All-Time NBA Champions by seeding

[Legends66NBA7]

1st seed - 50/69

2nd seed - 10/69

3rd seed - 7/69

4th seed - 1/69

5th seed - 0/69

6th seed - 1/69

7th seed - 0/69

8th seed - 0/69


Probably already common knowledge that the NBA title is the hardest to win in the 4 major sports because there are rarely ever major upsets and a major talent or 2 or really deep teams can lead you all the way. The 69 Celtics and 95 Rockets are the only non Top 3 seeds to win and they were hard pressed through their playoff runs.

Gets you thinking, would the league ever decide to reduce teams making the playoffs, along with taking out divisions and conferences ?

[Fallen Angel]

Clutch City :applause:

[ArbitraryWater]

1st seed - 50/69

2nd seed - 10/69

3rd seed - 7/69

4th seed - 1/69

5th seed - 0/69

6th seed - 1/69

7th seed - 0/69

8th seed - 0/69


Probably already common knowledge that the NBA title is the hardest to win in the 4 major sports because there are rarely ever major upsets and a major talent or 2 or really deep teams can lead you all the way. The 69 Celtics and 95 Rockets are the only non Top 3 seeds to win and they were hard pressed through their playoff runs.

Gets you thinking, would the league ever decide to reduce teams making the playoffs, along with taking out divisions and conferences ?

or does that make it the easiest hmmm

[ClipperRevival]

1st seed - 50/69

2nd seed - 10/69

3rd seed - 7/69

4th seed - 1/69

5th seed - 0/69

6th seed - 1/69

7th seed - 0/69

8th seed - 0/69


Probably already common knowledge that the NBA title is the hardest to win in the 4 major sports because there are rarely ever major upsets and a major talent or 2 or really deep teams can lead you all the way. The 69 Celtics and 95 Rockets are the only non Top 3 seeds to win and they were hard pressed through their playoff runs.

Gets you thinking, would the league ever decide to reduce teams making the playoffs, along with taking out divisions and conferences ?

This is why I love the NBA, because it's fair. Even before the season starts, we already know the few teams that have a legit chance at winning. There are no Cinderella stories or major upsets because over a 7 game series, the better team wins almost every time.

Also, Wilt in the record books again for the wrong reason. His 1969 Lakers weren't supposed to lose to the 1969 Celtics. His Lakers were the #1 seed and had won 7 more regular season games than the aging Celtics. This was Russell's last season in the league and Wilt's stacked Lakers still couldn't take advantage, losing game 7, at home, by 2 points were Wilt shot 1-11 from the FT. What makes this even more laughable is that Russell was also the head coach.

[ClipperRevival]

Hakeem's run in 1995 has to be one of the most impressive playoff runs ever, not only individually but also in terms of the teams he beat.

1st round: Jazz (60-22) 3rd seed (Malone, Stockton)
2nd round: Suns (59-23) 2nd seed (Barkley, KJ)
WCF: Spurs (62-20) 1st seed (Robinson, Rodman)
Finals: Magic (57-25) 1st seed (Shaq, Hardaway)

[Asukal]

This is why I love the NBA, because it's fair. Even before the season starts, we already know the few teams that have a legit chance at winning. There are no Cinderella stories or major upsets because over a 7 game series, the better team wins almost every time.

Also, Wilt in the record books again for the wrong reason. His 1969 Lakers weren't supposed to lose to the 1969 Celtics. His Lakers were the #1 seed and had won 7 more regular season games than the aging Celtics. This was Russell's last season in the league and Wilt's stacked Lakers still couldn't take advantage, losing game 7, at home, by 2 points were Wilt shot 1-11 from the FT. What makes this even more laughable is that Russell was also the head coach.

We already know ILt is a choker. :oldlol:

Inb4, Loseruss...

[Legends66NBA7]

or does that make it the easiest hmmm

What ?

The teams with the best talent will usually win. It's hard to gather that talent and sustain it, though.

[ISHGoat]

or does that make it the easiest hmmm

This is actually a very good point. If the best team wins a great majority of the time and there are rarely underdog champions, is it easier or harder to win the ship?

