.jpg)
A few weeks back I got the idea to look at NBA teams in a historical context. Being a science major and professional researcher guy, I figured I was as qualified as anyone. Basing my study around 4 variables (NBA championships, all-time winning percentage, Hall of Famers, and years in the NBA) I figured I’d be able to cobble together some results that would support a few theories that I’ve assumed true since I started truly caring about the NBA.
Hypothesis 1: the 5 most historically successful teams in NBA history are the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Philadelphia 76ers.
Hypothesis 2: the next tier of historically successful teams is some mix of the Houston Rockets, Phoenix Suns, Seattle Supersonics, Detroit Pistons, and Portland Trailblazers.
With these as my baseline assumptions, I set about devising what I felt would be the best way to define historical greatness.
Study Design
.png)
The blue portion of that delicious pie represents how many NBA championships a team has won in its history. Since this is the ultimate goal of every franchise, it was given significant weight (50%) in calculating the total score of a team’s score.
The red portion of the chart shows the percentage (37.5) given to a team’s winning percentage throughout their history. In order for a team to be considered consistently great, they must be a consistently winning team and over time their winning percentage will show that.
Last is the orange slice, which depicts how many Hall of Famers have played for a franchise. This can be a little misleading, however. For instance, Dominique Wilkins is a HOFer based on his Atlanta Hawks exploits, but he did play that one season for the Spurs so he counts for them as well. Because of the nature of this variable, HOFers is only given 12.5% of a team’s total score. In the end it all evens out because Robert Parrish played on pretty much every team since the beginning of basketball.
After adding these different variables together, the team’s total score was multiplied by the percentage of league history that that team has been a part of. Two examples: the Sacramento Kings have played in every NBA season (this will be number 58) and therefore have their total score multiplied by 1, whereas the Minnesota Timberwolves have only played 18 seasons (31% of all seasons) and have their total score multiplied by .31 to determine their cumulative score.
Data
NBA historical data (contains years in NBA, titles, winning percentage, and HOFers)
Historical Greatness of NBA Teams (final data after relative score multiplier)
All data can be found on these two Google spreadsheets.
Results
Obviously, the Celtics and Lakers easily topped the list of most NBA championships. Here’s the top 10 accompanied by the number of titles the franchise has won:
1. Boston Celtics (16)
2. Los Angeles Lakers (13)
3. Chicago Bulls (6)
4. San Antonio Spurs (4)
5. Detroit Pistons (3)
6. Golden State Warriors (2)
7. Philadelphia 76ers (2)
8. New York Knicks (2)
9. Houston Rockets (2)
seven teams tied with 1 championship
Due to this huge advantage in titles won, Boston and the Lakers will have solidified the top 2 spots in our historical rankings. However, there were still some interesting findings. I was surprised to discover that Golden State had as many championships as the Knicks. And once again, my eyes were opened to the true greatness of Tim Duncan.
The next variable I looked at, all-time winning percentage, bore testament once again to the two premier franchises in the NBA. Here are the top 10 historical winning percentages:
1. Los Angeles Lakers (.618)
2. San Antonio Spurs (.595)
3. Boston Celtics (.587)
4. Phoenix Suns (.556)
5. Utah Jazz (.538)
6. Milwaukee Bucks (.532)
7. Seattle Supersonics (.531)
8. Philadelphia 76ers (.528)
9. Portland Trailblazers (.528)
10. Chicago Bulls (.512)
Here is where I felt a little bit educated, as I “picked” 8 out of the 10 most winning franchises in the league’s history. However, I was definitely taken aback by how consistently good the Suns have been, while never getting over the hump. And it was also a tad surprising that the Bucks and Jazz have been so good for so long.
