Methodology for Measuring Franchise Success?

[3ch03s]

Hello!

I'm new. Be nice

After reading Evanz post calling for the Warriors to enact a scorched-earth policy (http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/6 ... erm-future), I was wondering how you guys would measure/rank the relative success of each franchise going back, say, to the ABA merger? Championships tell us who was the best team that year (arguably, but let's leave it at that), but how would you measure the success of a franchise like Utah who consistently had 50+ win seasons?

I'm interested to know because the obvious follow-up question would be are the circumstances rigged or is it poor managerial decision-making or just plain luck as to why sum franchises are consistently mediocre?

Nice to meet you

[Crow]

Looking at 1990 to 2011, 7 teams have win% over .550:

Team W-L%
SAS 0.666
LAL 0.63
UTA 0.616
PHO 0.609
POR 0.567
HOU 0.566
SEA/OKC .563

5 teams have 10+ 50+ win seasons:

DAL 11
LAK 13
PHO 13
POR 10
SAS 16
UTAH 12

Totaling titles should be easy and brings Chicago into the picture.

Conference final appearances mean more to me than 50+ wins. That could be totalled up too but I don't feel like doing it right now.

[mystic]

I once wanted to know which GM are the best in the league. My methodology was: Win% in the RS, Playoff success with arbitrary numbers assigned to each state, individual award payroll and salary cap. I combined the RS numbers, playoffs and awards and adjusted it by the payroll vs. salary cap. Back in 2007 the list was:

Code: Select all

RangName   Surname   Team         Win Loss D 1  2  CF Fi TiEoY GM-Poin   PR      SC     adj-p
  1.RC     Buford    San Antonio  281  107 3 1  2   0  0 2      15.034 274.75 230.616  12.618
  2.Joe    Dumars    Detroit      341  209 5 1  1   2  1 1  1   12.300 356.43 308.616  10.650
  3.Mitch  Kupchak   LA Lakers    332  220 2 2  1   0  1 2      12.069 453.70 308.616   8.209
  4.Bryan  Colangelo Toronto       32   28 1 1  0   0  0 0       8.133  53.59  53.135   8.063
  5.Mike   D'Antoni  Phoenix       46   14 1 1  0   0  0 0       9.300  66.81  53.135   7.396
  6.Rod    Thorn     New Jersey   293  259 4 1  2   0  2 0  1    9.002 455.60 308.616   6.098
  7.Randy  Pfund     Miami        495  352 5 4  2   2  0 1       8.150 573.15 423.879   6.027
  8.Geoff  Petrie    Sacramento   522  407 2 5  3   1  0 0  2    7.281 584.70 446.879   5.565
  9.Danny  Ferry     Cleveland     85   57 0 1  1   0  0 0       5.880 113.33 102.635   5.325
 10.Larry  Bird      Indiana      175  129 1 2  1   1  0 0       6.655 272.57 190.345   4.647
 11.Donnie Nelson    Dallas       280  107 1 2  1   1  1 0       8.703 433.19 230.616   4.633
 12.Ernie  Grunfeld  Washington   145  159 1 2  1   0  0 0       4.813 211.75 190.345   4.326
 13.Mark   Warkentie Denver        28   29 0 1  0   0  0 0       5.333  66.37  53.135   4.270
 14.Kevin  O'Connor  Utah         349  285 2 4  1   0  0 0       4.692 403.16 342.616   3.988
 15.Billy  King      Philadelphia 360  324 1 2  3   0  1 0       5.629 557.50 372.616   3.762
 16.Kevin  McHale    Minnesota    495  434 1 7  0   1  0 0       4.518 578.44 446.879   3.490
 17.Jerry  West      Memphis      187  202 0 3  0   0  0 0  1    4.668 314.63 230.616   3.422
 18.Elgin  Baylor    LA Clippers  585 1083 0 4  1   0  0 0  1    3.294 525.53 544.562   3.414
 19.John   Paxson    Chicago      146  162 0 3  0   0  0 0       3.968 223.03 190.345   3.386
 20.Rick   Sund      Seattle      233  236 1 1  1   0  0 0       3.708 310.63 273.116   3.260
 21.Caroll Dawson    Houston      445  403 0 5  0   1  0 0       4.074 542.83 423.879   3.181
 22.Danny  Ainge     Boston       131  174 1 2  0   0  0 0       3.761 243.89 190.345   2.935
 23.Larry  Harris    Milwaukee    133  174 0 2  0   0  0 0       3.235 237.48 190.345   2.593
 24.Otis   Smith     Orlando       65   79 0 1  0   0  0 0       3.396 135.20 102.635   2.578
 25.Jeff   Bower     New Orleans   66   76 0 0  0   0  0 0       2.324  96.88 102.635   2.462
 26.Bernie Bickersta Charlotte     66  159 0 0  0   0  0 0       1.467  97.17 146.505   2.211
 27.Chris  Mullin    Golden Stat   95  131 0 0  0   0  0 0       2.102 177.09 146.505   1.739
 28.Steve  Patterson Portland      25   35 0 0  0   0  0 0       2.083  73.56  53.135   1.505
 29.Billy  Knight    Atlanta       95  220 0 0  0   0  0 0       1.508 196.07 190.345   1.464
 30.Isiah  Thomas    New York     123  184 0 1  0   0  0 0       2.537 457.76 190.345   1.055

