If Spurs don't collapse...

[Moranis]

was Houston's season a successful one or a failure?  I think very few expected them to have the 3rd best record in basketball, but being eliminated at home when the Spurs were without Leonard, seems like a major failure (especially if it is 20+ points).

[Phantom255x]

Moderate success. No one expected them to be a #3 seed in the West, and no one expected Harden to be like this for the season.

But yeah, big choke job. No Parker and Leonard for OT in Game 5 and tonight, and the Rockets still lost Game 5 and likely will lose tonight.

Harden chose the worst possible time to be cold and bad out there. Lots of turnovers too killing them.

[hpantazo]

An epic failure. You don't get eliminated at home in an epic blowout to a team that is missing two of its best players , and have your MVP candidate put up a complete no-show in that game, and call the season anything else than an epic failure.

[chambers]

Spurs and Rockets just aren't that good this year. I think Houston's season is still pretty good but were they ever expected to make it past SAS or GSW?

GSW is probably going to sweep SAS and meet Cleveland who will either sweep us or beat us in 6 games etc...

Two juggernaughts on a path this year.

Harden layed an egg in today's game but he has been the MVP of the season this year IMO.
Gordon Hayward would also look really good on that Houston team (but he'd look better in Green).

[Roy H.]

They exceeded expectations. Almost by definition that's a success.

[action781]

Classifying teams in a binary success/failure is largely unhelpful I feel like.  If you are to do that on June 20, how many teams will you really classify as "success"? 

Is there a single playoff team that will be classified as a "success" outside of the eventual champion?  I suppose Boston if they take Cleveland to at least 7 games and/or SA if they do the same with GSW?  Maybe Milwaukee?  Maybe Houston?  Utah?  (Getting swept while healthy is hard for me to deem a success)  Are there any non-playoff teams that you would categorize as a success?  So are we going to say 25/30 teams were failures this season?  Seems harsh and not like a very good way to distinguish teams from one another.

[tazzmaniac]

Classifying teams in a binary success/failure is largely unhelpful I feel like.  If you are to do that on June 20, how many teams will you really classify as "success"? 

Is there a single playoff team that will be classified as a "success" outside of the eventual champion?  I suppose Boston if they take Cleveland to at least 7 games and/or SA if they do the same with GSW?  Maybe Milwaukee?  Maybe Houston?  Utah?  (Getting swept while healthy is hard for me to deem a success)  Are there any non-playoff teams that you would categorize as a success?  So are we going to say 25/30 teams were failures this season?  Seems harsh and not like a very good way to distinguish teams from one another.

Cavs, GSW and Spurs need to win it all.  Celtics and the Wiz need to make ECF and play reasonably well against the Cavs (4-2 or even 4-1 if the games are close).  Bucks are a success making the playoffs with Giannis' development into a star.  Houston needed to make WCF and play GSW reasonable well.  Utah making 2nd round is a success.   

As for losing teams, I think the Sixers are a success.  Going from 10 to 28 wins with Embiid only playing 31 games and Simmons not playing at all.  Embiid showed he's a franchise player when healthy.  Saric developed/acclimated well during the season and TLC started looking like an NBA player at the end of the season.  I might also call the Nuggets a success with the near playoff miss and Murray's and especially Jokic's development.  I can't think of any others whose young players developed much.  The TWolves deserve special mention as an abject failure.  All that young talent with Thibs as coach and yet they finish tied for 6th worst with a bottom 5 defense. 

[Rakulp]

They exceeded expectations. Almost by definition that's a success.

I wonder, win or lose against the Wizards, if that's not also an accurate description of the Celtics this year?  Not only by the fans, but my the coaches, players, and front office personnel also.

I'm thrilled with how the season has gone, and truly believe that anything can happen if we move forward in the playoffs.  On the other hand, if it comes crashing to a halt in the next two games, I can look forward to us having a high pick in the draft, and the potential of adding a big name in the off season.

The ultimate goal is to raise another banner...and for the Celtics, we often say nothing less matters.  But the reality is that a year like this one has to be celebrated for the greatness it has provided, win or lose.  This has been a fun team and a fun year, for me!

Rak

[KGs Knee]

On the whole, I'd consider this a successful season for the Rockets.

First, they greatly exceeded the expectations of the pundits, odds makers, and the fans.  And, truthfully, Harden was able to move on from the bad vibes of the previous season and buy into a system that asked for him to involve his teammates more.  That in of itself has to be a success.

Houston also seemed to have developed an identity that works in the modern NBA.  They do need to find someone reliable, that can be a low maintenance (usage) secondary perimeter offensive facilitator.  Lou Williams and Eric Gordon are guys that can get their own shot, but they aren't really facilitating anything.  Maybe a bit more toughness and size in the front court off the bench.  I think they are hoping Montrez Harrell can be that guy eventually.

