A Brief History of Modern Eighth Seeds

[PhoSita]

With the Celtics poised to make it into the playoffs as a bottom seed with a losing record, there's been a lot of debate about what that might mean for the future direction of the team.  Does this signal an upward trajectory?  Is it a Pyrrhic victory?  Or does it not really make a difference one way or another?

That in mind, I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at what eighth seeds have done over the last 14 years or so.  What happened to them in the playoffs, and how did they fare in the years that followed?


2000:
Bucks (42-40) SRS -.06, Lost in 1st round
- Next 3 years: 52 wins (lost in ECF), 41 wins (no playoffs), 42-40 (lost in first round)
Kings (44-38), SRS 3.04, Lost in 1st round
- Next 3 years: 55 wins (lost in semifinals), 61 wins (lost in WCF), 59 wins (lost in semifinals)

2001:
Indiana (41-41) SRS -.77, lost in 1st round
- Next 3 years: 42 wins (lost in 1st), 48 wins (lost in 1st), 61 wins (lost in ECF)
Minnesota (47-35) SRS 1.81, lost in 1st round
- Next 3 years: 50 wins (lost 1st round), 51 wins (lost 1st round), 58 wins (lost WCF)

2002:
Indiana (42-42) SRS -.07, see above
Utah (44-38) SRS 1.21, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 47 wins (lost 1 round), 42 wins (no playoffs), 26 wins (no playoffs)

2003:
Orlando (42-40) SRS -.39, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 21 wins (no playoffs), 36 wins (no playoffs), 36 wins (no playoffs)
Phoenix (44-38) SRS 1.56, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 29 wins (no playoffs), 62 wins (lost WCF), 54 wins (lost WCF)

2004:
Boston (36-46), -1.99 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 45 wins (lost 1st round), 33 wins (no playoffs), 24 wins (no playoffs)
Denver (43-39) 1.65 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 49 wins (lost 1st round), 44 wins (lost 1st round), 45 wins (lost 1st round)

2005:
New Jersey (42-40) -1.82 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 49 wins (lost semifinals), 41 wins (lost semifinals), 34 wins (no playoffs)
Memphis (45-37) 2.63 SRS (lost 1st round)
- Next 3 years: 49 wins (lost 1st round), 22 wins (no playoffs), 22 wins (no playoffs)

2006:
Milwaukee (40-42) -1.07 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 28 wins (no playoffs), 26 wins (no playoffs), 34 wins (no playoffs)
Sacramento (44-38) 1.61 SRS, lost 1 round
- Next 3 years: 33 wins (no playoffs), 38 wins (no playoffs), 17 wins (no playoffs)

2007:
Magic (40-42), .35 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 52 wins (lost semifinals), 59 wins (lost Finals), 59 wins (lost ECF)
Golden State (42-40) 0.00 SRS, lost semifinals
- Next 3 years: 48 wins (no playoffs), 29 wins (no playoffs), 26 wins (no playoffs)

2008:
Hawks (37-45) -2.23 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 47 wins (lost semifinals), 53 wins (lost semifinals), 44 wins (lost semifinals)
Denver (50-32) 3.74 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 54 wins (lost WCF), 53 wins (lost 1st round), 50 wins (lost 1st round)

2009:
Pistons (39-43) -.36 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 27 wins (no playoffs), 30 wins (no playoffs), 25 wins (no playoffs)
Jazz (48-34) 2.31 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 53 wins (lost semifinals), 39 wins (no playoffs), 36-30 (lost 1st round)

2010:
Bulls (41-41), -1.64 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 62 wins (lost ECF), 50-16 (lost 1st round), 45 wins (lost semifinals)
Thunder (50-32), 3.55 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 55 wins (lost WCF), 47 wins (lost Finals), 60 wins (lost semifinals)

2011:
Pacers (37-45) -1.38 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 42 wins (lost semifinals), 49 wins (lost ECF), 56 wins (lost ECF)
Grizzlies (46-36), 2.55 SRS, lost semifinals
- Next 3 years: 41 wins (lost 1st round), 56 wins (lost WCF), 50 wins (lost 1st round)