The amount of HOFers to have played for a franchise was easily the most surprising discovery. Well, except the top 2 of course:
1. Boston Celtics (25)
2. Los Angeles Lakers (17)
3. Detroit Pistons (14)
4. Golden State Warriors (11)
5. Philadelphia 76ers (10)
6. New York Knicks (10)
7. Atlanta Hawks (10)
8. Sacramento Kings (9)
9. Milwaukee Bucks (8)
10. Houston Rockets (7)
Once again the Celtics and Lakers are tops, but as we move down the list there are some eye-openers. I would have never guessed the Hawks to have fielded so many Hall of Fame caliber players or for the Kings to have so many either. But as stated before, a guy only had to play one game to get counted as a HOFer for a franchise; ergo, the low weight of this variable.
These scores were added up, giving us a top 10 that looked like this:
1.Boston Celtics
2. Los Angeles Lakers
3. Chicago Bulls
4. Detroit Pistons
5. San Antonio Spurs
6. Golden State Warriors
7. Philadelphia 76ers
8. New York Knicks
9. Houston Rockets
10. Atlanta Hawks
Clearly I underestimated the historical relevance of both the Warriors and Hawks while slightly overstating the importance of the Knicks and 76ers. But when we add in the rating based on percentage of league history that a team has been a part of, the list looks like this:
1. Boston Celtics
2. Los Angeles Lakers
3. Detroit Pistons
4. Chicago Bulls
5. Golden State Warriors
6. Philadelphia 76ers
7. New York Knicks
8. Atlanta Hawks
9. Sacramento Kings
10. Houston Rockets
Being a relatively new franchise hurt the Spurs, as they dropped out of the top 10 when compared over the span of the league. And helped along by their inclusion as an original NBA team, the Kings make a surprising re-entry in to the realm of historical importance.
Conclusion
When people talk about the Celtics and Lakers being the cornerstone franchises of the NBA they are totally correct. In basically every statistical measure they rank at the top and they have been a part of the league since its inception. However, I (and I would assume many others my age) was unaware of how truly great the Warriors and Hawks are. Since I’ve followed the NBA, both of these teams have been mostly irrelevant, but the data shows that they are among the most important teams over the course of time. Unfortunately, this only exacerbates the frustration that fans must feel while watching their team be run in to the ground. Nonetheless, it never hurts to understand just where a team has been. In some ways, it can be the best way of knowing what the future holds.
26 comments:
Great research. I'm a big fan of blogs creating their own stuff like this, and not just grabbing a headline and posting it.
I think the goal of breaking down which NBA franchises have been most relevant is brilliant. And you are certainly a better presenter of data than I am. That said, I have to ask about two things:
One, the Hawks haven't been historically significant - your original thoughts are correct, not the data. Because they won a championship, and have a 48.8% winning % (not top-10 in either), the main reason they jump into the top 10 is the HoFers. I'm not sure which 10 HoFers played for the Hawks (I would love to see that data), but aside from Dominque were any relevant to the franchise? If not, this may illustrate the first fallacy of the study - that you credited all the teams a HoF played with. I guess Jordan did make the Wizards slightly relevant, but did he really make them historically relevant? Probably not. HoFers usually can be limited to one team, unless they are like Ray Allen or KG, Barkley and AI, players that played their prime on multiple teams. In those cases, yes, you should credit those teams (maybe .5 of HoF?). But you shouldn't credit the Wizards for having Jordan at the end of his career, etc.
Two, the Spurs shouldn't be handicapped by their lack of years in the league (in my opinion); if anything, they should be credited for their success in such a small period. Instead of multiplying, you should divide. That way we see that the T-Wolves are actually a pretty relevant team - in a short period of time they've had more success than other expansion teams - they've won 50 games, made it to the playoffs a few times, and had a future HoF in KG (for most of his career). That beats out other franchises like the Hornets or Raptors, who haven't had as much success. Or my favorite, the Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies, who are on pace to make the Clippers look like a great franchise.
And again, I think the research overall was terrific. The Suns being more relevant than I imagined makes sense - they were huge in the KJ/Thunder Dan/Barkley days (plus the Tom Chambers days), and are once again. Even in the Marbury days they weren't terrible. The Suns = The Vikings of the NBA. Great post!
Grazi, SML. It was entertaining to find out all this stuff. Now to address your points.