[guy]

Never understood why people think the playoffs should be shortened. You get 2 straight months of important games for almost every night. As an NBA fan, why would anyone want less of that? And no, the NBA will never shorten it given the revenue.

[Sarcastic]

This is why all the people making a stink over changing the playoffs format are silly. The teams that it would affect have 0% chance to win anyways.

[ISHGoat]

This is why all the people making a stink over changing the playoffs format are silly. The teams that it would affect have 0% chance to win anyways.

No but it changes which teams get to extract additional rounds of revenue. Im sure many owners DGAF about winning the chip, just $, which playoff seeding affects.

[jlip]

This is why I love the NBA, because it's fair. Even before the season starts, we already know the few teams that have a legit chance at winning. There are no Cinderella stories or major upsets because over a 7 game series, the better team wins almost every time.

Also, Wilt in the record books again for the wrong reason. His 1969 Lakers weren't supposed to lose to the 1969 Celtics. His Lakers were the #1 seed and had won 7 more regular season games than the aging Celtics. This was Russell's last season in the league and Wilt's stacked Lakers still couldn't take advantage, losing game 7, at home, by 2 points were Wilt shot 1-11 from the FT. What makes this even more laughable is that Russell was also the head coach.

At the risk of derailing this thread, the 1969 Celtics were underdogs in all of it's series that season and didn't have homecourt in either. A prime Willis Reed should probably feel worse than Wilt after being outplayed by an old, arthritic Russell in the EDF.

[Legends66NBA7]

Never understood why people think the playoffs should be shortened. You get 2 straight months of important games for almost every night. As an NBA fan, why would anyone want less of that? And no, the NBA will never shorten it given the revenue.

I agree with this.

[Sarcastic]

No but it changes which teams get to extract additional rounds of revenue. Im sure many owners DGAF about winning the chip, just $, which playoff seeding affects.

Do you think adding Phoenix and Oklahoma to the playoffs is gonna add more revenue than Boston and Brooklyn?

[Legends66NBA7]

This is actually a very good point. If the best team wins a great majority of the time and there are rarely underdog champions, is it easier or harder to win the ship?

They would still be facing tough competition. All great champions have faced a great team.

[ClipperRevival]

This is actually a very good point. If the best team wins a great majority of the time and there are rarely underdog champions, is it easier or harder to win the ship?

It's not easier or harder. It just means that the best teams usually win and that a vastly inferior team has little chance of an upset because the truth will play itself out on the court and the better team prevails almost every team. Meaning the NBA is fair.

This is why the NBA is superior to MLB or NFL. In the NFL, there is only 1 playoff game so the hot team has a good shot at beating the superior team. In baseball, it's a complete crap shoot and any team can beat any other team. Just depends on who is pitching well and what bats get hot at the right time.

[ClipperRevival]

At the risk of derailing this thread, the 1969 Celtics were underdogs in all of it's series that season and didn't have homecourt in either. A prime Willis Reed should probably feel worse than Wilt after being outplayed by an old, arthritic Russell in the EDF.

Adding insult to injury, Russell was the head coach in 1968 and 1969, which were his last 2 years in the league and both years upsetting the heavily favored Wilt led teams. Wilt really hurt his legacy in those two years. He should've had 2 more chips and taken 2 more away from Russell. But dude choked away two game 7's, at home. Just shameful choke job.

[LAZERUSS]

Adding insult to injury, Russell was the head coach in 1968 and 1969, which were his last 2 years in the league and both years upsetting the heavily favored Wilt led teams. Wilt really hurt his legacy in those two years. He should've had 2 more chips and taken 2 more away from Russell. But dude choked away two game 7's, at home. Just shameful choke job.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

This has been SHREDDED many time here.

Do some RESEARCH before posting NONSENSE.

Anm injured Wilt, with a team, that was so badly injured that it wasn't even favored in the first round against the Knicks in the '68 playoffs, wiped the floor with BOTH Bellamy and Russell in those two playoff series. Of course, with over HALF of his roster DECIMATED by injuries, and and he himself playing on one leg the entire series...his team lost a game seven by four points.


And in game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt crushed a defenseless Russell, who completely disappeared in the 4th quarter.

