Substance, it's Always About Substance

Hello my hoop-loving friends,

Back in July, ESPN columnist John Hollinger came up with a formula to determine the all-time NBA franchise rankings...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

...inspiring me to send him the following email, which, of course, was ignored...

Dear Mr Hollinger,

Let’s just get this out of the way - I am a Celtics fan from Boston.

My first question is: How many times did you tweak your formula before the Lakers came out on top? I mean, a perfect 150 for intangibles? How did you come up with that? Didn’t you question the validity of your "basic accounting principles" when they produced a list where the Phoenix Suns came out ahead of the Philadelphia 76ers and Detroit Pistions?

Can we agree that basketball is a team sport and the goal year-in and year-out is to win the title and NOTHING else matters nearly as much? Do you realize that by awarding Los Angeles/Minneapolis a 150 - 50 advantage over the Celtics in that ridiculous intangibles category you’ve negated the value (+10) of THREE BOSTON CHAMPIONSHIPS? Then again, you work for ESPN, the monster that values individuals and highlights over teams and titles.

"Magic. Kareem. The Logo. Kobe. Shaq. When it comes to superstars, the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny -- their all-time starting five would crush any other team's; in fact, it might be better than that of the rest of the league's put together."

Does this mean that if Team A boasts 5 starters on the all-star team and Team B wins the Championship, Team A had the better season? Please. And let me set you straight on your claim; the team with Bill Russell on the court and Red Auerbach on the bench wins because they ALWAYS did win. It’s about TEAM.

"It was a different league then, with only eight teams until the late 1960s, which undoubtedly made it a bit easier to a claim a ring, compared to today's 30-team maelstrom."

Really? So your saying that the greatest players divided into eight teams instead of thirty is an easier proposition? Even when you had to play those stacked eight teams ten or more times a season with less-than-plush travel accommodations? That’s what I’d call a maelstrom.

Let’s pretend, for all the fans - and journalists - who only relate to individual stars, that the Celtics and Lakers are the two greatest heavyweight boxers of all-time. The Lakers have fought for the title 30 times winning 15 titles for a .500 winning percentage in championship bouts. The Celtics have fought for the title 20 times winning 17 titles for a .850 winning percentage. Most importantly, more than half of the Celtics titles (9) were won at the expense of the Lakers. I think I’d rather be the heavyweight who went 17-3 over the one who went 15-15 (and would be 15-6 if it weren’t for the Celtics).

*According to great-sports-rivalries.com, the Celtics lead the head-to-head regular season series 151-119 (.559)

Some final thoughts: In 1986, when the NBA celebrated its 40^th anniversary, the season ended with the Celtics winning their 16^th title. That’s a staggering 40% of all the league’s championships up to that point. Since then, the Lakers have out-titled the Celtics 6-1. The gap has closed considerably between the leagues two greatest franchises. But no matter what half-baked formula you come up with, it’s all about championships, and for now, the Celtics are up 17-15 and that’s all that matters.

Sincerely,

Jeff Blout