Talk:List of NBA champions

1947 and 1948
There was no Eastern and Western champions in 1947 BAA Playoffs and 1948 BAA Playoffs. The playoffs format were constructed with Eastern division and Western division teams meet up before the finals. I think this article should note this and have the table reconstructed so that the Philadelphia Warriors isn't listed as Eastern champion and the Chicago Stags and Baltimore Bullets aren't listed as Western champions. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. Although a note may be needed to explain the situation better.— Chris! c / t 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've made an effort, but all I do was ruining the well-constructed table. I'll add some info on the playoffs format on the lead or notes. — Martin tamb (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a section for list of finals appearences? ?
Thank You 71.105.87.54 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tried a new format from List of FIFA World Cup finals. On the other note, shouldn't this article called List of NBA Finals? — Martin tamb (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Table
This article needs a table with the yearly list of champions. It is the fundamental element that a user would expect to see when visiting this page. Refer to List_of_World_Series_champions and List_of_Super_Bowl_champions. Its addition would be much appreciated. ShelbyBell (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, some vandal just blanked it. – H T  D  16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

YOu are missing Detroit in the bottom section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.0.22 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Change the name of the Hornets to the Pelicans?
In the list of of teams that have never made an NBA Finals, is it time to change the Hornets name the Pelicans (and include the Hornets in the list of formally known as)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.204.197 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Results by team
Should the "Total" column be before "Win" and not after "Loss"? – H T  D  03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose the article be renamed List of NBA Finals instead of "champions". The article focuses more on the Finals themselves than the champions. --MicroX (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans
Not that it matters, since none of them have any history to speak of, but shouldn't the original Charlotte Hornets be included in the New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans? Briggity Brak (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cannot get the formatting to work on "Results by team" section
I attempted to edit the Rochester Royals entry, to include the Cincinnati Royals identity from 1957 to 1972. The formatting for the boxes did not align in the edit. I have checked the formatting against the previous entries, and as far as I can see, the formatting should be correct. All of the same characters are present that are in the Milwaukee Bucks entry above it, and in the entry above that.

I decided that given there were two other identities for the team that were not listed, then I would not list the Cincinnati period either. Can someone fix the statistics, so they appear in the box format again? Alloy (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was a carriage return that was added. I went ahead and added Cincinnati in.  FYI, refer to Help:Reverting if you need to revert back to an older working version.—Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bagumba. I appreciate the addition of the Cincinnati Royals. Alloy (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016
Submitted most respectfully under--Results by teams you have listed in the 19th line--Rochester/Cincinnati Royals/Kansas City/Sacramento King. Being that they were called the Kansas City/Omaha Kings for a number of years and they were part of my childhood years I am requesting said edit thank-you.

2601:445:1:4FF0:A5BB:851C:89F1:41A7 (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The current team name is what is displayed. If you go to the team's page, then under history is where the full history of the team, and all the name changes would go. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of NBA champions. 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
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/bhof-larry-obrien.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203184404/http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20012002.html to http://www.nba.com/history/finals/20012002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

List of champions is wrong
Golden state has not won their series yet and should not be listed as one of the finalists for the 2017 nba finals. HomerSimpson1001 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I retract my statement HomerSimpson1001 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NBA champions. 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/20090831074120/http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/tag/walter-a-brown to http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/tag/walter-a-brown