Of course, and as always, Russell's TEAMMATES badly outplayed Wilt's in BOTH series. Baylor was a complete joke in the '69 Finals, and personally lost THREE games on his own (including a miserable game seven in which he did nothing.)

[kennethgriffin]

i think it just proves that homecourt advantage is the most valued in basketball

refs play into it a big deal


probably because theres more infractions in basketball than any other sport


if we cut down fouls/free throws thered be more upsets

[ArbitraryWater]

They would still be facing tough competition. All great champions have faced a great team.

Well thanks, but its definitely not the hardest winning one in the NBA..

Simple look at MJ's 6 in 7 years should do enough, or Russell..

Other equally dominant greats cant win that much elsewhere..

How open and guaranteed was the 2008-2010 West for the Lakers?

Who was gonna challenge them, Paul Hornets? Melo Nuggets?

[ClipperRevival]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

This has been SHREDDED many time here.

Do some RESEARCH before posting NONSENSE.

Anm injured Wilt, with a team, that was so badly injured that it wasn't even favored in the first round against the Knicks in the '68 playoffs, wiped the floor with BOTH Bellamy and Russell in those two playoff series. Of course, with over HALF of his roster DECIMATED by injuries, and and he himself playing on one leg the entire series...his team lost a game seven by four points.


And in game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt crushed a defenseless Russell, who completely disappeared in the 4th quarter.

Of course, and as always, Russell's TEAMMATES badly outplayed Wilt's in BOTH series. Baylor was a complete joke in the '69 Finals, and personally lost THREE games on his own (including a miserable game seven in which he did nothing.)

Translation: It's never his fault. :applause:

[Legends66NBA7]

Well thanks, but its definitely not the hardest winning one in the NBA..

Not compared to the other big 4 sports leagues in North America.

[Ariza4three]

Well thanks, but its definitely not the hardest winning one in the NBA..

Simple look at MJ's 6 in 7 years should do enough, or Russell..

Other equally dominant greats cant win that much elsewhere..

How open and guaranteed was the 2008-2010 West for the Lakers?

Who was gonna challenge them, Paul Hornets? Melo Nuggets?
It is the hardest winning in the NBA compared to the other 3 sports.

Longest season out of the 4. Best of 7 every playoff series.

There's hardly any luck involved between opponents, only draft
Other dominant greats in other sports can't impact the game as much compared to the NBA.

NFL has 1 game per playoff match
MLB switches its pitchers and not best of 7
NHL has the penalty box, so it can be a 5 on 4

[DMV2]

What ?

The teams with the best talent will usually win. It's hard to gather that talent and sustain it, though.
And in NBA terms, "the teams with the best talent" usually means teams with the best players.

Every team since 1991 besides the 2004 Pistons and 2008 Celtics (and 2014 Spurs) had a top 3 player on their team. And when you have the absolute best, you usually get at least 3 titles. MJ, Shaq, Duncan.

I think that's what AW meant.

NBA = if you have a superstar/top 3 guy, you''ll win. and deep rosters don't always win. 2002 King, 2000 Blazers, Drexler's Blazers, 1993 Suns etc...they'll lose to the best player.

NFL, MLB = you actually need the best talents on your roster.

[DMV2]

If the NBA is the hardest to win, then why is it the easiest to predict?

Like, we all know who the best player is, or the top 3 players are.

Besides 2004 Pistons and 2008 Celtics (and 2014 Spurs), every champion at least since 1991 have had a top 3 player. Bird and Magic, top 2 in the 80's combined for 8 championships out of 10 years.

And have the best player/top 3 usually gets you a top 4 seeding. Name a season where a LeBron wasn't ion the top 3? His rookie and sophomore season. Every playoff appearance his teams have been #1 or #2 seeding.

And when LeBron lost, he lost to an MVP player/top 3 in Curry and top 3 player in Dirk.

2014 Spurs beating LeBron's Heat is an example of a team with the most talent beating the best player's team. I'd add 2014 Spurs along with 2004 Pistons and 2008 Celtics has teams with the best talents without the best player/top 3 player.

