated and flipped their positions with the Bulls and Heat...

The Chicago Bulls are 57 years old and aside from one 15-year period of relevance, they've been bad and sometimes even worse than that. For roughly 73% of their history, they've been irrelevant. The 6 championships keeps them Top 10 but both the Pistons and Knicks have been more consistently relevant, and simply, more consistently good, than the Bulls have been...

With Miami I think it's more about longevity, the longer they stick around and stay good, they'll pass Detroit and New York to me. The deciding factor, Miami is on a 25-year stretch where they've never missed the playoffs more than two years in a row, and that only happened once. Miami's history before then is basically nothing. The Knicks and Pistons have both had periods of relevance during Miami's 25-year run, but both have esteemed histories prior to the Heat's rise...

So for Miami it just they haven't been doing it quite long enough...

But the Bulls have 6 championships and basically owned an entire decade, how does a team like the Knicks compare to that?

Do championships not matter to you as much as just a sustained period of being good? If so, what constitutes good? Cause I’m not seeing it with the Knicks

I do like the thread idea though, I just would like a more outlined criteria lol.

 

[The God Poster]

But the Bulls have 6 championships and basically owned an entire decade, how does a team like the Knicks compare to that?

Do championships not matter to you as much as just a sustained period of being good? If so, what constitutes good? Cause I’m not seeing it with the Knicks

I do like the thread idea though, I just would like a more outlined criteria lol.

It’s simple @murksiderock used to live in NY(where hasn’t he lived right?!?)

He has a soft place in his heart for the Knicks

 

[LurkGod]

It’s simple @murksiderock used to live in NY(where hasn’t he lived right?!?)

He has a soft place in his heart for the Knicks

I’ve lived in NY all my life but the Knicks ain’t never been shyt

 

[Shadow King]

Well I basically reevaluated and flipped their positions with the Bulls and Heat...

The Chicago Bulls are 57 years old and aside from one 15-year period of relevance, they've been bad and sometimes even worse than that. For roughly 73% of their history, they've been irrelevant. The 6 championships keeps them Top 10 but both the Pistons and Knicks have been more consistently relevant, and simply, more consistently good, than the Bulls have been...

With Miami I think it's more about longevity, the longer they stick around and stay good, they'll pass Detroit and New York to me. The deciding factor, Miami is on a 25-year stretch where they've never missed the playoffs more than two years in a row, and that only happened once. Miami's history before then is basically nothing. The Knicks and Pistons have both had periods of relevance during Miami's 25-year run, but both have esteemed histories prior to the Heat's rise...

So for Miami it just they haven't been doing it quite long enough...

Nah this is a bug out, Detroit in particular. They was trash when you started this and are in the same spot, they haven't done anything to advance.

The Knicks haven't won in 50 years and the Heat have been better even in the 4 years between updates including a Finals run and potentially another one this week. Despite being a much younger franchise they've been more successful at the mountaintop, and more consistently "solid/good".

This is closer of a conflict than Detroit but If you didn't have NY above the Heat before there's no real reason to change it.

 

[Shadow King]

Also...

No real reason to drop the Spurs a point and raise Philly.

OKC isn't a Top 10 outfit.

Hawks are too high, don't belong over the Blazers.

No reason for a 5 point jump for Indy.

 

[murksiderock]

But the Bulls have 6 championships and basically owned an entire decade, how does a team like the Knicks compare to that?

Do championships not matter to you as much as just a sustained period of being good? If so, what constitutes good? Cause I’m not seeing it with the Knicks

I do like the thread idea though, I just would like a more outlined criteria lol.

So I have multiple criteria that I weigh mostly equally. If I feel there's a relative "tie" between two franchises, then the tie breaker goes to the organization with the most championships. But in and of itself the most championships gives you a slight, not dramatic, favor to me...

•most championships, most championship appearances, record in championship round

The amount of times you advanced to the championship round holds weight because it signifies how often your team was legitimately almost the champion. The overall record in the championship round is more of a tiebreaker thing, if i feel there's a tie between two teams. In the case of Miami and Detroit for example, both have 3 championships won in short span (Pistons won their 3 in a 16 year stretch, Heat won their 3 in an 8 year stretch)...