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NBA champions. 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/20110616090332/http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/13/mavs-cuban-finals.ap/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/13/mavs-cuban-finals.ap/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NBA champions. 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/20081103145721/http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/skn/sknd020.htm to https://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketba/skn/sknd020.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New champions table
The table we have does not look at all like the ones for the Lists of NFL Super Bowl champions, or the MLB World Series champions, or the NHL Stanley Cup champions, so I'm working on an improved version as seen in my sandbox. It still needs some buildup, but I'll add Basketball Reference refs eventually. Stay tuned! Z.I. Barbour (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish I had seen this before it was implemented. What are the positives of this change? The stated impetus is a want for conformity with the other three of the four major US sports. Assuming that conformity is indeed a positive, the only other positive would be the inclusion of coaching information. On the other hand, I believe this new format obfuscates and removes information. Streaks and rivalries are of great importance to NBA history. It is now less clear to observe these, e.g. that Golden State and Cleveland have played each other for three straight finals. It is also harder to grasp the temporal proximity between trips to the Finals of a single team if those trips had different results. As for information removed, there is no longer any indication of to which conference the teams belong. FatIIar (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous table was much better. It informed reader, from which conference the winner was and was easier to navigate. In my opinion, it's better to stick with previous table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.146.81.10 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Series MVP?
The List of Stanley Cup Champions has a column for the MVP winner. I think it could be a great addition if someone is able to add such a column here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B04F:BF1E:D449:F4C0:4741:96A1 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018
The end of the first section states: "having won a combined 33 of 70 championships."

There have been 71 championships so far, with the 72nd to be decided shortly. Monarkeys (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittlePuppers (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Brown Trophy
Template:NBA Awards links here with "Brown Trophy (defunct) " but this article does not mention this term. --LukeSurlt c 12:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed it to point to Walter A. Brown Trophy.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Champions table
First of all, you cannot just come and change the format to what you prefer. Have you discussed the initial changes before adding your version in February 2018? Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the addition of Template:Sortname. However, this template is deprecated and such templates are to be avoided. Just because many pages use it, that does not meant that the same should be applied here. In addition, we do not need to link the same coach 10 times in the same table as it creates WP:OVERLINK. And thirdly, the North America-related pages should use the "January 1, 2000" format as it is the common date format per MOS:DATETIES. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if I caused any inconveniences, but the truth about why I replaced the table is because I felt it looked too dated, and also because pretty much every single table use winning teams and losing teams, instead of Conference champions. Secondly, I finally understand what you meant about sortname. I thought it would have to be used. Finally, I plan to eventually change those dates back to the North American standard. –Piranha249 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those other tables you cited use background color formatting to denote conferences in the table. If you're going to replace the table with one that lists winners first, please at least add the background color formatting so that it is easy to see which team is from which conference, as well as conference win streaks. —Lowellian (reply) 09:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Stanley Cup table doesn't, and the fact that the first two BAA seasons weren't exclusively Western vs. Eastern pushed me to not add background colors (they also don't have divisions attached on those two rows. –Piranha249 17:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the World Series and Super Bowl tables do. If