This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

How 2+ Conference Finalists in 3 Seasons Fared 5 Years Later

Posted by Neil Paine on May 12, 2011

With the Magic, Lakers, and now Celtics being dispatched from the playoffs, I was thinking about whether a down period was necessary for teams that had been at the top for multiple seasons when their run was finally over.

Part of Danny Ainge's rationalization for the Kendrick Perkins-Jeff Green trade was to make the Celtics younger and give the team a solid player in the future. But do (older) mini-dynasties like Boston's ever really have a future? Does a modern NBA team ever successfully rebuild on the fly, or are good years always followed by a transition period of losing? Instead of making any attempt to build a future, should he have just committed to the 2011 team and accepted losing down the road?

Let's go to the data -- every team that went to at least 2 conference finals in 3 years, and their winning percentages in the next 5 years (Y+1, Y+2, ... , Y+5). "Age" is the team's minute-weighted average age in year Y's playoffs. "<.500" and "<.350" are the # of seasons in the next 5 that they posted a a record worse than .500 and .350, respectively. Enjoy:

Year Franchise Conf Finals, 3 yr Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1973 NYK 3 28.7 0.695 0.598 0.488 0.463 0.488 0.524 3 0
1973 BOS 2 27.9 0.829 0.683 0.732 0.659 0.537 0.390 1 0
1973 LAL 3 30.9 0.732 0.573 0.366 0.488 0.646 0.549 2 0
1974 BOS 3 28.7 0.683 0.732 0.659 0.537 0.390 0.354 2 0
1974 NYK 3 28.5 0.598 0.488 0.463 0.488 0.524 0.378 4 0
1974 MIL 2 27.8 0.720 0.463 0.463 0.366 0.537 0.463 4 0
1975 BOS 3 29.4 0.732 0.659 0.537 0.390 0.354 0.744 2 0
1975 GSW 2 26.4 0.585 0.720 0.561 0.524 0.463 0.293 2 1
1975 CHI 2 30.3 0.573 0.293 0.537 0.488 0.378 0.366 4 1
1976 BOS 3 29.5 0.659 0.537 0.390 0.354 0.744 0.756 2 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1976 GSW 2 25.6 0.720 0.561 0.524 0.463 0.293 0.476 3 1
1978 PHI 2 26.3 0.671 0.573 0.720 0.756 0.707 0.793 0 0
1979 WAS 2 28.8 0.659 0.476 0.476 0.524 0.512 0.427 3 0
1979 OKC 2 26.8 0.634 0.683 0.415 0.634 0.585 0.512 1 0
1980 PHI 2 26.9 0.720 0.756 0.707 0.793 0.634 0.707 0 0
1980 OKC 3 26.9 0.683 0.415 0.634 0.585 0.512 0.378 2 0
1981 BOS 2 27.2 0.756 0.768 0.683 0.756 0.768 0.817 0 0
1981 PHI 2 27.2 0.756 0.707 0.793 0.634 0.707 0.659 0 0
1982 PHI 3 27.7 0.707 0.793 0.634 0.707 0.659 0.549 0 0
1982 BOS 3 27.2 0.768 0.683 0.756 0.768 0.817 0.720 0 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1982 LAL 2 27.0 0.695 0.707 0.659 0.756 0.756 0.793 0 0
1983 PHI 3 27.4 0.793 0.634 0.707 0.659 0.549 0.439 1 0
1983 LAL 2 27.7 0.707 0.659 0.756 0.756 0.793 0.756 0 0
1983 SAS 2 27.6 0.646 0.451 0.500 0.427 0.341 0.378 4 1
1984 BOS 2 28.0 0.756 0.768 0.817 0.720 0.695 0.512 0 0
1984 MIL 2 28.0 0.610 0.720 0.695 0.610 0.512 0.598 0 0
1984 LAL 3 27.1 0.659 0.756 0.756 0.793 0.756 0.695 0 0
1985 BOS 2 28.7 0.768 0.817 0.720 0.695 0.512 0.634 0 0
1985 PHI 2 28.3 0.707 0.659 0.549 0.439 0.561 0.646 1 0
1985 LAL 3 27.4 0.756 0.756 0.793 0.756 0.695 0.768 0 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1986 BOS 3 29.3 0.817 0.720 0.695 0.512 0.634 0.683 0 0
