ESPN posted a list created by John Hollinger of the greatest franchises in NBA history.

Here are the rankings... what do you guys think?

* No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
* No. 2: Boston Celtics
* No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
* No. 4: Chicago Bulls
* No. 5: Phoenix Suns
* No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
* No. 7: Utah Jazz
* No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
* No. 9: Indiana Pacers
* No. 10: Houston Rockets
* No. 11: Milwaukee Bucks
* No. 12: Oklahoma City Thunder
* No. 13: Detroit Pistons
* No. 14: Miami Heat
* No. 15: Orlando Magic
* No. 16: New York Knicks
* No. 17: Dallas Mavericks
* No. 18: Denver Nuggets
* No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers
* No. 20: Golden State Warriors
* No. 21: New Jersey Nets
* No. 22: Atlanta Hawks
* No. 23: Washington Wizards
* No. 24: New Orleans Hornets
* No. 25: Sacramento Kings
* No. 26: Minnesota Timberwolves
* No. 27: Toronto Raptors
* No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats
* No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers
* No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies

How could the Spurs be above the Bulls?
Oklahoma City?
Denver should be higher
Detroit should be higher than Milwaukee - it's been forever since Kareem

Utah should be lower just because of their nickname

That includes the Sonics...

Milwaukee had really good teams in the 80's that were overshadowed by the Celtics/76ers teams that people forget about.

the tunder number 12 seriously? after many inept years in seattle, and the fact that they had to move doesnt that put them down the line?
also i think the Nets are too high along with the wizards, and i think the hornets should be higher up

Because if it wasn't for Jordan, the Bulls would be dead last, while the Spurs have almost always been good.
Why should Denver be higher? They've never done anything. Ever. This year was like their best year. Ever.
No way.



This is all wrong.

I give props to the Alex English Denver teams

Top 4 seem about right. I feel like Detroit should be higher considering the recent record plus the Isiah years.

I think the Clippers should be below Memphis. Ya, the Griz have sucked but Jay Leno made a good point in his last episode of the Tonight Show. In the 17 years on the show the Clippers have consistently sucked forever...it's almost mathematically impossible for them to suck so bad. 39 years in the NBA without a championship, conference or division title is pretty amazing. Grizzlies have been terrible but under some pretty horrible situations for the franchise and much less years in the league.

Some minor tweaks. I think Bulls should be 3, Portland should be above the Jazz, and the Knicks should be higher because of what they used to mean to the league.

I understand he tried to make this list as objective as possible, but the "Intangibles" points just seem absurd to me.

Lakers get +150 for "an endless stream of superstars"
Celitcs get +50 for having the "deepest tradition in the league"
Bulls get +100 for having Jordan

It just seems to me that having the deepest tradition in the league should be worth more than having a lot of really good players. Also, it's not like Boston is any slouch in that department either. All stars, LA has 125 and Boston has 128.

The clippers should be last. They are the worst organization in american sports history.

Thought I put that in my post, this is correct also. Memphis is not old enough to combat the years of suck that is the Clippers.

When they were the Buffalo Braves they had some pretty interesting teams with Bob MacAdoo and a bunch of other fun players.

I think it is actually a very solid list. Miami over the Knicks makes me smile. That is a commentary on how bad the knicks have been lately.

Bulls are #4 solely on the strength of the Jordan era.

I feel like the best argument is lakers v. celtics. that one is 50/50 for me.

I agree with all this plus what Bigd said about the Clips. Detroit is also way too low. I think Dallas is actually too high...they were horrendously bad for a dozen or so years straight IIRC. The hawks are a little low. I'd have Cleveland up there with Miami and Orlando too.

Nobody thinks Phoenix is wayyyy too high?

They've never even won anything. Only even been in the finals twice.

There is a steep drop from #4 to everyone else. Phoenix does seem high but I can think of who I would put above them.

Detroit seems really low.

Anyone with a championship imo.

Fixed their post. This list is pretty off base. The Pistons at #13 and the Phoenix Suns at #5? Did a 14 year old retarded kid make this list???

Detroit > than Oklahoma, Milwaukee, and Indiana.

Looks like the intangibles hurt the Pistons and boosted Phoenix.

Detroit



Phoenix



Oklahoma/Seattle

Are there any definitions for the intangibles? I don't care if a team has fewer knuckleheads or is more entertaining (at least as it pertains to this list). All that really matters is winning.

Detroit > Phoenix also.

Phoenix out of the top 10, Detroit and Philly at 5 and 6.

I'm a Laker fan, but question them at number 1. Intangibles strike again.

A problem I see is the value he places on regular season wins.

"Regular-season wins are worth one point. This is the source of 82 percent of the points in this system, but it matters much more for noncontending teams."

This could explain some of the odd rankings. For example the Suns have averaged 43 wins/season and the Pistons have averaged 40/season.

I'm sorry ESPN, but intangibles doesn't define what makes a team great, championship banners do. The Pistons have 3 and and the Suns/Sonics/Thunder have a combined zero.