Here is a list of HOFers from the Hawks:
Walt Bellamy
Cliff Hagan (St. Louis)
Connie Hawkins
Bob Houbregs (Milwaukee)
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Ed Macauley (St. Louis)
Bob Pettit (St. Louis)
Lenny Wilkens
Dominique Wilkins
All of these guys are a significant part of Atlanta Hawks lore, so in this case, their data is pretty accurate. I definitely considered evaluating the contributions that a HOFer made to a team, but then you get in to some hairy situations. Do you credit Maravich to the Hawks, Jazz, or Celtics? He played a huge role for the Hawks and Jazz, but won his only title in Boston. I felt it was best to just give credit to a team if they had a Hall of Famer, but then I gave very little weight to this part of the data.
I agree that the Spurs are a little undervalued. However, I don't think their success over the past 10 years is really indicative of historical greatness. The post-Gervin, pre-Robinson era is pretty nondescript. In the grand scheme of the NBA, it seems like they've only become important recently.
Wonderful analogy. The Suns are definitely the Vikings of the NBA.
Wow, I had forgotten about Pistol Pete, Walt Bellamy, Connie Hawkins and Moses Malone. I guess that, yeah, you're right - the Hawks have been more relevant than I would have thought.
And good point on the Spurs pre-Robinson, though I think that they have been a legit team for around 2/3 of their existence. Great post.
Just a note...The Lakers have actually won 14 championships (not 13):
1949
1950
1952
1953
1954
1972
1980
1982
1984
1987
1988
2000
2001
2002
They also won the 1948 NBL championship as well.
oops, that's 1985, not 1984
The "post-Gervin, pre-Robinson era" lasted about 4, maybe 5 years. So in roughly 30 years of existence, the Spurs have qualified for the playoffs something like 25 times. While everyone remember the Lakers dominating the West in the 80s, what many people forget is that Gervin and the Spurs were often the team waiting for them in the conference finals.
Anon 1:08:
I considered the NBA as starting in 1949-50 season, when they changed the name.
Anon 1:12
You're totally right. The Spurs have been consistently good for pretty much as long as they've been around.
Good analysis, although I think you're actually underrating the Lakers. The Lakers have 14 titles, not 13 as you say, compared to the Celtics' 16; and while the Lakers do have two fewer championships, when you look not only at their winning percentage (and the fact that they have the most wins of any franchise in history), but more importantly at the disparity in Finals appearances that may change the ranking.
The Celtics, IMO, get somewhat overrated simply because of the dominant stretch they had from 1957-1969 (during which they won 11 of their 16 titles on 12 Finals appearances). In the 38 years since then the Celtics have only been in the Finals 7 times, winning championships on 5 of those trips. I say "only" simply because in that same time period the Lakers have made 16 Finals appearances (resulting in 9 championships). And while the Celtics certainly were more dominant than the Lakers prior to 1970, it should be noted that while the Celtics had 12 Finals appearances prior to that point, so did the Lakers (resulting in 5 titles).
My point is essentially that the vast majority of the Celtics' success in the NBA is limited to a 13 year span back when the league was very small, while the Lakers have had continued success stretching across the entire history of the league; and the disparity in Finals appearances (28 for the Lakers to 19 for the Celtics) bears that out. Or to put it another way, despite the fact that the Celtics have two more championships than the Lakers, the Lakers have been in the Finals just under half the times there have been NBA Finals; and if success in the league historically is not solely based on championships, then certainly coming in 2nd best in the league 14 times (compared to the Celtics' 3 times) should probably factor into any discussion about historical success in the NBA.
Very good points, Senor Yams. I don't have the patience (or the knowledge really) to calculate how many additional Finals appearances a team has. Or how to devise a weighting system based on success recently versus the distant past. But I figured by giving some weight to all-time winning percentage, I'd be able to sort of mitigate the effect that winning championships had. I think that was acheived.
However, if you know how to do that and want to, I'd love to see an even more in-depth examination of the NBA's history.