1986 MIL 2 26.0 0.695 0.610 0.512 0.598 0.537 0.585 0 0
1986 LAL 3 28.3 0.756 0.793 0.756 0.695 0.768 0.707 0 0
1987 BOS 3 29.5 0.720 0.695 0.512 0.634 0.683 0.622 0 0
1987 LAL 3 28.3 0.793 0.756 0.695 0.768 0.707 0.524 0 0
1988 BOS 3 30.7 0.695 0.512 0.634 0.683 0.622 0.585 0 0
1988 DET 2 27.6 0.659 0.768 0.720 0.610 0.585 0.488 1 0
1988 LAL 3 29.2 0.756 0.695 0.768 0.707 0.524 0.476 1 0
1989 DET 3 28.3 0.768 0.720 0.610 0.585 0.488 0.244 2 1
1989 LAL 3 29.8 0.695 0.768 0.707 0.524 0.476 0.402 2 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1990 DET 3 29.3 0.720 0.610 0.585 0.488 0.244 0.341 3 2
1990 CHI 2 26.3 0.671 0.744 0.817 0.695 0.671 0.573 0 0
1990 PHO 2 27.1 0.659 0.671 0.646 0.756 0.683 0.720 0 0
1991 CHI 3 27.2 0.744 0.817 0.695 0.671 0.573 0.878 0 0
1991 DET 3 30.4 0.610 0.585 0.488 0.244 0.341 0.561 3 2
1991 LAL 2 28.2 0.707 0.524 0.476 0.402 0.585 0.646 2 0
1991 POR 2 27.8 0.768 0.695 0.622 0.573 0.537 0.537 0 0
1992 CHI 3 27.8 0.817 0.695 0.671 0.573 0.878 0.841 0 0
1992 POR 3 28.6 0.695 0.622 0.573 0.537 0.537 0.598 0 0
1993 CHI 3 28.2 0.695 0.671 0.573 0.878 0.841 0.756 0 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1994 NYK 2 28.9 0.695 0.671 0.573 0.695 0.524 0.540 0 0
1994 UTA 2 29.5 0.646 0.732 0.671 0.780 0.756 0.740 0 0
1995 IND 2 28.4 0.634 0.634 0.476 0.707 0.660 0.683 1 0
1995 HOU 2 29.0 0.573 0.585 0.695 0.500 0.620 0.415 1 0
1996 ORL 2 27.2 0.732 0.549 0.500 0.660 0.500 0.524 0 0
1996 UTA 2 29.6 0.671 0.780 0.756 0.740 0.671 0.646 0 0
1997 CHI 2 30.8 0.841 0.756 0.260 0.207 0.183 0.256 4 4
1997 UTA 2 29.7 0.780 0.756 0.740 0.671 0.646 0.537 0 0
1997 HOU 2 32.7 0.695 0.500 0.620 0.415 0.549 0.341 2 1
1998 CHI 3 32.1 0.756 0.260 0.207 0.183 0.256 0.366 5 4
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
1998 UTA 3 30.4 0.756 0.740 0.671 0.646 0.537 0.573 0 0
1999 IND 2 31.2 0.660 0.683 0.500 0.512 0.585 0.744 0 0
2000 IND 3 30.9 0.683 0.500 0.512 0.585 0.744 0.537 0 0
2000 NYK 2 29.7 0.610 0.585 0.366 0.451 0.476 0.402 4 0
2000 LAL 2 29.3 0.817 0.683 0.707 0.610 0.683 0.415 1 0
2000 POR 2 30.0 0.720 0.610 0.598 0.610 0.500 0.329 1 1
2001 LAL 2 28.3 0.683 0.707 0.610 0.683 0.415 0.549 1 0
2001 SAS 2 30.2 0.707 0.707 0.732 0.695 0.720 0.768 0 0
2002 LAL 3 28.1 0.707 0.610 0.683 0.415 0.549 0.512 1 0
2003 NJN 2 27.3 0.598 0.573 0.512 0.598 0.500 0.415 1 0
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
2003 SAS 2 27.1 0.732 0.695 0.720 0.768 0.707 0.683 0 0
2004 DET 2 27.3 0.659 0.659 0.780 0.646 0.720 0.476 1 0
2004 LAL 2 30.2 0.683 0.415 0.549 0.512 0.695 0.793 1 0
2005 DET 3 28.1 0.659 0.780 0.646 0.720 0.476 0.329 2 1
2005 SAS 2 28.6 0.720 0.768 0.707 0.683 0.659 0.610 0 0
2006 DET 3 29.1 0.780 0.646 0.720 0.476 0.329 0.366 3 1
2006 MIA 2 29.4 0.634 0.537 0.183 0.524 0.573 0.707 1 1
2006 PHO 2 26.8 0.659 0.744 0.671 0.561 0.659 0.488 1 0
2007 DET 3 29.5 0.646 0.720 0.476 0.329 0.366
2007 SAS 2 30.8 0.707 0.683 0.659 0.610 0.744
Year Franchise CF apps, 3 yrs Age Y Y+1 Y+2 Y+3 Y+4 Y+5 <.500 <.350
2008 DET 3 28.8 0.720 0.476 0.329 0.366
2008 SAS 2 31.6 0.683 0.659 0.610 0.744
2009 CLE 2 27.2 0.805 0.744 0.232
2009 LAL 2 27.3 0.793 0.695 0.695
2010 BOS 2 29.4 0.610 0.683
2010 ORL 2 28.0 0.720 0.634
2010 LAL 3 29.0 0.695 0.695