[dhsilv]

This is actually a very good point. If the best team wins a great majority of the time and there are rarely underdog champions, is it easier or harder to win the ship?

Harder, it means the best wins and being the best is aways harder. If random luck is a larger factor it diminishes the titles. A reason why I hate the college tourney with a passion.

[dhsilv]

This is why all the people making a stink over changing the playoffs format are silly. The teams that it would affect have 0% chance to win anyways.

Last year we could have had the spurs in the second round. To me that alone makes it worth while. EVery year you have teams CLEARLY better in the west eliminated than many teams in the east still playing. Sure the end results might be the same, but damn it makes the journey to the finals less fun. And we as fans are about having more fun, right?

[dhsilv]

Do you think adding Phoenix and Oklahoma to the playoffs is gonna add more revenue than Boston and Brooklyn?

yes actually I do. The suns might not matter, but Ressell westbook is a HUGE tv draw. I think people are missing that sports are more and more becoming less local and more national/global. I was born in Kentucky and now I"m in Ohio so some bias here, but I don't care what team you play for. I want to see great basketball. I care about WHO is playing, not the city they are in. Given the global draw and the national tv rights, I might be a minority, but when it comes to dollars, the majority of dollars and views for playoff basketball is coming from the out of market crowd.

[dhsilv]

i think it just proves that homecourt advantage is the most valued in basketball

refs play into it a big deal


probably because theres more infractions in basketball than any other sport


if we cut down fouls/free throws thered be more upsets

You didn't post in an annoying bold or over sized font? yet you're still trolling?

You realize the edge of home court is declining each and every year right? It's become more and more marginal if that....

[Naero]

or does that make it the easiest hmmm

Depends on the referent of "who." I assume it is the underdog in this context; if so, it would only engender it as the hardest league to win it all at in terms of capitalizing off of a fluke.

Every team needs to work exhaustively to win it all

[dhsilv]

Well thanks, but its definitely not the hardest winning one in the NBA..

Simple look at MJ's 6 in 7 years should do enough, or Russell..

Other equally dominant greats cant win that much elsewhere..

How open and guaranteed was the 2008-2010 West for the Lakers?

Who was gonna challenge them, Paul Hornets? Melo Nuggets?

So the argument is that

Given you are the best team it is easier to repeat

.95^6 > .8^6

But you ignore the difficulty of being the .95?

Or put another way, lets say the best team has a 95% chance of winning a game.

They play 5 games for a title. They have a 77.4% chance of doing that. 22.6% of the time a team who's the CLEAR CLEAR favorite in that scenario will lose. Or another way is to say nearly 23% of the time the HUGE favorite will not win it all giving a title to someone who isn't as good.

Going to best of 7 clearly makes winning when you're the best easier, BUT how hard is it to be the best? I'd guess it's pretty harder say 1/30?

[Odinn]

IMO, there sould be lesser games in regular season and more playoffs teams/games. Such as this;
64-68 regular season games.
20 teams for playoffs. Instead of 4 overall rounds, there will be 5 rounds. Top 12 goes to 2nd round directly, bottom 8 plays best of 3 or 5 to complete usual 16. The rest stays the same.
With this, there will be nearly same amount of game per season but there'll be more competitive games. Also, it will give chances to future all-stars / superstars to get early playoffs experience.

[Legends66NBA7]

And in NBA terms, "the teams with the best talent" usually means teams with the best players.

Every team since 1991 besides the 2004 Pistons and 2008 Celtics (and 2014 Spurs) had a top 3 player on their team. And when you have the absolute best, you usually get at least 3 titles. MJ, Shaq, Duncan.

I think that's what AW meant.

NBA = if you have a superstar/top 3 guy, you''ll win. and deep rosters don't always win. 2002 King, 2000 Blazers, Drexler's Blazers, 1993 Suns etc...they'll lose to the best player.

NFL, MLB = you actually need the best talents on your roster.

I also look at it being much harder for other teams in the NBA that don't have these stars. In the other 3 leagues, if you make it, you have a shit at least going far and a top 3-4 team might not win it all.

By the way, one could argue KG was Top 3 in 08. He was at the very least Top 5 that year.