Losing Nene late in that series hurt their depth.  That's where the Rockets failed, and the Spurs won.  That what the Spurs do, and it's why Pops can justify sitting his guys during the season.  He doesn't care what the league office thinks, because he just gave them a huge middle finger.

[KGs Knee]

But Harden himself has to own this and should consider this a failure.  He came up woefully small in a hugely important game.

[celticsclay]

Classifying teams in a binary success/failure is largely unhelpful I feel like.  If you are to do that on June 20, how many teams will you really classify as "success"? 

Is there a single playoff team that will be classified as a "success" outside of the eventual champion?  I suppose Boston if they take Cleveland to at least 7 games and/or SA if they do the same with GSW?  Maybe Milwaukee?  Maybe Houston?  Utah?  (Getting swept while healthy is hard for me to deem a success)  Are there any non-playoff teams that you would categorize as a success?  So are we going to say 25/30 teams were failures this season?  Seems harsh and not like a very good way to distinguish teams from one another.

Cavs, GSW and Spurs need to win it all.  Celtics and the Wiz need to make ECF and play reasonably well against the Cavs (4-2 or even 4-1 if the games are close).  Bucks are a success making the playoffs with Giannis' development into a star.  Houston needed to make WCF and play GSW reasonable well.  Utah making 2nd round is a success.   

As for losing teams, I think the Sixers are a success.  Going from 10 to 28 wins with Embiid only playing 31 games and Simmons not playing at all.  Embiid showed he's a franchise player when healthy.  Saric developed/acclimated well during the season and TLC started looking like an NBA player at the end of the season.  I might also call the Nuggets a success with the near playoff miss and Murray's and especially Jokic's development.  I can't think of any others whose young players developed much.  The TWolves deserve special mention as an abject failure.  All that young talent with Thibs as coach and yet they finish tied for 6th worst with a bottom 5 defense.

Pretty hilarious you call philly a success when their franchise player with injury concerns suffers another serious injury and their rookie never makes it back from a broken foot, they trade an intriguing prospect for peanuts and their promising second year player completely flops,  but you call Minnesota a failure for finishing with a similar record. I mean come on

[tazzmaniac]

Classifying teams in a binary success/failure is largely unhelpful I feel like.  If you are to do that on June 20, how many teams will you really classify as "success"? 

Is there a single playoff team that will be classified as a "success" outside of the eventual champion?  I suppose Boston if they take Cleveland to at least 7 games and/or SA if they do the same with GSW?  Maybe Milwaukee?  Maybe Houston?  Utah?  (Getting swept while healthy is hard for me to deem a success)  Are there any non-playoff teams that you would categorize as a success?  So are we going to say 25/30 teams were failures this season?  Seems harsh and not like a very good way to distinguish teams from one another.

Cavs, GSW and Spurs need to win it all.  Celtics and the Wiz need to make ECF and play reasonably well against the Cavs (4-2 or even 4-1 if the games are close).  Bucks are a success making the playoffs with Giannis' development into a star.  Houston needed to make WCF and play GSW reasonable well.  Utah making 2nd round is a success.   

As for losing teams, I think the Sixers are a success.  Going from 10 to 28 wins with Embiid only playing 31 games and Simmons not playing at all.  Embiid showed he's a franchise player when healthy.  Saric developed/acclimated well during the season and TLC started looking like an NBA player at the end of the season.  I might also call the Nuggets a success with the near playoff miss and Murray's and especially Jokic's development.  I can't think of any others whose young players developed much.  The TWolves deserve special mention as an abject failure.  All that young talent with Thibs as coach and yet they finish tied for 6th worst with a bottom 5 defense.

Pretty hilarious you call philly a success when their franchise player with injury concerns suffers another serious injury and their rookie never makes it back from a broken foot, they trade an intriguing prospect for peanuts and their promising second year player completely flops,  but you call Minnesota a failure for finishing with a similar record. I mean come on

A meniscus tear isn't good but I wouldn't characterize it as a serious injury.  On the other hand, LaVine suffered an ACL tear which could be devastating given how much he depends on his athleticism. 

Before the season, the Sixers were projected to win mid to high 20s with a healthy Embiid and Simmons.  They did so without them healthy and with an undrafted 2nd year player as starting PG.  In January, they went 10-5 and there were even playoff whispers.   Even though he only played 31 games, Embiid showing himself to be a dominant 2-way center was huge.  I mentioned Saric's development but him coming over was big since he's on a rookie contract.  They even managed to tank themselves to the 4th worst record at the end of the season and have ~40% chance of getting two top 5 picks.  Their fan base is enthused with return of pre-tank home crowds.  Even the media is starting to talk positively about them.  It is not a rip roaring success yet but the Sixers are on the upswing. 

Minnesota on the other hand should have been competing for a playoff spot.  Even with Thibs coaching, their 3 best players are all poor defenders.  I would have tried to trade LaVine this offseason to get better balance but his injury prevents that.  Dunn didn't show much.  This was clearly a failed season for them. 

[colincb]

They exceeded expectations.  So have we. That is success.