Related posts:

    The Best Suns Team Ever
    The Best NBA Finals Performances Since 1991 (*according to statistical +/-)
    Best Elimination-Game Performances: Win Shares Edition
    Career Playoff Quality of Defenses Faced (1991-2010)
    Fun With Quarter-Season Performances

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 12th, 2011 at 3:41 pm and is filed under Analysis, Data Dump, History, Playoffs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

7 Responses to “How 2+ Conference Finalists in 3 Seasons Fared 5 Years Later”

  1. ElGee Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    By my count that's 87 teams. 46 (53%) stayed above .500 all 5 seasons.

    The average team had it's win% drop 10.6% (8.7 wins) in those 5 seasons from Y.

    -LG

  2. Ben Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    98 Bulls blowup really was unique...

  3. Neil Paine Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Looks like the 90s Jazz, early-2000s Spurs, late 90s Pacers, and late 80s Celtics were the only mini-dynasties as old as the current Celtics to sidestep the bust part of the boom-and-bust cycle. And of those teams, all but the Spurs gravitated toward .500 hell at some point.

  4. ElGee Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Btw, the only teams who improved the win% in the following 5 years:
    84 Bucks
    01 Spurs
    90 Bulls
    90 Suns
    82/83/84 Lakers
    78 Sixers
    93 Bulls
    94/96 Jazz

  5. Ian Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    What I find interesting is that none of the final 4 teams (whoever they turn out to be) were among the final 4 last year. In fact, none have been part of the final 4 since Miami and Dallas in 2006.

  6. Greyberger Says:
    May 12th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    in BoP a .700 win% team is expected to decline to .650% in one year... if that is the average win% of our teams above, how does performance in y+1 y+2 etc compare to what you'd expect from the natural shuffling of teams up and down year to year?

  7. Matt, Colombia Says:
    May 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Why are teams being repeated? Instead of 91 Chicago, 92, 93, etc. shouldn't we just look at it from the last time a team made the conference finals after getting there 2+ times?

«
»