I think the sucess of a franchise depends also on the market and the money they can spend. Some teams just can't spend as much as other, thus we can't expect them to perform better. On the other hand we should expect a team like the Knicks to be successful unless the FO is rather incapable of either evaluating talent or is managing the money poorly.
But I guess sometimes luck is involved, if we look at Dumars for example. He had the luck that players like Ben Wallace and Chauncey Billups exceeded expecations. The signing of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva did not look like smart invested money even at the time it happened.

[3ch03s]

Hello

Thanks for replying.

Your analysis is obviously much deeper than mine but I thought I'd share what I'd tabulated over the past couple of hours. I know these won't display correctly but the following is a list of times teams finished with regular season records in the Top through bottom quartiles from 1990-91 to 2010-11...

Code: Select all

	
	                ATL	BOS	CHA	CHI	CLE	DAL	DEN	DET	GSW	HOU	IND	LAC	LAL	MEM	MIA	MIL	MIN	NJN	NOH	NYK	OKC	ORL	PHI	PHO	POR	SAC	SAS	TOR	UTA	WAS
Top 25%	         2	4	0	9	6	9	2	7	1	7	6	0	12	1	6	1	3	2	1	4	8	6	1	12	7	5	17	0	12	0
2nd 25%	         8	6	1	2	6	2	6	5	4	6	3	2	6	3	7	3	4	4	10	5	4	4	5	3	9	2	3	3	6	5
3rd 25%	         3	7	2	4	4	2	6	5	6	6	12	6	3	1	5	10	2	6	7	5	6	9	7	5	2	6	0	5	2	5
Bottom 25%	 8	4	4	6	5	8	7	4	10	2	0	13	0	11	3	7	12	9	3	7	3	2	8	1	3	8	1	8	1	11
Seasons Played	 21	21	7	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	16	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	16	21	21

Then those numbers as a percentage of seasons played...

Code: Select all

	                ATL	BOS	CHA	CHI	CLE	DAL	DEN	DET	GSW	HOU	IND	LAC	LAL	MEM	MIA	MIL	MIN	NJN	NOH	NYK	OKC	ORL	PHI	PHO	POR	SAC	SAS	TOR	UTA	WAS
Top 25%	        10%	19%	0%	43%	29%	43%	10%	33%	5%	33%	29%	0%	57%	6%	29%	5%	14%	10%	5%	19%	38%	29%	5%	57%	33%	24%	81%	0%	57%	0%
2nd 25%	        38%	29%	14%	10%	29%	10%	29%	24%	19%	29%	14%	10%	29%	19%	33%	14%	19%	19%	48%	24%	19%	19%	24%	14%	43%	10%	14%	19%	29%	24%
3rd 25%	        14%	33%	29%	19%	19%	10%	29%	24%	29%	29%	57%	29%	14%	6%	24%	48%	10%	29%	33%	24%	29%	43%	33%	24%	10%	29%	0%	31%	10%	24%
Bottom 25%	38%	19%	57%	29%	24%	38%	33%	19%	48%	10%	0%	62%	0%	69%	14%	33%	57%	43%	14%	33%	14%	10%	38%	5%	14%	38%	5%	50%	5%	52%

For what it's worth, I think the following things are interesting...
1. San Antonio is way way out in front, followed by the Lakers, Jazz and Suns (and then everyone else is way back).
2. Charlotte and Memphis/Vancouver and Toronto's records would suggest that it takes time to get to a reasonable standard (although Washington and the Clippers have been terrible regardless).
3. I wonder, if anything, what Dallas, Chicago's polarised records say about managerial decisions or the influence of money.

Again, thanks for replying

EDIT: Totally forgot to reference my source material: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/wins.html

[Mike G]

Here, I've reformatted your table. Separately listing East Conf and Western teams.