You could make the argument that Miami winning 3 in a shorter frame of time was more impressive to one era of ball, but you could also make the argument that Detroit winning three in two different eras is more impressive, and i lean more towards this. Both are on decade-long plus championship droughts, and I give the Pistons a slight tiebreaker because they've been in that championship round one more time (7 to 6, and even if Miami makes a 7th in a few days they don't leap over the Pistons unless they win it)...

•conference championship wins, conference championship appearances, conference championship record

Thinking about it as i type this out to you, this is probably the criteria I value the most, because the amount of times you make your conference championship is the strongest indicator of how often your squad was a legitimate title contender. You have so many teams with titles that came as aberrations to the rest of their histories---->the Raptors have a title but have missed the playoffs more than they've made the playoffs, and have just two conference finals appearances, do we really believe the Raptors have a stronger history than the Nets or the Jazz, for instance? Just because they have a title?

So i care, maybe too much, how often your team was actually a contender...

•playoff appearances, playoff wins, playoff record

It hurts any team who has missed the playoffs more than made it. It hurts any team who has a losing playoff record. And the more playoff wins you have gives any team a boost for me; in the previous paragraph I detailed conference championship runs as an indicator of how often you were a contender;

Your playoff resume here indicates how often you were at least a "good" team. Most playoff wins in NBA history: LA (456), Boston (396), Philly (248), SA (240), SF (212), NY (196), Detroit (188), Chi (187), Indy (184), ATL (166)...

Best playoff w/l records: LA (.599), Boston (.565) Miami (.558), SF (.552), Cleveland (.538), Chi (.536), SA (.530), Indy (.525), Philly (.515), Detroit (.508)

Indiana is Top 10 in both playoff wins and playoff record, this justifies their 5 spot jump and is a criteria i didnt consider when I started this thread. They've been good nearly their entire existence, and are the best team to never have won a championship, by multiple indicators...

•regular season record

You're brought down by having a losing regular season record, get points by having a winning one. If you have a losing regular season record but a winning playoff record, you get valued more highly...

•winning pre-NBA record

This only applies to a handful of teams but teams who won at least one title in the NBL or ABA get some help, but it's more of a tiebreaker scenario than anything...

Miami has one more championship than the Knicks, thats it. Even if they make The Finals in a few days, they've advanced to that round fewer than NY has, and they've played in fewer ECF than the Knicks. I don't believe in recency bias, all eras I value the same...

Miami is in their 10th ECF in the past 27 years, they're here an average if every 2.7 years, which is some high level contention and part of the reason they are a Top 10 franchise. Incidentally, if I take the Knicks greatest 27-year stretch, they got to the EDF/ECF 11 times (1948-75). So for me, it's simple.

The Knicks have a stretch that rivals the run Miami has been on. I don't devalue them because that run was 50+ years ago. It happened. Conversely Miami, because of their youth as an organization, doesn't have any period of relevance outside the 27-year run they are on, while the Knicks have an entire decade of relevance outside their best 27-year stretch...

San Antonio to me is like the better version of Chicago. You have people that would rank Chicago higher because of the one more title but SA has clearly been a better franchise for the duration of their histories...

As it relates to Philly though, the Sixers have played in 9 more Finals, and in more eras, while SA's championship success is tied to one player. This doesnt hurt SA with most teams, but it does hurt them vs organizations with multigenerational success. The Sixers have also played in more conference finals (20 to 14) than SA, which is back to my years in contention point, and have a better conference finals record (.450 to .429) than SA. All of that matters and I think it's more credible to have them over SA than the reverse, as the argument in favor of SA would center around championship advantage (5 to 3) and recency bias, valuing the 00s and 10s more than the 50s, 60s, and 80s eras that Philly won in...

Nah this is a bug out, Detroit in particular. They was trash when you started this and are in the same spot, they haven't done anything to advance.