2012:
76ers (35-31), 3.59 SRS, lost semifinals
- Next 3 years: 34 wins (no playoffs), 19 wins (no playoffs), 18 wins (no playoffs)
Jazz (36-30), .92 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 43 wins (no playoffs), 25 wins (no playoffs), 37 wins (no playoffs)

2013:
Bucks (38-44), -1.83 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 2 years: 15 wins (no playoffs), 40+ wins (playoffs)
Rockets (45-37), 3.69 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 2 years: 54 wins (lost 1st round), 54+ wins (playoffs)

2014:
Atlanta (38-44), -.88 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next year: 60+ wins (1st seed)
Dallas (49-33), 2.91 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next year: 49 wins (playoffs)


What to make of this list?  A few observations:


- I typed "lost 1st round" a great many times.  Not just for the eighth seeds, but for the following years

- The Magic, Bucks, Pacers, Jazz, and Grizzlies seemed to show up a lot on this list; the Bucks in particular seem to be the poster-team for the "treadmill."

- Some of these teams went on to win a lot of games, though not necessarily playoffs series; others fell right back into the midden heap within a year or two (including the '04 Celts)

- It sure helps to have a Webber, Nash, Howard, Carmelo, or Durant to move beyond the 1st round

[fairweatherfan]

Appreciate the effort, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to look at 7th seeds?  Our odds of being there are substantially higher than being in 8th.

[PhoSita]

Appreciate the effort, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to look at 7th seeds?  Our odds of being there are substantially higher than being in 8th.

That's true, and I did think of that.  The fact is, we're going to make it in as a team with a sub-.500 record, and I felt that looking at eighth seeds would be more representative of our team's prognosis moving forward, as a result.

[Casperian]

Completely irrelevant to the Celtics' situation. I never won the lottery, yet someone wins the lottery every week.

- It sure helps to have a Webber, Nash, Howard, Carmelo, or Durant to move beyond the 1st round

Nobody's arguing that. The point of contention is "how" to acquire one of these stars, and what we have to give up in the process.

[PhoSita]

Completely irrelevant to the Celtics situation. I never won the lottery, yet someone wins the lottery every week.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The only prerequisite to winning the lottery is to buy a ticket.

There's a whole set of variables that contribute to making it into the playoffs as a low seed.  I think there are plenty of worthwhile parallels to be drawn between some of the teams on this list and the current version of the Celtics.  And plenty of worthwhile contrasts, too.


I agree that the key question comes down to "how" to acquire the superstar.  That's not really the subject of this post, though.  But one of the conclusions to be drawn based on the above list is that what matters is whether or not you have a true star (who can stay healthy, unlike Webber, Redd, McGrady, etc), not whether or not you make the playoffs.

[rondohondo]

who cares what the overall record is , we have been clearly playing above 500 ball for a good chunk of the year since Stevens has had a set roster to work with .

[fairweatherfan]

It'd be neat (not "giving an assignment" just spitballing) to compare these teams' future success with the success of teams with similar records that didn't make the playoffs. 

That seems like the real control group in our scenario - all else being equal, what's the isolated advantage/disadvantage of making the playoffs with a poor record? 

[ScoobyDoo]

Nice Post Phosita - TP.

I think your last comment makes your point. That is, while getting a 7th or 8th seed is fine for whatever it's worth, but bottom line is having a top or some kind of transcendent player in house really makes a huge difference in how effective any team will be in the present and the future. At least that's how I read it.

Here's another thing I find interesting, most of the playoff teams, with few exceptions have what in way way or another are deemed "franchise guys" you build around, a past top five pick, or both.     

The East:

Atlanta: Al Horford was a very high pick
Cleveland: James, Love, Irving
Toronto: DeRozen
Chicago: Rose, Noah, Gasol
Milwaukee: They're on rise with Parker. in retro, Giannis might have been a top five, ditto MCW as time moves on...
Boston: Smart?
Brooklyn: Joe Johnson, Deron Williams, Lopez - high picks when taken


West:
Golden State: Curry and Thompson have proven to be steals...
San Antonio: Duncan, Ginobli, Parker
Clippers: Chris Paul, Blake Griffin
Portland: Aldridge, Lilliard's in the Curry mold, a steal
Memphis: Not sure here, Randolph? Conley?
Houston: Harden, Howard
Dallas: Nowitski, Chandler
OKC: Durant, Westbrook

Most of "the best" teams have had those high picks. A few have been very lucky or very good picking later in the draft - but that is the exception and not the rule.   