Code: Select all

quartile  ATL   BOS   CHA   CHI   CLE   DET   IND   MIA   MIL   NJN   NYK   ORL   PHI   TOR   WAS
Top .25   .10   .19   .00   .43   .29   .33   .29   .29   .05   .10   .19   .29   .05   .00   .00
2nd .25   .38   .29   .14   .10   .29   .24   .14   .33   .14   .19   .24   .19   .24   .19   .24
3rd .25   .14   .33   .29   .19   .19   .24   .57   .24   .48   .29   .24   .43   .33   .31   .24
Btm .25   .38   .19   .57   .29   .24   .19   .00   .14   .33   .43   .33   .10   .38   .50   .52
                                                
quartile  DAL   DEN   GSW   HOU   LAC   LAL   MEM   MIN   NOH   OKC   PHO   POR   SAC   SAS   UTA
Top .25   .43   .10   .05   .33   .00   .57   .06   .14   .05   .38   .57   .33   .24   .81   .57
2nd .25   .10   .29   .19   .29   .10   .29   .19   .19   .48   .19   .14   .43   .10   .14   .29
3rd .25   .10   .29   .29   .29   .29   .14   .06   .10   .33   .29   .24   .10   .29   .00   .10
Btm .25   .38   .33   .48   .10   .62   .00   .69   .57   .14   .14   .05   .14   .38   .05   .05

If we multiply these fractions by 3 for a top 1/4 year, 2 for a 2nd, and 1 for a 3rd, we get these rankings:

Code: Select all

1.77   MIA      2.71   SAS
1.72   IND      2.43   LAL
1.71   DET      2.39   UTA
1.68   CHI      2.23   PHO
1.68   ORL      1.95   POR
1.64   CLE      1.86   HOU
1.48   BOS      1.81   OKC (Sea)
1.29   NYK      1.59   DAL
1.20   ATL      1.44   NOH (Cha)
0.97   NJN      1.21   SAC
0.96   PHI      1.17   DEN
0.91   MIL      0.90   MIN
0.72   WAS      0.82   GSW
0.69   TOR      0.62   MEM (Van)
0.57   CHA      0.49   LAC
18.99  East    23.62  West

The sum of all is just over 42 -- in 21 seasons -- suggesting that if all teams had been in the league for all years, teams might be 'expected' to have this many Finals appearances?

Of course, 1991 is rather an arbitrary starting point -- the start of the Robinson era in SA, Stockton-Malone in Utah, Reggie in Indiana...

[xkonk]

I think it would be useful to take into account that a franchise should always either be rebuilding or winning; you don't want to be in the "Atlanta zone" where you aren't good enough to win but you're too good to get good draft picks. Indiana would be another good example; since 03-04 they've never hosted a playoff series or finished below 10th in the East. That makes it really hard for a franchise to improve. Bottoming out may not be fun for the fans, but a good GM/owner should know that it's necessary once in a while unless you have a top-4 team.

[mystic]

I think it would be useful to take into account that a franchise should always either be rebuilding or winning; you don't want to be in the "Atlanta zone" where you aren't good enough to win but you're too good to get good draft picks. Indiana would be another good example; since 03-04 they've never hosted a playoff series or finished below 10th in the East. That makes it really hard for a franchise to improve. Bottoming out may not be fun for the fans, but a good GM/owner should know that it's necessary once in a while unless you have a top-4 team.

It is not as easy as you think it is. The franchises have to pay their costs and giving up on a season will cost a franchise fans and in the end money. Especially when the owners don't have that much capital in order to pay for all the expenses, if the franchise is losing a big chunck of money due to tanking. Indiana, the example you give here, has to pay a part of their TV money to the old ABA owners, they have to find a way to rebuild on the fly while still trying to be competitive in each season.
You also have to keep in mind that only once every two year 1 franchise player is in the draft. Now you have to be lucky enough to get such franchise player. The Bulls got Derrick Rose while only having 1.7% chance to win the lottery. The Bulls could have easily ended up with Brook Lopez or Jason Thompson in that draft.
When a team goes for that draft lottery luck, it will be bad in most cases for multiple seasons. Now, would you as an owner really want to pay that kind of money out of your pocket?

[Mike G]

yeah, Atlanta is stuck with overpayment to some players.
Indiana didn't have that issue and attracted one AllStar (West) who hasn't even remotely recovered his former game. Still, they're doing OK.

Blowing up a team is a terrible idea. I still haven't seen a case where this was worthwhile: short term, medium, or long term.

[xkonk]

I'm not saying that teams bottom out on purpose, but it's hard to argue that bad teams don't draft good rookies and improve. It worked for Cleveland with LeBron, Miami with Wade, OKC is pretty much completely draft-built, the Hornets made the playoffs with Chris Paul and not a lot else, Orlando has been successful with Dwight, etc. And if you happen to get a bust, you'll get another shot at the draft the next year. I could be forgetting an example, but about the only recent team to jump from the basement to the top entirely through free agency was the Celtics. It has as much to do with talent evaluation and the salary scale as anything else. Granted that getting a top pick and then having that pick turn out involves some luck, but at least it's a relatively cheap investment.

Mystic - I'm not saying there aren't other factors for success, or that different people (the owner, the GM, the fans) might have different definitions of success. As far as it goes, it seemed like the original question mostly had to do with team quality, and I was only pointing out that quality sometimes comes from being bad. Although I guess it's a fair question; would a team be better off financially (or otherwise) if it were a championship contender every two or three years and in the basement in the middle versus winning 30-40 games every year?