Every 50-Win Season In NBA History In One Chart

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/4/3/5577762/50-win-seasons-nba-history-chart



Every 50-win season in NBA history in 1 chart
By Tom Ziller  @teamziller on Apr 3 2014, 9:44a 6


Tim Duncan has 15 50-win seasons. How many do all the NBA franchises have?

In honor of Tim Duncan's 15th 50-win season, we put together a chart showing how many such seasons each NBA franchise has in their individual histories. Surprise! The Lakers and Celtics have the most.





For franchises that relocated, we transferred their totals with the team with one exception, the Sonics. Because the Thunder are not the Sonics. This really just affected the Sixers (one 50-win season in Syracuse), Lakers (one 50-win season in Minneapolis), Pelicans (a handful in Charlotte), Wizards (a couple in Baltimore), Hawks (St. Louis) and Kings (one each in Cincinnati and Rochester).

The Rockets and Blazers could each still add one to their total this season. The Raptors could earn their first 50-win season in franchise history by winning out. A couple West teams have (very) outside chances of reaching 50.

The biggest lesson from this chart: being a fan of the Warriors, Clippers or Nets is typically an exercise in major frustration. Geez.




bob
MY NOTE:  This is interesting, but as we saw in 2008 it is not necessarily revealing.  There were only 3 good franchises in the east in 2008 (Boston, Pistons, Orlando had 50+ wins) and a lot of them in the west.  The Celtics record that year was positively gaudy, at 66-16, because they were feasting on the weak eastern teams, while there were 8 teams in the west with 50+.  Bottom line, the Celtics were the best team in the NBA and the WC teams were competitive with each other, and better than the eastern teams, and that's why there were so many winners there.  The Lakers have been a quality team for a very long time, obviously, but some of their 50+ game seasons came when they moved to LA and feasted for years on the expansion teams created by the NBA as it grew westward.  They were the class of the west. Portland, Sacto and Seattle, to name 3, went through typical expansion team losing seasons when they first started and the beneficiaries of those were the established franchises.  As far as the Nets go, they got gutted by the NBA (at the insistence of the Knicks) when the ABA merged with the NBA.   Yeah, I know that was a long time ago, but I'm trying to give them a break.  The Knicks, on the other hand, have no excuse. 50-win seasons? Interesting, but not necessary revealing.


.

Also misleading, Bob.  This presentation of stats (like many others) misses the mark in terms of context.  Ziller or Silly, or whatever his name is, ignores the fact that teams played fewer games in the old days.  Changes in number of games were as follows:

1946-47 60 games
1949-50 68 games
1950-51 69 games
1951-52 66 games (I don't know why the number of games dipped)
1952-53 71 games
1953-54 72 games
1959-60 75 games
1960-61 79 games
1961-62 80 games
1966-67 81 games
1967-68 82 games
Thereafter, 82 games except in strike-shortened seasons and in cases of rare cancellations

Projecting the Celtics' winning percentages onto a total season of 82 games, they would have won at least 50 games in at least three years when they actually totaled fewer than 50 wins in 71- or 72-game seasons:

1952-53: Would have won 53 games in an 82-game season
1956-57: Would have won 50 games in an 82-game season
1957-58: Would have won 56 games in an 82-game season

Between 1958-59 and 1967-68, they won at least 50 games in 10 consecutive seasons.  By my reckoning, a correct calculation based on 82 game projections would have extended that skein for two years (including 1956-57 and 1957-58) for a grand total of 12 consecutive seasons of 50+ level seasons during the Tyranny.

I didn't do any calculations for other teams because I don't care about other teams.  I just don't like any revisionist history that portrays the Celtics inaccurately.  (I assume some of the early Minneapolis teams would also be among those screwed by Mr. Silly Putty's summary.)

Sam

Sam

That certainly changes things

Bob fyi the Sacromento Kings were not an expansion team. They migrated from Kansas city. I recall that Bob Cousy coached them and they drafted Nate Archibald (UTEP) before that they were the Cincinatti Royals that we watched a long time ago and before that I think they were in Rochester (Royals)

dboss

dboss wrote:Sam

That certainly changes things

Bob  fyi the Sacromento Kings were not an expansion team.  They migrated from Kansas city. I recall that Bob Cousy coached them and they drafted Nate Archibald (UTEP) before that they were the Cincinnati Royals that we watched a long time ago and before that I think they were in Rochester (Royals)

dboss

dboss,

Fair enough.

Portland, Dallas, T-Wolves and Phoenix were expansion teams. The LA Clippers were the San Diego Clippers which were the Buffalo Braves. A series of moves attempting to fool a fresh batch of fans. The Utah Jazz were originally in New Orleans (otherwise they'd be called the "Utah Jacks"). The Philadelphia Warriors moved to GSW after a 49-31 record in 61-62 and then were 31-49 in 62-63. Paul Arizin didn't make the trip, but Wilt and Gola and Attles did. An amazing reversal for a team with that much talent.

The KC Royals had a 31-51 record in 84-85 and then moved to Sacto. They then went 14 straight years without hitting 40 wins, including an 8-straight year run of not breaking 30. So, even though they were not an expansion team, they were cannon fodder for the better franchises for a long, long time. In fact, in the 56 years between 57-58 (their first year in Cincinnati, coming from Rochester) and this year they have only had 16 seasons in which they were .500 or better. 16 years .500+, 40 years <.500. That's a lot of opportunities for teams in their conference to rack up a lot of wins.


bob


.

Dboss,

So does that make the Kings to be the only franchise that has moved twice?

Sam

Sam that is a trivia questions that I cannot answer. It's an interesting question.

Bob, The clippers are actually the Boston Celtics and the Celtics are the Buffalo Braves. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Dboss

sam wrote:Dboss,

So does that make the Kings to be the only franchise that has moved twice?

No. This page shows the history of each franchise, though it's not totally complete because it doesn't include the NBL, which combined with the BAA in 1949 to form the NBA. I believe the NBA recognizes the BAA history (which started in 1946) as its own but doesn't recognize the NBL history (which started in 1937).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

According to Wikipedia, the Atlanta Hawks have gone through these iterations:

1. Buffalo Bisons of the NBL for 13 games in 1946
2. Tri-Cities Blackhawks (Moline, IL), 1946-51
3. Milwaukee Hawks, 1952-55
4. St. Louis Hawks, 1956-68
5. Atlanta Hawks, 1969-present

That's either one more city than the Royals/Kings (Rochester, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Sacramento) or tied, depending on whether you count Omaha when they were the Kansas City-Omaha Kings (they split games between the two cities for three seasons).

Others I see that moved at least twice:

• The Clippers, from Buffalo to San Diego to LA

• The Wizards, from Chicago to Baltimore to D.C.

Part of what qualifies as a "move" depends on your interpretation. Does the Warriors' move from San Francisco to Oakland, when they changed from the San Francisco Warriors to the Golden State Warriors, count? I'm inclined to say no, since it's essentially the same market. I do count the Clippers' move from San Diego to LA since those are two separate markets.