Due to our draft position this year, Ainge will have to be exceptional via draft, trade or free agency 
because we will most likely not have the option to pick someone exceptional.
   

[saltlover]

What I would also find interesting is the prior year as well.  Are these teams that are perennially around the .500 mark, teams that have improved their record substantially from the prior year, or teams that are on the decline?  Is there a difference in future performance based on the prior year? Some teams like the Thunder and the recent Pacers were clearly on the way up, whereas the early decade Jazz were getting what was left from Stockton and Malone, and clearly headed the other direction.  If the C's win out, they'll have as many wins in the second half of this season (games 42-82) as they did all last year, with a young roster.  The future will tell if they're more like the Pacers or the Bucks, but they don't seem to be like the early 2000's Jazz.

[Casperian]

Completely irrelevant to the Celtics situation. I never won the lottery, yet someone wins the lottery every week.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The only prerequisite to winning the lottery is to buy a ticket.

There's a whole set of variables that contribute to making it into the playoffs as a low seed.  I think there are plenty of worthwhile parallels to be drawn between some of the teams on this list and the current version of the Celtics.  And plenty of worthwhile contrasts, too.

What I was getting at is that it doesn't matter how other teams in a similar position fared, the variables are simply too big to quantify. The past results of other teams have no bearing on the Celtics' current situation. None of these teams had Ainge as GM, Stevens as a coach, or a war chest of draft picks which comes even close to ours.
Some of these teams were full of veterans, some gave up their future for that playoff berth alone.

What's relevant is this:

2004:
Boston (36-46), -1.99 SRS, lost 1st round
- Next 3 years: 45 wins (lost 1st round), 33 wins (no playoffs), 24 wins (no playoffs)

under Ainge and our current ownership group

NBA champions 2008:
Boston (66-16)

our current situation is far superior to 2004 by any objective measure

I agree that the key question comes down to "how" to acquire the superstar.  That's not really the subject of this post, though.  But one of the conclusions to be drawn based on the above list is that what matters is whether or not you have a true star (who can stay healthy, unlike Webber, Redd, McGrady, etc), not whether or not you make the playoffs.

Enlighten me, what, if not to prove teams need stars to win in the NBA, is the subject of this post? That low seeds rarely win a championship after barely making the playoffs? Seems a lot of work for auch an obvious statement.

Anyway, we agree that we need stars.

[PhoSita]

The suggestions are good ones.  I don't necessarily have the time or resources to pursue all of them.

I'd be interested in seeing how SRS plays into this -- look at the success over time based on SRS, whether or not a team makes the playoffs.

Of course, I'm not the only one here who can do the research.

[PhoSita]

Enlighten me, what, if not to prove teams need stars to win in the NBA, is the subject of this post? That low seeds rarely win a championship after barely making the playoffs? Seems a lot of work for auch an obvious statement.

Maybe so.  Perhaps I'm just trying to set an example.  We could use more people looking for evidence in an effort to validate theories, rather than relying on the "unique" set of variables with our particular team to justify not providing any.

You are right that there will always be caveats when we try to make comparisons between one team and another, or draw conclusions based on historical trends.  I don't agree that looking to history in order to inform a forecast for the future is a worthless exercise.

[Casperian]

Enlighten me, what, if not to prove teams need stars to win in the NBA, is the subject of this post? That low seeds rarely win a championship after barely making the playoffs? Seems a lot of work for auch an obvious statement.

Maybe so.  Perhaps I'm just trying to set an example.  We could use more people looking for evidence in an effort to validate theories, rather than relying on the "unique" set of variables with our particular team to justify not providing any.

You are right that there will always be caveats when we try to make comparisons between one team and another, or draw conclusions based on historical trends.  I don't agree that looking to history in order to inform a forecast for the future is a worthless exercise.

I didn't say it was worthless. I said the evidence your post provides validates only a very obvious "theory", and that it seems like a lot of work for such an obvious idea.

In other words, it has no bearing on the Celtics current situation, and whether making the playoffs or not has any sizable impact on our future standings. Because, let's not beat around the bush, what you really tried to do with this post was to provide evidence that making the playoffs this year is a bad idea for the Celtics, right?