/thread

The Sonics won a title. Learn your history.

Lenny Wilkins won a title coaching the sonics, fish.



God i ****ing hate intangibles, I think in normal sports discussion they are pukey, anti-logical, bullshit arguments around, and in this case it's no exception. -50 for a brawl? GTFO. +50 for a franchise that's won exactly zero other than underserving MVP awards by their best player ( 1 for Barkley 2 for Nash). GTFO. This shit tilts me more than it should.

how can you question the Lakers at no. 1!? ESPECIALLY if you're a fan...it's not intangibles, it's a fact. they're the most successful NBA franchise.

my bad.



The Lakers are not the most successful NBA franchise.

Celtics are 17-2 all time in the NBA finals, Lakers are 15-15. I am a Lakers fan but 17-2 is better than 15-15.

See, I don't really think that's true. I think getting to 30 finals is more impressive than the celtics 17-2 run. The Russell era celtics is one of the top 3 most impressive runs in sports ( along with UCLA and the yankees) but the vast majority of their championships are from that era, where as the Lakers have had success is basically every era. I think you can make a compelling case for both the lakers and Celtics, really, but the Celtics have been MIA as a relevant franchise from 1989 until last year, that's an almost 2 decade dry spell.

They weren't irrelevant, they had to be one of the most unlucky franchises for that periods with player deaths and other unusual circumstances. Bias death really cost them for a while and right when they were getting back from that Lewis died. They were in the playoffs a lot of the time the Bulls were making their run too, it's not like they were a lottery team every year.

Okay, I know they were unlucky, but that doesn't change anything for this discussion.

between 88 and 2008 they were in the eastern finals exactly once, in 2001-02 in one of the weakest eastern conferences in history.


During that stretch the lakers were in the NBA finals 6 times, winning 3 times.


Also, when I say irrelevant, I don't mean clippers irrelevant, I mean in comparison to the Lakers irrelevant. Once McCale's foot and Bird's back went out, they were never a championship contender unill 2007-08, that's all I'm saying. The laker's record of consistency is remarkable.

Making 30 championships in 60 years is one of the best achievements in NBA history, but I just feel that 17-2 is more impressive.



Man, Len Bias is one of the saddest stories I've ever heard. Don't do coke if you have a heart condition.

The Celtics have more championships and have spanked them timeandtimeagain when they have met.

well, I mean they have a shockingly good record in the finals, but I don't think that's everything that detirmine's a teams greatness. Really, I think the Celtics and Lakers should be 1 and 1a, because they both are so far ahead of the rest of the teams, and so close to each other in greatness.

Isn't it time to change the "Fleur Fan Club" signature?

Just sayin'.

when I want your advice for my signature I'll ask for it, pleb.

It's cool, you don't have to ask chief.

I can agree with that.

The reason I put the Lakers slightly ahead is that I can't think of a team I'd rather watch other than Magic/Kareem/Worthy.

Is 1-0 better than 5-18 in this case?

Making the finals is such an accomplishment in itself. I read it as Lakers have 15 championships and 30 trips to the finals.

If the Lakers had 10 championships to the Celtics 17 then I think there'd be a better argument but 15 and 17 are pretty much the same. 30 and 19 conference championships are definitely not the same.

pretty much what I was gonna say. definitely unlucky but luck isn't a real argument. nobody is an unlucky as the Clippers...for real, how could the system be so bad? it's not that bad...it's got to be some sickly bad luck to run sooooooo bad as a franchise. you could literally have a monkey randomly drafting players and have better results. makes me laugh to think the Pens have gone from winning a stanley cup, hitting rock bottom, then winning a stanley cup. in the time span of those 2 championships the Clips have made the playoffs once.

clippers aren't just unlucky, they are incompetently run by an apathetic and compulsively cheap owner.

John Hollinger....so yes.

As a Celtics fan I obviously think they should be on top but I definately see the argument for the Lakers and think it should be a 1/1a situation like somebody else said. The fact that between them they've won >1/2 the titles is ridiculous. Just a note about the C's making the Eastern Finals a few years back in a weak conference, the West was the weak conference for most of the previous years of the league so it could be said that many of LA's conference finals shouldn't count as much. I'm just playing devils advocate here, I think they're both an achievement

And agree with BigD, Clippers have been horrible. I doubt they actually have scouts at this stage.

back to the original point, should the Lakers or Celtics be #1 and the other be #1a? It's a debate with no answer.

Spurs ahead of the Bulls and Sixers? If that's the case, then I'll ignore Civil War history also as being insignificant.

Bulls should be recognized not just for Jordan, but for the great supporting cast Jackson put together to support the guy. Scotty Pippen, Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant, John Paxson, Dennis Rodman (at various times). Don't tell me those guys weren't a factor.

Also, Detroit at 13? WTF? Up at least 5 notches, if not more. They pretty much owned the latter half of the 80's and were top notch until '91.