The Knicks haven't won in 50 years and the Heat have been better even in the 4 years between updates including a Finals run and potentially another one this week. Despite being a much younger franchise they've been more successful at the mountaintop, and more consistently "solid/good".

This is closer of a conflict than Detroit but If you didn't have NY above the Heat before there's no real reason to change it.

Also...

No real reason to drop the Spurs a point and raise Philly.

OKC isn't a Top 10 outfit.

Hawks are too high, don't belong over the Blazers.

No reason for a 5 point jump for Indy.

 

[AlbertPullhoez]

Spurs about to be moving on up again

 

[FunkDoc1112]

I don't think you can rank the Warriors above the Bulls...same amount of championships and the Warriors basically had a 30 year period of mediocrity in between Rick Barry and Steph Curry. Sure the Bulls have been middling too but dominating a whole era and having the most iconic NBA player of all time holds major weight.

 

[murksiderock]

I don't think you can rank the Warriors above the Bulls...same amount of championships and the Warriors basically had a 30 year period of mediocrity in between Rick Barry and Steph Curry. Sure the Bulls have been middling too but dominating a whole era and having the most iconic NBA player of all time holds major weight.

The Warriors have 7 championships to the Bulls 6...

 

[Shadow King]

@murksiderock I find it inconsistent to somewhat punish the Bulls for one extremely dominant decade and mediocrity for the rest of their existence, yet use a particular stretch for the Knicks to get by their rest of their time.

What you're calling recency bias, I'm calling potency, because for the amount of time one team has existed, they've shown more consistency at execution at a better rate than the other team. Notice you couldn't list the Knicks in the top 10 in playoff win percentage despite being 6th in playoff wins. Conversely Miami is 3rd in percentage.

The Heat's 3rd ring should give them the nod over the Knick's 2 outweighing 10 ECF to their 11 ECF, this is consistent with this

The Warriors have 7 championships to the Bulls 6...

The same argument applies to Detroit for me. The Heat simply have less chances due to age but have made a clear demonstration that their organizational culture is more successful.

I also do not think that all eras are equal. With league expansion, number of playoff games/rounds changing and evolution of the game and players, the 50s aren't the 70s aren't the 90s aren't the 10s. You acknowledge the weakness of the 90s in regards to the Stan Wars we have to fight on here, that highlights all eras not being equal. So a quarter century stretch with 8 teams, 10 teams, 14 teams isn't equal to win with 26-32 teams, and the rise of talent of the field/average NBA player, and therefore strength of teams, also takes that over the top. The parity of the league is not the same and should be accounted for.

 

[murksiderock]

@murksiderock I find it inconsistent to somewhat punish the Bulls for one extremely dominant decade and mediocrity for the rest of their existence, yet use a particular stretch for the Knicks to get by their rest of their time.

What you're calling recency bias, I'm calling potency, because for the amount of time one team has existed, they've shown more consistency at execution at a better rate than the other team. Notice you couldn't list the Knicks in the top 10 in playoff win percentage despite being 6th in playoff wins. Conversely Miami is 3rd in percentage.

The Heat's 3rd ring should give them the nod over the Knick's 2 outweighing 10 ECF to their 11 ECF, this is consistent with this

The same argument applies to Detroit for me. The Heat simply have less chances due to age but have made a clear demonstration that their organizational culture is more successful.

I also do not think that all eras are equal. With league expansion, number of playoff games/rounds changing and evolution of the game and players, the 50s aren't the 70s aren't the 90s aren't the 10s. You acknowledge the weakness of the 90s in regards to the Stan Wars we have to fight on here, that highlights all eras not being equal. So a quarter century stretch with 8 teams, 10 teams, 14 teams isn't equal to win with 26-32 teams, and the rise of talent of the field/average NBA player, and therefore strength of teams, also takes that over the top. The parity of the league is not the same and should be accounted for.

This is all more than fair, I agree I should account for them in my evaluations. You're right all eras aren't equal, I agree with that, I guess I mean if you were a consistent winner in your own era, I don't undervalue that because it still happened, you could only do what you could with the circumstances of the time. But true, that doesn't mean the eras were equal...

