Talk:List of NBA teams by single season win percentage

Won against every team in the league

Just to head off more conflict on this topic, User:8-Hype seems to believe that highlighting the fact that the 2007-08 Boston Celtics beat every team in the league at least once during the season is noteworthy. On this list in particular, this is not a distinguishing feat. All that it means is that the team didn't get swept by any other during the regular season. In fact, a team doesn't have to do particularly well during the season to accomplish this. For example, the 38-44 Seattle Supersonics beat every team in the NBA at least once in the 1970-71 season (see http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1971_games.html). Of course, it was easier then than it is now (17 teams vs 30 teams today in an 82-game season), but it is still not noteworthy when the team with the best record in the league accomplishes this. — Myasuda (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Average point differential

There have been at least two times when editors have inserted the falsehood that the Chicago Bulls from 1995-96 have the second largest regular season point differential per game (to the Los Angeles Lakers of 1971-72). So, it seems worthwhile to note here that the Milwaukee Bucks from 1970-71 occupy the second spot by a small margin: see [1] vs [2]. — Myasuda (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so we can track these bad edits . . .

1. April 13, 2008
2. March 23, 2009
3. January 8, 2010

They seem to crop up about once a year. Myasuda (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MVPs in notes column

User:Kitschtastic has recently added MVPs to the team notes. As this list inherently celebrates team accomplishments rather than individual accomplishments, I would rather not have individuals listed in the notes. I'm wondering how other editors feel about this. — Myasuda (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just think it's notable. The list isn't to celebrate team accomplishments but to give information about NBA history.--Kitschtastic (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The notes column up to now have focused on team accomplishments and distinctions during the season, and I just felt that the listing of MVPs takes things in a different direction . . . and I felt that this should at the very least be discussed here. Currently, the article's notes column is well focused on the topic of the article -- top team win percentages. Win streaks and team performance at points of the year, road, and home records are all quite relevant (your other edits all being good examples of this). MVP awards, while typically (though not always) awarded to a star player on a top tier team, are less tightly tied to this article's topic and come closer to trivia. — Myasuda (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Point conceded. --Kitschtastic (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"best"

This term is very subjective, and I'd like to try to edit it out as much as possible, instead using more accurate terms such as "longest in NBA history". Even "all-time best" may lead to some confusion wherein "NBA history" helps clarify that records entail league history and not just a franchise's personal best.Hoops gza (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Teams with three selections to NBA All-Defensive First Team

• 1969-70 New York Knicks

  1975-76 Boston Celtics

  1977-78 Portland Trail Blazers

  1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers

  1995-96 Chicago Bulls

Hoops gza (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For pretty much the same reason as that given in [3], I'd like to have a discussion here first before including this type of information. We don't want to drop trivia into the Notes column unless it has a direct bearing on single season win percentage. While there is a positive correlation with defense and strong win-loss record, inclusion of this sort of factoid is debatable. This article is not about listing every "record" the teams in this article have achieved. — Myasuda (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well only the Bulls and 76ers from this list had records of .750+, but it does correlate to the "defense wins championships" theory. All five of those teams won the chip.Hoops gza (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• As a separate point, I think the note column is getting out of hand. Record such as "Second most home wins in NBA history" is not necessary in my opinion because one can easily find that out by sorting. I think only the most important notes should be included.—Chris!_c/t 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Notes column is getting compressed with the addition of other columns into the article. Is it really necessary to have the playoff record broken down by home and away records? While the information is interesting, it isn't necessary. Removing these columns would help the Notes column avoid over-compression. — Myasuda (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason I break down the home and away records for playoffs is to match the regular season. I think it looks weird if the regular season record is broken down but the playoffs record isn't—Chris!_c/t 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The column widths look better now. My remaining recommendation at this stage would be to move the point differential column next to the regular season area, rather than after the playoff record. — Myasuda (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Winning streaks are getting a bit out of hand. How about a set minimum of 12 games for those?--Hoops gza (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing seasons

I added the current Warriors to the table, and someone else moved them to the top. I think the policy should be that currently playing teams are added when they achieve their 62nd win (guaranteeing a winning percentage above .750) and placed according to their current total wins (which corresponds to the minimal winning percentage still possible for them) rather than winning percentage (which could change as the season continues). WLior (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was created to show teams with the best winning percentages, so the table is to be ordered by percentage and not wins. This accommodates those teams that played before there were 82 games in the NBA regular season, as well as the strong teams that played during strike shortened seasons. — Myasuda (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, for complete seasons the ordering should be by winning percentage. But when the season is still in progress, the current winning percentage is not guaranteed. WLior (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

With only six games left in the regular season, a couple of edits to % after the Spurs and Warriors play isn't too much effort, is it? BillyBatty (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive me if this is NOT where my response should be. When I first saw the two additions for GSW and SAS for this year, PRIOR to the season finishing; I agreed with your preference to NOT have them moved to the top (yet). Afterall, either or both could lose some of their remaining games. I do understand the counter-argument ... that their present w-% merits their higher (temporary) replacement; BUT they have to essentially win-out for the remaining games (something that is not only unlikely generally; but actually impossible given that they play each other (twice)). ONLY if someone possessed the non-existent "power" to anticipate/predict some un-presidented disaster occurring (causing the remainder of these teams' Reg. Season games to be cancelled) would it imo merit them being listed so high at this time. Pablonovi (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Two NBA Greatest Playoff Teams Which Did NOT Make The Above List

There were two NBA teams which had GREAT Playoff runs but are NOT included in the above list because their Regular Season w-% was below .756 . Those two teams were:

0.683 ! 56-26 ! 31-10 ! 25-16 ! 0-0 ! 3.4 ! LA Lakers 2001 ! CHAMPION  ! 15-1 93.8%*  ! 8-1 ! 7-0 ! * {#1 All-Time}

0.744 ! 61-21 ! 35-6  ! 26-15 ! 0-0 ! 9.0 ! CHI Bulls 1991 ! CHAMPION  ! 15-2 88.2%%** ! 8-1 ! 7-1 ** {#3 All-Time, tie}

Pablonovi (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

N.B. It is/was my intention to include what I've written above in the "Notes" section of the article itself. I believe it should be included only because these two Playoff runs were so remarkable in themselves; and, would help the reader get even more perspective on the quality of all the Playoff runs that ARE listed in the article. Pablonovi (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But the article is based on the season win percentage, not post-season. It looks very messy. Perhaps a table showing top 5 or top 10 post-season teams by win percentage at the bottom of the page, or a different wiki article completely? BillyBatty (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NBA teams by single season win percentage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804211235/http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1971_games.html to http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1971_games.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)