Would you all agree that the Houston Rockets have the #6 best franchise of all time, based on teams still in existence in the NBA (debate with a Phoenix Suns fan). Here is my criteria: 1. Number of championships 2. Number of conference championships 3. Number of playoff appearances 4. Number of Hall-of-Fame players 5. Number of NBA all-time highlight moments, particularly in the playoffs (Sampson's shot, Elie's shot, etc.) 1. Celtics 2. Lakers 3. Bulls 4. Knicks 5. 76ers 6. Rockets 7. Pistons For my list, you have to have at least 2 championships to qualify. Interested to hear some opinions on this subject.
Yes, I'm responding to my own post. One criteria I didn't think about is longevity of excellence. I.E. Bulls have 6 championships. However, their period of dominance only covered the 1990's; prior to this, they were lottery-bound most of the time. Whereas the Rockets went to the Finals with 3 different lineups (1981, 1986, 1994/95). Wouldn't this put the other franchises above the Bulls? Just curious.
sorry jazz! I would put the pistons ahead of the rockets, just on longevity reasons. The pistons date baack to the 40's and were one of the original franchises from when the BAA merged with the NBL creating the NBA.
There should be a huge gap between the 2 and 3 like this: 1. Celtics 2. Lakers 3. Knicks 4. 76ers 5. Bulls 6. Houston 7. Pistons
Maybe when Houston wins more rings in the future we will probably pass everyone instead of LA and Boston If Boston dosen't win anything in the next 25 years I think then you have to kick them out of the top 5 franchises because their success has be in the 60's and the Bird era
It might be because they have been the best overall organization other than the Celtics and Lakers...
When was the last time the Knicks won a championship? With their payroll, and the support they get, I can't believe they are out of the playoffs. It's embarassing.
So do the Spurs pass up the Rockets if they win this years finals? Just curious. By that criteria theyre probaly just a tad behind Houston still. But how do you judge hall of fame players? Drexler Barkley Pippen all future hall of famers . All ex-rockets but their better days were way behind them by the time they hit Houston. So do they count? I say 6 is about right imo.
Both of the Rockets' championships were suspect. For that reason alone, the Pistons should be moved ahead of them. The distinction of greatness should be limited to the five teams listed above. Even then, I think the Knicks and Sixers only get by on longevity. To gauge the success of all other teams, including the Rockets, there should probably be more objective standards: regular and postseason records.
To say that the Rockets championships were suspect is ridiculous and completely without merit. Unless you want to also say that if Byron Scott and Magic Johnson weren't injured in the first game of the 1989 Finals, then we would have been looking at a 3-peat from L.A. Again, if you actually took the time to consider the criteria I presented (not perfect, and certainly up to debate, but not unreasonable, either), you would see why those teams fall the way they do on the list. The fact is that winning a championship is seen by everyone, critics, participants, and fans alike- I mean, universally acknowledged as the mark of greatness. Thus, being in the Finals can also be seen as a good indicator of success.
I think you probably need to put Detroit ahead of the Rockets. The Pistons will be remembered for being the bad boys of the league. The Rockets will be remembered for winning championships in the years MJ was retired. That's not to say I believe the Rockets wouldn'tve won those 2 titles if MJ hadn't retired. I'm just saying across the country, that's how people see the Rockets. They typically have more respect for the Detroit champs.
I would put detroit maybe even ahead of the 76ers because the 76r's only have the one title. Until they got Dr. J they did nothing that anybody ever heard of, probably cause they were playing in syracuse as the nationals till the mid 60s.
