the point system is ridiculously flawed when he's giving swings of +/- 200 based on "intangibles" - that's a self-defeating thing to be awarding "intangibles" when the goal of a point system is to quantify things in the first place
thanks for attacking the point system. i agree with you on this, it does defeat the purpose. however, he doesnt do it for that many teams, and also, when you divide it over like 60 seasons for the teams it applies to, it doesnt make that much of a difference. for examples, the lakers, bulls, and celtics got intangibles, but they would have been high up anyways because of championships. now, the pistons got SCREWED on there. -150 for the brawl? thats dumb.
considering that even averaged over 50 years, a 100 point bonus/malus is 2 points per season, it's not negligible. a lot of the lower-ranked teams are within 1 or 2 points of each other.
The real list should be 1) Celtics 2) Lakers 3) Bulls 4) Spurs 5) Pistons 6) Rockets 7) Sixers 8) Knicks 9) Warriors 10) Blazers
well thats my point - the intangibles were given to the higher ranked teams. with the lower ranked teams where there is little difference there werent intangibles. intangibles were only applied in a few cases
Shane Battier gave us +1000 intangible points. I don't agree with this system either. He gives only 30 points for championships, yet intangibles are worth so much more. This is a just a way to give extra points to the lakers and celtics. Relocation penalty? You gotta laugh at that.
are you going strictly by number of championships? because if you are, then there is no point to this whole exercise/article because anyone can look at the list of championships. for example, i think LAL is better than Bos. for one thing, boston won 11 of their championships in one era, and while it is amazing, they kind of beef up the resume. la has been consistently good in every decade and when they are not a legit contender, it is only for a few years. for example, la and boston both were awesome in the 80s. whereas boston was then irrelevant as a legit contender from early 90s to 2007, lakers had just a brief period from 92 to 96 where they werent serious contenders but still made the playoffs, then of course the shaq era where they were either winning rings or making the playoffs and giving it a decent run. then the 04-07 era where they were bad, but starting with the 07-08 season are right back to contenders. the celtics were bad/medicore for almost two decades while the lakers were not. LAL takes the cake.
i would've given a -100 to the spurs for being so boring to watch. i also don't think championships are weighted correctly; i think a single championship is worth a great deal more than 30 points. put it this way, 30 points is the difference between 5 years winning 6 more games/season. now would you rather have a single year where you win the championship and the following 5 years you win 6 less games a season, or would you rather just have what amounts to the mavs (great regular season, playoff chokers). i'd take the championship without skipping a beat. there also needs to be some sort of quantification of not just 'all stars' but 'superstars'...the guys who win mvps, the larry birds and magic johnsons and michael jordans...the guys who everyone, even people who aren't basketball fans, know about. because they really do define a franchise's legacy. no one cares about the seasons you went 20-52 in. the point system as it is rewards being just good or above average for a long period of time over being great, even if for a short period. also, the -100 penalty for moving doesn't seem right to me. imo you should treat the teams before and after as separate entities, rather than just applying a flat out penalty.
how the f*** are the Knicks not in the top ten franchises all time? thats all you need to know about this ranking. And Im not even a slight Knicks fan.
I'm more shocked by the fact that Detroit is as low as they are... You would think they would at least be in the top 10 teams. I would agree that the Rockets should probably be up a couple spots at least ahead of the Suns and Jazz.
Oh except for math and stuff...but to evaluate teams? No... pretty sure that formula guy had us losing to Portland and had the Lakers meeting the Cavs.
How can Phoenix, Indiana, and Utah be on the list, but not the Seattle Supersonics? *They were a perennial playoff team for most of 90s and 80s (like the Suns and Jazz), only missed the playoffs 7 times from 74-75 to 01-02. * Won 60 games, 3x (same as Phoenix) in the same span. *One of the most loyal fan bases in the history of the league * Also, the Supersonics franchise has actually won a title. They've been 3 times (78,79,96) vs. the Jazz and Suns 2 and the Pacers 1.
yeah that would probably be my list right there. dont care but its a shame that they put the spurs above the bulls. hello jordan kinda ya know did some stuff.
I'm figuring that too, but I think the Spurs have been more consistent and relevant. The Bulls fell off after the MJ years. Still, they were one of the most dominant teams in league history with great revenue/advertisement and TV ratings records. I almost think the Spurs should be lower, especially when Detroit is not list either. Detroit should've had Indiana's spot. How in the world did Indiana get on the list over Detroit and New York is really strange to me? Indiana has only been to Finals, once and the conference Finals about 6 times. While, the Pistons have done that only in this decade with one Finals win and two appearance and a 67 win team.
The list should look something like this 1. Boston Celtics 2. Los Angeles Lakers 3. Chicago Bulls 4. San Antonio Spurs 5. Philadelphia 76ers 6.Houston Rockets 7.Phoenix Suns 8. Portland Blazers 9. Utah Jazz 10. Indiana Pacers I think the top honor of the best franchise is how many rings you have, followed by playoff appearances, winning percentages and then later on best franchise player and some different accolades awarded to the players