you're not going to add background colors, then let me add myself to the voices opposed to your new table. I'd be okay (but not thrilled; I think the old table was just better) with your new table if it included background color formatting so that conference information was easily visible, but as it is, with only those comparatively-hard-to-read parentheticals to denote conference, your new format is much worse. —Lowellian (reply) 17:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try and see if I'll work this out so that the table will have bgcolors on. –Piranha249 17:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just another note here, but how should I address the Central division as it existed in 1950? –Piranha249 18:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be with an explanatory endnote, as was used in the previous table. —Lowellian (reply) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, a change as large as this one, overhauling the whole table, really should have been discussed first and a consensus sought before the change was made. The table format shouldn't be forced through without discussion first, particularly in the face of opposition by multiple users. Just to recap the page history: after Piranha249 changed the table to his preferred format, his change was undone  by User:Paulinho28, but Piranha249 reverted  him without going to this talk page though there was now opposition to the table overhaul. (It was a few days later that User:Sabbatino then raised his objection and started this topic here on this talk page.) User:Karl Malone the Mailman also undid Piranha249's table change, but Piranha249 reverted  him too. Perhaps those users might wish to give their views here regarding this table. —Lowellian (reply) 18:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually had a section created here when I announced the changes last October, but not many people responded until after I changed over. –Piranha249 18:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the above section by User:Zacchaeusbarbour was you since you apparently changed your username. So, yes, in fairness to you, you did raise a topic on the talk page first. But it's also worse in that User:FatIIar and User:31.146.81.10 disagreed with your change in the section, but you just ignored them like everyone else and kept inserting your table anyway. That's 6 users -- User:FatIIar, User:31.146.81.10, User:Sabbatino, User:Paulinho28, User:Karl Malone the Mailman, and myself -- who have disagreed with your new table. —Lowellian (reply) 05:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me, and I always thought it was the other way around, it was easier to show winning teams and losing teams in the Finals. If it was a problem, it would've made sense to reference the Conference Finals page. Since no one supported the change, I'll shelve this table until we can agree to a proper discussion. –Piranha249 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not too late to resolve this, even though I changed it back, and the same goes to everyone else. –Piranha249 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am late. Yeah, I too did not understand the table change. The older one was better in my opinion, because it showed the conferences easily organized in their respective columns, AND it also had the seed numbers. –Karl Malone the Mailman 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The seed numbers weren't really relevant to the table, but appearences and record in this round were much more important. –Piranha249 01:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't agree. The seed numbers basically show the chance, in theory, that the team had of making it to the Finals, let alone winning. It showed if they were supposedly the favorite or not. So I think the seed numbers were actually kind of relevant. As for the record and appearances, the current table HAS that stuff, along with conference winners and seed numbers. –Karl Malone the Mailman Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I asked those at WikiProject NBA about making the change; but since only one person replied, I'm bringing the discussion back. I'm hoping this time I don't get criticized for a sudden and large change. The one person who did reply said they don't understand why the current table here is arranged the way it is. So I want to ask you guys about whether we should make the change, to make it a bit easier than the current setup. –Piranha249 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone here
What I wanted to do was create a table that isn't as reliable on playoff seeds (I never planned on addressing it at all), or conference champions (as the Conference Finals page exists for a reason), and more focused on basics like who won, the runner-up, etc. The fact that some of you said it was worst then the current table was unfortunate, and my implementation of the table received similar backlash.