I just don't "undervalue" the work of the past!

 

[LurkGod]

So I have multiple criteria that I weigh mostly equally. If I feel there's a relative "tie" between two franchises, then the tie breaker goes to the organization with the most championships. But in and of itself the most championships gives you a slight, not dramatic, favor to me...

•most championships, most championship appearances, record in championship round

The amount of times you advanced to the championship round holds weight because it signifies how often your team was legitimately almost the champion. The overall record in the championship round is more of a tiebreaker thing, if i feel there's a tie between two teams. In the case of Miami and Detroit for example, both have 3 championships won in short span (Pistons won their 3 in a 16 year stretch, Heat won their 3 in an 8 year stretch)...

You could make the argument that Miami winning 3 in a shorter frame of time was more impressive to one era of ball, but you could also make the argument that Detroit winning three in two different eras is more impressive, and i lean more towards this. Both are on decade-long plus championship droughts, and I give the Pistons a slight tiebreaker because they've been in that championship round one more time (7 to 6, and even if Miami makes a 7th in a few days they don't leap over the Pistons unless they win it)...

•conference championship wins, conference championship appearances, conference championship record

Thinking about it as i type this out to you, this is probably the criteria I value the most, because the amount of times you make your conference championship is the strongest indicator of how often your squad was a legitimate title contender. You have so many teams with titles that came as aberrations to the rest of their histories---->the Raptors have a title but have missed the playoffs more than they've made the playoffs, and have just two conference finals appearances, do we really believe the Raptors have a stronger history than the Nets or the Jazz, for instance? Just because they have a title?

So i care, maybe too much, how often your team was actually a contender...

•playoff appearances, playoff wins, playoff record

It hurts any team who has missed the playoffs more than made it. It hurts any team who has a losing playoff record. And the more playoff wins you have gives any team a boost for me; in the previous paragraph I detailed conference championship runs as an indicator of how often you were a contender;

Your playoff resume here indicates how often you were at least a "good" team. Most playoff wins in NBA history: LA (456), Boston (396), Philly (248), SA (240), SF (212), NY (196), Detroit (188), Chi (187), Indy (184), ATL (166)...

Best playoff w/l records: LA (.599), Boston (.565) Miami (.558), SF (.552), Cleveland (.538), Chi (.536), SA (.530), Indy (.525), Philly (.515), Detroit (.508)

Indiana is Top 10 in both playoff wins and playoff record, this justifies their 5 spot jump and is a criteria i didnt consider when I started this thread. They've been good nearly their entire existence, and are the best team to never have won a championship, by multiple indicators...

•regular season record

You're brought down by having a losing regular season record, get points by having a winning one. If you have a losing regular season record but a winning playoff record, you get valued more highly...

•winning pre-NBA record

This only applies to a handful of teams but teams who won at least one title in the NBL or ABA get some help, but it's more of a tiebreaker scenario than anything...

Miami has one more championship than the Knicks, thats it. Even if they make The Finals in a few days, they've advanced to that round fewer than NY has, and they've played in fewer ECF than the Knicks. I don't believe in recency bias, all eras I value the same...

Miami is in their 10th ECF in the past 27 years, they're here an average if every 2.7 years, which is some high level contention and part of the reason they are a Top 10 franchise. Incidentally, if I take the Knicks greatest 27-year stretch, they got to the EDF/ECF 11 times (1948-75). So for me, it's simple.

The Knicks have a stretch that rivals the run Miami has been on. I don't devalue them because that run was 50+ years ago. It happened. Conversely Miami, because of their youth as an organization, doesn't have any period of relevance outside the 27-year run they are on, while the Knicks have an entire decade of relevance outside their best 27-year stretch...

San Antonio to me is like the better version of Chicago. You have people that would rank Chicago higher because of the one more title but SA has clearly been a better franchise for the duration of their histories...

