ESPN’s NBA Franchise Rankings

The Lakers appear poised to take a 3-1 lead over the Magic, and since I don’t want to pay attention to that, let’s discuss ESPN.com’s ridiculous NBA franchise rankings.

I hate this list probably because I like the concept so much; for some reason NBA history has always appealed to me. Last time I played NBA Live, it was some combination of games among the all-time Celtics, all-time Lakers, and the so-unstoppa-Bulls of the late-90s. (I take turns beating the Lakers with either Boston or Chicago.) Anyway, John Hollinger explains most of his typically numbers-heavy decision-making here, if you’re inclined, but I’d rank the teams more with my gut. Before I get into things I disagree with, let me just say how much I LOVE that he put the New York Knicks at No. 14. I hate how the league sucks up to New York and pretends its team is some kind of marquee franchise.

Anyway, let’s start at the top. Hollinger puts the Lakers as the No. 1 franchise ever, over the Boston Celtics, since the Lakers have more wins and playoff series wins than the Celtics, though the Celtics have three more titles. Hollinger absurdly gives LA 150 points of intangibles for having famous fans, while giving Boston 50 points for having the deepest tradition in the league, which to me seems to be the whole measure of this exercise, but whatever. I also really like how he makes a list of the Lakers' great big men and throws Pau Gasol on it. The real reason Boston should be ahead of L.A.? Because they’re 9-2 against the Lakers in the Finals. It's like putting the Bills ahead of the Cowboys.

The Lakers would be the obvious No. 2, though.

The Spurs go third and the Bulls go fourth; of the Spurs he says, “They may not have the tradition of the Lakers or Celtics, but in the two decades since they drafted David Robinson the Spurs have arguably been the most successful organization in sports.” Too bad the Bulls have six rings in that same timespan to San Antonio’s four. It’s true, of course, that the Bulls were only great when they had Jordan, and the Spurs had George Gervin and all that, but it’s still kinda funny.

The Suns are at No. 5 and the Sixers fall just behind them in No. 6. I don’t like this at all. Screw the Suns. Their point guard already stole two MVPs…isn’t that enough? The Sixers are the one other franchise who get an all-time team on that ol’ PlayStation, by the way. A starting five of Wilt, Barkley, Dr. J, the Answer and Maurice Cheeks? How do the Suns compete with that? (And though everyone always does, let’s not forget Moses Malone, too.) Plus the Sixers have three titles to the Suns’ none. Phoenix’s NBA team has been overrated all decade and, apparently, throughout league history.

The only other listing that really bugs me is the Utah Jazz at No. 7. That’s offensively absurd. I know we’re all supposed to wax poetic about Stockton-to-Malone, but it’s been several years now, and if those guys were so great shouldn’t they have won something? It’s not just that they ran into Jordan and the Bulls; if you have a Hall of Fame point guard and a Hall of Fame big man together for that long you should make more than two Finals anyway. You know, it is weird that Jerry Sloan never got Coach of the Year those two times his team actually lived up to expectations. Outside of that era, have the Jazz ever mattered? Anyway, the Jazz are somehow three spots ahead of the Houston Rockets, who won two titles behind Hakeem Olajuwon, the best big man of the ’90s.

I can’t say much more about the list since ESPN wants me to pay to see the last twenty teams, even though it’s the friggin’ Internet. The Bad Boy Pistons of Jordan Rules fame have a horrible rep in my mind, but No. 13 seems pretty low for Detroit. I’m pleasantly surprised by the Nuggets’ No. 18 spot. And you kind of need to put the Clippers last, though Hollinger places them 29th to Memphis’ 30th.

What do you think?