I've moved the new table back to my sandbox, collecting dust until we re-address this in the future. –Piranha249 20:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you like the (new) champions table?
So I wanted to revisit the topic because I still find the current table confusing. I also created a new appearences table to standardize on what you see at World Series champions/Years of appearences, Super Bowl champions/appearences by team, and Stanley Cup champions/appearences.

Yes, I admit that I never listened the first time, and yes, the table is still winning teams and losing teams. My view is that if you want to see Conference champions, the NBA Conference Finals page exists for a reason. –Piranha249 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the champions table...
It's no secret that I've wanted to replace the tables for a while. But now that the dust settled off, I'll be making a second effort to ask for your opinions. Here's mine: the idea of dividing it between Conference champions is abnormal, none of the other champions pages do that.

By making this change, I hope we can do better in regards to how the table works. Feel free to add your thoughts about what I have on my sandbox here, so that I (or someone else) can make any changes before the switchover. –Piranha249 23:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. You were talking before about how records and no. of finals appearances was important. The older table HAS this stuff. So no need to change the table for that particular reason. Now, as for the "Winning team and losing team" issue: you might make the argument that you could simply organize the table by "winning team" and "losing team", and specify the conferences with colored cells (like red for Western and blue for Eastern). However, one could very well make the exact opposite argument that you could simply organize the table by conferences and differentiate between the winning team and losing team by having a colored cell for the winning team with the text in bold (like the current/old table does). I think the latter option is the better way because: the first option involves two colors, which can be a problem if the person is colorblind. The second option, on the other hand, involves just one color to specify the winning team, with the text in bold, so even if the reader cannot see the color, they will still see the bolded text, and maybe they can still tell that the cell is filled in with a color. This is why I am still opposed to this new table. I think the older one is just better for different reasons. Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Piranha249, you've again reinstated your changes to the table without consensus. You've waited several months before making the change again, during which you have posted about the matter on this talk page and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_35, but in the discussion, the comments were mostly suggestions as to how your table could be improved, which is not the same as a consensus toward your version of the table. In the comment right above me, Karl Malone the Mailman continues to state his opposition to your table. He made that comment on October 29. You did not reply and just edited your table back into the article on November 16. You're also assuming that all the other people who posted their opposition above have changed their minds. I previously stated my opposition to the new table, and I also remain opposed. I am reverting your table change since you have not established consensus for it, with multiple voices in opposition to it. —Lowellian (reply) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was easy to get consensus, how exactly can I do it, then? –Piranha249 19:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be a neutrally-worded straw poll offering the two options for the table, with pings to all users previously involved in this discussion and notice of the straw poll posted on WikiProject NBA. That way we can see everyone's view on the matter. —Lowellian (reply) 19:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest not listing the Oklahoma City Thunder as having won a championship. I understand they took over the Seattle Supersonics franchise but they weren't around when Seattle won it's champion and shouldn't be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1800:2F70:395F:9765:CA4:1DC1 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But the Los Angeles Lakers weren't around when Minneapolis was winning either. So what's the rationale?—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Western and Eastern champ columns
A couple of IPs (presumably the same user) have add nowrap only to the Golden State Warrior entries on the Western column. This cause the Western column to be larger than the Eastern column, which runs contrary to the table encoding for those columns having "width=30%". Making the column effectively larger also makes it not fit on two mobile devices I tried (phone and tablet), forcing user to scroll. It is also unsightly to have the Western columns so much bigger than the Eastern columns. Given that this is an FL (which is also scheduled to be on the front page on May 31) there should be consensus to make this change.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors won Finals and Championship - 2019
Toronto Raptors won the finals and championship - 2019. Make them the 2019 Finals winner. Cetrix yt (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. They are listed as the winners. NiciVampireHeart 12:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing NBA teams from the past
Why not add the old teams who played in the NBA to the list? This would be a great section to link to their pages for young people to be more aware of the teams of the past who were an important part of developing the game. From my research there are 5 teams who competed: St.Louis Bombers (folded 1950), Anderson Packers (folded 1951), Waterloo Hawks (folded 1951), Sheboygan Red Skins (folded 1950), and Indianapolis Olympians (folded 1953). Just because they never played in the final game doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. They all competed in the NBA, some in the tournament, and all were vital to the sport's development. If Wikipedia is "fertile soil for knowledge" then why not try to MAXIMIZE its history and be the "fertile soil" they claim to be. Especially because these teams were competing for the same trophy that is being competed for today. Their history shouldn't be tucked away into the doldrums of NBA wiki just because they didn't win. Once again this is about MAXIMIZING NBA history, and giving it the potential scholarship the sport deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkironwood (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Finals MVP
Is it possible to add another column to the winners list to show who the Finals MVP was each year, as that's a significant aspect of who the champions were? 95.144.221.81 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seems like WP:FANCRUFT to me. In any case, instead of us having to dig through this the best would be if you could make the amended table yourself (using your sandbox - ping me if you need help to create the page) and then this was added directly in the article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already a "NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award" page for that. There is no need to duplicate to information here. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020
Update spelling of "Minnneapolis" to "Minneapolis" in "Frequent matchups" section 24.209.148.206 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

NBA Champions out-of-order on the top
Celtics should still be on top because they reached the 17 championships first. The Lakers can't overtake them without overtaking them. Having more finals losses doesn't trump having accomplished something earlier. I don't know how that edit made it through. Please fix.2601:182:4381:E60:F166:1EFB:22D9:9F76 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The convention of all the other listed ties is that it is then sorted by total appearances. Feel free to establish consensus to change the table.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 footnote
I think there should be a footnote on 2020 noting the COVID-19 season (see 1999 and 2012) but with so much (season delay, shortened season, play-in season, and bubble tournament) is that too much for one footnote? Sportooner1 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update - I gave it a shot.Sportooner1 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Boston Celtics coach for 2022-23 row
in the 2022 Finals column, Ime Udoka is listed a coach for Celtics, although he technically was head coach, he was suspended for the entire season thus he and did not coach any games, interim coach Joe Mazzulla did.(User:Jdh31887) 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is there two bullets on the map?
. 2A00:23C5:3507:1F01:6D6F:4695:F691:FD01 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)