Echoing those comments about the post-Gervin / pre-Robinson years for the Spurs.... Gervin was traded before the 85-86 season. Robinson's first year was 89-90. Not much of a down period -- 4 seasons. And they still made the playoffs two of those years (85-86 and 87-88), albeit with terrible teams that were below .500. Other than the Lakers, the Spurs have consistently been the best franchise in the NBA since the NBA-ABA merger. Pretty impressive for such a small market.
"While everyone remember the Lakers dominating the West in the 80s, what many people forget is that Gervin and the Spurs were often the team waiting for them in the conference finals."
This is a good point, and to echo what I was saying above one could say this about the Lakers: While everyone remembers the Celtics dominating the league in the 60s, what many people forget is that Jerry West and the Lakers were almost always the team waiting for them in the Finals. I would be curious to see the number of conference finals appearances for each team if anyone has that data, because that would also be a good indicator of historical success; although I would think once again that the Lakers would hold a huge advantage over every other team in that category. Finals appearances are on Wikipedia on each team's page, but they don't list conference finals appearances there (just division championships).
By the way, I think the HOF numbers may be a little skewed as well (although I don't blame you for not looking up how long each player played with each team, and do understand your explanation for why you applied it the way you did). Continuing my Celtics vs. Lakers comparison I noticed that there are a number of Celtics HOF players that are questionable (not for their spot in the HOF, but for their "Celtic-ness"): Pete Maravich (played less than one season with Boston), John Thompson (played only 2 NBA seasons total, is in the HOF as a college coach), Dominique Wilkins (played only his final NBA season with Boston), Bill Walton (came off the bench for his final 2 NBA seasons with Boston), Bob McAdoo (played one injury-filled season with Boston), and Dave Bing (played only his last NBA season with Boston). In going over the list of Laker HOFers there don't seem to be any questionable ones like these (although if you see any, point them out), as all of them had significant portions of the successful parts of their careers with the Lakers.
Also the HOF consideration doesn't take into account players from the last 20 years, really, as many of them are either still playing or have not been retired long enough to be included on HOF ballots; and this will also somewhat cover up the fact that the Celtics have really been consistently bad for the last 20 seasons. I still think you have great analysis here though, sorry to nit-pick like this.
Nice work! I think it would be interesting if someone included years in the playoffs and possibly depth into the playoffs into this research. As a Suns fan, only missing the playoffs 12 times ever (and only 5 times in the last 30 years!!) has to count for a little more!
Yams--
Love the feedback and I 100% agree with you that the HOF part is skewed towards the Celtics, but without making judgment calls I thought the best way was to value this portion the very least. Nonetheless, it's kind of a testament to the Celtics greatness that so many eventual Hall of Famers would choose to go to the Celtics to win a championship.
And yes, the numbers will definitely change in the next few years as guys like Jordan, Pippen and all those cats are eligible for the Hall. Maybe I'll revisit this sometime down the line.
Anon 2:35 - If I had any clue how to do all that analysis, I would gladly provide it. I'd imagine the Wages of Wins or Freakonomics guys can figure it out. The Suns were amongst the most pleasant surprises I got from this little project.
I think adding a category for Finals appearances would be good.
Also some factor for % of seasons with a winning record ro somethign like to capture the teams that are consistently good vs the teams that went through feast/famine cycles.
"it's kind of a testament to the Celtics greatness that so many eventual Hall of Famers would choose to go to the Celtics to win a championship."
Actually, I of that list of players I mentioned above, only Bill Walton went to the Celtics to win a championship. Dave Bing and Bob McAdoo played their one season apiece with the Celtics in the late 70's in years the Celtics didn't even make the playoffs, while Pete Maravich joined them for his final year in Bird's rookie season (when the Celtics made a phenomenal turnaround from the bottom of the league to a team that made it to the conference finals) after being waived mid-season by the Jazz. John Thompson only played for the Celtics for the two years he was in the NBA, and although those two years were on championship teams, he was Bill Russell's backup (and as such was nicknamed "The Caddy"), but like I said his HOF days came later as a coach at Georgetown. Dominique Wilkins joined the Celtics for one year while they were in the rebuilding mode they seem to have been in for the last two decades or so. They did make the playoffs that year, although they were eliminated in the first round in 4 games, after which Dominique decided to go play in Greece because he was unhappy with his role on the rebuilding Celtics.