As it relates to Philly though, the Sixers have played in 9 more Finals, and in more eras, while SA's championship success is tied to one player. This doesnt hurt SA with most teams, but it does hurt them vs organizations with multigenerational success. The Sixers have also played in more conference finals (20 to 14) than SA, which is back to my years in contention point, and have a better conference finals record (.450 to .429) than SA. All of that matters and I think it's more credible to have them over SA than the reverse, as the argument in favor of SA would center around championship advantage (5 to 3) and recency bias, valuing the 00s and 10s more than the 50s, 60s, and 80s eras that Philly won in...

I don’t agree with a lot of this, especially the bolded but you did outline your criteria and put a lot of thought in to it so


To me, championships have to matter the most, and specially at an organizational level. If asked would a Knicks fan trade in their history of being ok too good for the Bulls history of a decade of dominance, I think they’d take it in a heartbeat. The Lowry and Derozan Raptors were a really good regular season team and were clowned mercilessly for their playoff flameouts. The Raptors literally traded in their perennial all star for a one year rental just to get a championship and they’re probably more than happy with that outcome.

I think when discussing history of organizations, the conversation starts at how many championships you’ve won and then you can bring in the other factors… unless it’s a shytty organization like the Marlins who would stumble in to a chip every couple of years lol.

 

[murksiderock]

I don’t agree with a lot of this, especially the bolded but you did outline your criteria and put a lot of thought in to it so


To me, championships have to matter the most, and specially at an organizational level. If asked would a Knicks fan trade in their history of being ok too good for the Bulls history of a decade of dominance, I think they’d take it in a heartbeat. The Lowry and Derozan Raptors were a really good regular season team and were clowned mercilessly for their playoff flameouts. The Raptors literally traded in their perennial all star for a one year rental just to get a championship and they’re probably more than happy with that outcome.

I think when discussing history of organizations, the conversation starts at how many championships you’ve won and then you can bring in the other factors… unless it’s a shytty organization like the Marlins who would stumble in to a chip every couple of years lol.

Fair enough, but that's my point about several NBA franchises who stumbled into success, vs organizations like the Knicks who, while not loaded with championships, have had success in most eras of NBA history, and are considered a flagship franchise. That counts for something...

The Raptors have missed the playoffs (15x) more than they've qualified (13x), an organization with no track record of sustained success stumbled into a championship via the circumstances you mentioned. We don't owe them extra credit for this, do we?

The Kings have a single championship from 72 years ago, this is a 78-year old organization that just had the longest playoff drought in the entire history of The League, and have been unsuccessful in virtually every era of the NBA since the 60s, besides the 00s. They deserve extra credit for winning a championship when we have teams like the Nets and Jazz that have been more consistently good over the durations of their histories?

The aforementioned Bulls, while I completely understand your point, I feel like it has to matter that this franchise is essentially a laughingstock besides lucking into Michael Jordan and 15 years of winning. For nearly three quarters of their history, they been mediocre to all the way trash, and haven't been a championship contender in a dozen years now. The 6 championships are why they rank as high as they do to me at #8. But that being a perennial loser nearly 75% of their existence keeps them from deserving higher esteem...

I appreciate the feedback bro!

 

[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

My list revised here 6 years later:

1 Los Angeles Lakers
2 Boston Celtics
3 Golden State Warriors
4 Philadelphia 76ers
5 New York Knicks
6 San Antonio Spurs
7 Detroit Pistons
8 Chicago Bulls
9 Miami Heat
10 Oklahoma City Thunder

11 Houston Rockets
12 Atlanta Hawks
13 Milwaukee Bucks
14 Cleveland Cavaliers
15 Phoenix Suns
16 Portland Trail Blazers
17 Dallas Mavericks
18 Utah Jazz
19 Denver Nuggets
20 Washington Wizards

21 Indiana Pacers
22 Sacramento Kings
23 Orlando Magic
24 Brooklyn Nets
25 Toronto Raptors
26 Los Angeles Clippers
27 Memphis Grizzlies
28 Minnesota Timberwolves
29 Charlotte Hornets
30 New Orleans Pelicans