On espn.com, John Hollinger (who I already despised) ranks the Pistons as the 15th best franchise in the NBA. Now, only the top 10 are viewable without an insider pass (which I don't have), but he does say that they have had more all-stars than any team other than the Celtics or Lakers before the site blocks the rest of his article. Here are the rankings: No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers No. 2: Boston Celtics No. 3: San Antonio Spurs No. 4: Chicago Bulls No. 5: Phoenix Suns No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers No. 7: Utah Jazz No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers No. 9: Orlando Magic No. 10: Houston Rockets INSIDER No. 11: Indiana Pacers No. 12: Milwaukee Bucks No. 13: Oklahoma City Thunder No. 14: Miami Heat No. 15: Detroit Pistons No. 16: Dallas Mavericks No. 17: New York Knicks No. 18: Denver Nuggets No. 19: Cleveland Cavaliers No. 20: Golden State Warriors No. 21: Atlanta Hawks No. 22: New Jersey Nets No. 23: Washington Wizards No. 24: New Orleans Hornets No. 25: Sacramento Kings No. 26: Toronto Raptors No. 27: Minnesota Timberwolves No. 28: Charlotte Bobcats No. 29: Los Angeles Clippers No. 30: Memphis Grizzlies Now, this is why I hate Hollinger - all of his "stats" have way more subjectivity in them than he tends to admit. He comes up with some number with a decimal and everyone's supposed to take it as science. It's not - it's bad statistics. Here's what he said about his methodology: Okay, so here's the first problem - nobody really cares about the regular season when historically evaluating a team. It's the playoffs that matter, and you're about to see why this system undersells them. So, let's assume you make it to the finals and lose in seven. With four series and three series wins, you get... 26 points. That's HALF of what a 52 win team would get for the regular season alone. I know this word offends some people, but that's just plain retarded. Over the past 10 years, Detroit got 482 points for their season wins, but only 146+64+30 = 240 for its playoff success, which is just under half of the points it accumulated for the regular seasons. Meanwhile, Dallas had 563 points for its regular seasons, and 98+32=130 for its postseason mediocrity. This leaves Detroit in the lead, but only by virtue of their one championship. Having an all-star is worth as much as one playoff win, apparently, but this system is screwy anyway. And Dominique Wilkins? His 9 all-star appearances add a whopping 18 points over the course of nine years. If a team wins 50 games with a superstar, it's the same as winning 52 games without one. The point addition is so small compared to the regular season games won as to effectively marginalize the whole point of the all-star inclusion. Well, relocation is a loss for one city but a gain for another. Too much of a point loss. Again, I can't say for sure because I don't have that Insider pass, but Detroit probably lost 100 points for moving from Fort Wayne, even though they did it 53 years ago. Take that 100 points, spread it out over all 62 seasons, and you get a 1.61 point/season reduction, which drops them from 9th to 15th. Hey, look, even more subjective stats. I don't have Insider access, but it wouldn't surprise me that the Pistons got knocked down for playing slow, defensive basketball. At least he points out that it's subjective, but it's a manipulative to say that it's "the only category that's completely subjective." Somewhat arbitrarily deciding to assign points seems pretty damn subjective to me. I literally have no comment on this. So aside from all of these categories, why aren't recent seasons weighted more? The majority of their fanbase wasn't even around when Utah was the New Orleans Jazz and the Pistons were in Fort Wayne. If you're going to rank franchises, historical data certainly matters, but we're arguing about these franchises NOW. Also, points per season should be mitigated with total points; it's not fair to rank Orlando higher than Detroit because Detroit has been better than Orlando since they joined the league, but weighted down by years that Orlando didn't even exist. Detroit has had more regular season, playoff, and championship wins than Orlando in that time, and has had more all-star appearances. Yet Orlando is the better franchise because Detroit sucked in the 70's. Yeah, makes perfect sense. God I hate that guy.