I do wonder how many players from both the Celtics and Lakers of the last two decades would make it to the HOF. Surely Shaq & Kobe from the Lakers and Paul Pierce from the Celtics. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen will surely be in the HOF, as will Gary Payton and Karl Malone, although KG and Allen have yet to play with the Celtics, while Malone and Payton will be going in for things they did with other teams, not the Lakers. I'm not sure what other Celtics might be up for HOF consideration (Antoine Walker and Reggie Lewis maybe?), or which other Lakers (Mitch Richmond, Horace Grant, AC Green, Vlade Divac, Nick Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Glen Rice, Lamar Odom or Robert Horry maybe?). Maybe none of those guys. I'm not really all that clear on what typically gets guys into the HOF.
Wow, Awesome analysis. I wish that you had a final ranking that included all teams. Sometimes it is nice to see the bottom franchises as well.
They would have called that in the league!!
http://pickupbasketball.net/2007/09/05/they-would-have-called-that-in-the-league.aspx
Yams- I don't think Paul Pierce is a sure thing for the Hall. He's played on some pretty terrible teams and he hasn't consistently been in the top 10 players in the NBA. I think he might be borderline, but as of now, I'd say no. Same thing for Ray Allen. Both great players, but probably not all-time great.
Yes to Garnett, Payton (who also played on the Celtics for a minute), and Malone. And of the rest of those guys, I think Horry is an interesting case. He's got 7 rings, so that's something.
There is a slightly major problem, I believe. If your search is for the most historically significant franchises, your method of penalizing younger teams is accurate. However, if you are looking for the most historically successful franchises, time spent in the league should be a penalty, and not a bonus. Consider, a team that has been around the entire tenure of the league, such as NY, Bos, Minny/LA, or Philly, is by definition going to have a larger number of trophies and HoFers; they would have had access to them over their tenure. A team like the Kings, which is so historically insignificant, should not be rewarded for their long tenure. The top two are pretty much set in stone, but I think an interesting shake up would occur if the penalty of time in the NBA was re-examined.
Very intriguing analysis, and also great comments. I'm of the same mind as SML, who assigns only partial credit to limited-impact HoFs (like the aging Olajuwon on the Raptors and the young Robert Parrish on the Warriors) and, like a number of commenters, recommends using the "years in the league" percentage as a divider, rather than multiplier. Remember that kid who went to school with you all 12 years, but who said exactly one word in class the entire time? He completely pales next to the guy who came in junior year and was elected senior class president, played basketball, etc., and was far more relevant.
Maybe a short follow-up post with the revised methodology? I know I'll be visiting the blog to see if it's up.
Also, I don't completely agree with the miles--just because a team's been around for ages doesn't mean they'll necessarily have more trophies and HoFs. The Clippers have been around for nearly 40 years and haven't done squat or had any HoF in the prime of his career. Meanwhile, the Heat have a title and Alonzo, Wade, and a few good years of Shaq. Contending and having talent isn't automatic, but requires a great front office.
Interesting quantification of bball history. I have two questions. (1) Wouldn't the HOF data be more relevant if you multiply each HOF point by the percentage of the player's career spent at that franchise? Is one year spent on a team statistically significant? (2) Shouldn't duration of greatness be taken into account? For instance, the Bulls won 6 rings, but it was in an 8 year span (and we all know why it was an 8 years instead of 6 straight). That's close to the Spur's duration of dominance during the past 6 years. It seems that this should affect the significance of each championship.
Great work! One nit to pick - I think by counting the number of titles and HoFers and then multiplying by percentage of league history, you over-penalize newer teams - they get hit once because they have had less seasons to gather championships and HoFers and then again because they have participated in few seasons. Two possible alternative methods to remedy this:
1) Instead of winning percentage, count number of wins. Then don't multiply by fraction of league history. Since number of wins, number of championships, and number of HOFers all implicitly penalize newer teams, you don't need to penalize it again.
2) Instead of counting championships, count percentage of years team's season has ended in a championship. Instead of number of HOFers, count sum(number of years each HOFer played with team) / number of years team was in the league (this incidentally helps with situations like Jordan/Wizards as well). Then, since everything is in percentages (which doesn't penalize newer teasm), multiplying by percentage of history doesn't overpenalize.
Anyways, very interesting - just some thoughts...
WildYams
As a Celtics fan I understand your point and could make a good argument for either Boston or LA being number one .. the extra conference championships do bear weight, although a Celtics fan could certainly counter with head-to-head record in Finals (again concentrated during the Dynasty years, you did get us 2-1 in the 80s) .. When the Celts won the '86 title, they had won 16 titles in 18 Finals in 38 years of NBA existence .. there was no debate then .. although from a Lakers standpoint you can go backwards and say since 1970 the Lakers are a clear No. 1, from a Celtics standpoint you can say there was no debate all the way until probably the late 90s .. But no doubt, the Lakers have never had a prolonged period of irrelevance as the Celts have had these past 15 years and that is why we're having this conversation .. hopefully the Celts will be ending that now (I just spent a lot of $$$ on season tickets)
I'd be interested to know where you stand on the Jack Nicklaus - Tiger Woods debate, which has already started and will only get hotter as Woods gets closer to Jack's record of 18 Majors. But Jack finished 2nd in Majors 19 times! Tiger is nowhere close to 37 Top 2 finishes.
Perhaps a little clarification is necessary:
When I said I multiplied by the years a team has been in the NBA, I meant the percentage they have been in the NBA. For instance:
The Bulls total score of the three variables was 3.692 and they have played in 41 of the possible 58 NBA seasons (counting this year). So:
3.692 x (41/58 or .71 or 71% ) = cumulative score (2.609)
Essentially, I said multiply but since it's multiplication by a fraction it's really division. Either way, both the Celtics and the Lakers have been a part of the league since its inception, so that won't change anything.
As for all the changes to the formula, I will look in to adding conference championships and percentage of seasons in the playoffs because those are definite indicators. The HOF fame stuff isn't going to change though, mostly because I don't have the patience to examine every HOFer's career and the years spent with each team (though that's a fantastic idea).
If you want the spreadsheet in Excel format to fiddle around with, email me at theblowtorch[AT}gmail[DOT]com and I'll send it to you.
You forgot to include how many times a team has made it to the playoffs... Isn't that an indicator of a great team? Teams like Portland (how many seasons in a row?) would have had a much better showing... and HOF's? Who cares... This research is completely skewed (and screwed) toward the oldest teams in the league... there should be a date used (1975 or 1980), when the NBA reached high levels of popularity, to begin taking the info into consideration, otherwise the crusty oldies like the celts (who could have been considered one of the worst teams in professional sports over the last 15 years) will dominate
Great post I am not suprised to see my Pistons so high Detroit is THE place for great sports teams! But I think you missed some important points for instance you didn't include any Finals/ECFs/WCFs in this list they are only counted as wins. This should have been counted in another category. I mean the significance of the win counts more than the win itself doesn't it? A team making it through the playoffs to the super bowl (I'm using super bowl because football is generally more popular) is more than just "another 4 wins" that's impressive and I also think you shouldve added the skill of the team's they were versing such as a combined opponent record on the schedules or something. Because easy schedules are a factor.
ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室ut免費視訊聊天室中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊中部人聊天室 - 免費成人視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊成人聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊聊天室 - 免費視訊一夜情免費視訊聊天室一夜情免費視訊聊天室一夜情免費視訊聊天室一夜情免費視訊聊天室一夜情免費視訊聊天室aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天中文搜性網後宮電影院 - 免費a片a片下載情色A片下載gogo2sex免費成人影片xvediox 免費a片影片 go2av免費影片伊莉討論區 sex520免費影片gogobox下載論壇ggyy8在線漫畫GO2AV免費影城
Post a Comment