Is "Purgatory" in the NBA a myth?

[idiot]

I think you've all heard the idea that the worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. It's better to be really good or really bad, it's often said. But is that true? I've had some doubts about that notion and always wanted to test it out with some real data.

So I did a (relatively) quick and dirty analysis (it still took several hours). And I think my takeaway is that the idea of NBA purgatory for NBA teams with middling records is (maybe considerably) overblown. A much bigger factor in whether the future bodes well is whether the team is good (good teams tend to stay better, on average).

By no means have I done the perfect analysis. There are several things that could make it stronger. But I think it's strong enough to justify at least some distrust of this notion of NBA purgatory. (If anyone knows of a better study on this question, please let me know.)

I basically categorized each team by winning percentages each year since the 1999-2000 season. Then I charted their average winning percentages in the subsequent 10 years, according to those same categories. If the notion of purgatory is correct, you'd expect to find (at least one or both):

• that teams with bad records should end up with better records than the teams in the middle over time
• that teams with records in the middle would have a hard time moving up or down in the winning percentages in subsequent years

I found that both these expectations turned out to be mostly untrue, according to the data.

Here's a summary of the winning-percentage data (if you're using the Jazzfanz app on phones, this picture may not appear):



(As you look at this data, try to ignore the percentages above .800 and below .200. There are too few cases in these categories to draw conclusions.)

Here's some of my takeaways. Let me know if you have others:

• If you want to be good in the future, the best predictor is to be good now (especially in the near-50 wins or above categories).
• There seems to be a little bit of a bright outlook for teams that are very bad, especially 4-6 years after the bad season, but this improvement tends not to last all that long (again, this is on average, so individual team results vary).
• If there is a win total that leads to purgatory (on average), it looks to be in the 29-33 win range (the Kings' favorite range?). However, I suspect that that this win total does not really create purgatory, but rather that bad teams trying to win without effective team-building (poor drafts, poor management, poor coaching, etc.) tend to end up in this win total .
• Though I don't show it here, I ran standard deviations on these results to see whether any particular winning-percentage category is more likely to get "stuck" around a certain average in future years, not really being able to move up or down. Lower standard deviations would indicate that maybe there's something to the idea. But generally, there weren't major differences between the categories in their standard deviations. There doesn't seem to be a win-total that makes a team more likely to get stuck. If there's any (slight) pattern, it's that the standard deviations generally (though not evenly) rise as the initial winning percentage increases.

Now I don't discount the idea that sometimes strategic retreat is needed in a team's cycle over the years. But I do think the data support the notion that there's not simply one formula for ending up with a good team in the future. It's probably not simply all-out tank or get caught in purgatory. I think we should stress out less about what the Jazz's win total will be this coming year and more about whether Ainge & company have a solid plan and execute it well.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Interesting… I didn’t digest it all but I think there is some truth that it is a bit mythical… it is perpetuated by teams like Sacramento and Washington and NY that are generally not well run orgs.

I also saw some research on draft ranges in the lotto and like the 10-14 range is surprisingly frothy compared to say 5-9 like people take too big of swings in that range and miss better prospects.

I think the key is to not get impatient and short your future to move from 35 to 45ish wins.

Here’s the thing… all roads lead to failure… all roads can also lead to success… but you have to find top 10-20 talents… drafting top 5 is by far the most sure way to get that talent. So it does need to be a priority for a year or two imo. If you land a young player that pulls you out of the mud fast then roll with it.

Very good post here… appreciate the effort.

 

[Pinhead]

I’d like to see a similar analysis that is tied to nba champions.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

explain the portland trailblazers for the last 15 years.

 

[Elizah Huge]

explain the portland trailblazers for the last 15 years.

Went to the playoffs 11 times in that span, 2nd round twice and WCF once. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Went to the playoffs 11 times in that span, 2nd round twice and WCF once. Sounds pretty good to me.

that's sorta the point. i'm fairly certain most nba teams are trying to win championships, not flame out in the first and second round of the playoffs every year. but congrats to portland on their participation trophies.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Interesting… I didn’t digest it all but I think there is some truth that it is a bit mythical… it is perpetuated by teams like Sacramento and Washington and NY that are generally not well run orgs.

I also saw some research on draft ranges in the lotto and like the 10-14 range is surprisingly frothy compared to say 5-9 like people take too big of swings in that range and miss better prospects.

I think the key is to not get impatient and short your future to move from 35 to 45ish wins.

Here’s the thing… all roads lead to failure… all roads can also lead to success… but you have to find top 10-20 talents… drafting top 5 is by far the most sure way to get that talent. So it does need to be a priority for a year or two imo. If you land a young player that pulls you out of the mud fast then roll with it.

Very good post here… appreciate the effort.

The Kings are not in NBA purgatory, they are in NBA hell.

Pretty sure purgatory means you are making the playoffs as a 7/8 seed some years, not constantly missing the playoffs.

 

[Coach Ellis]

I think you've all heard the idea that the worst place to be in the NBA is in the middle. It's better to be really good or really bad, it's often said. But is that true? I've had some doubts about that notion and always wanted to test it out with some real data.

So I did a (relatively) quick and dirty analysis (it still took several hours). And I think my takeaway is that the idea of NBA purgatory for NBA teams with middling records is (maybe considerably) overblown. A much bigger factor in whether the future bodes well is whether the team is good (good teams tend to stay better, on average).

By no means have I done the perfect analysis. There are several things that could make it stronger. But I think it's strong enough to justify at least some distrust of this notion of NBA purgatory. (If anyone knows of a better study on this question, please let me know.)

I basically categorized each team by winning percentages each year since the 1999-2000 season. Then I charted their average winning percentages in the subsequent 10 years, according to those same categories. If the notion of purgatory is correct, you'd expect to find (at least one or both):

• that teams with bad records should end up with better records than the teams in the middle over time
• that teams with records in the middle would have a hard time moving up or down in the winning percentages in subsequent years

I found that both these expectations turned out to be mostly untrue, according to the data.

Here's a summary of the winning-percentage data (if you're using the Jazzfanz app on phones, this picture may not appear):

View attachment 13030

(As you look at this data, try to ignore the percentages above .800 and below .200. There are too few cases in these categories to draw conclusions.)

Here's some of my takeaways. Let me know if you have others:

• If you want to be good in the future, the best predictor is to be good now (especially in the near-50 wins or above categories).
• There seems to be a little bit of a bright outlook for teams that are very bad, especially 4-6 years after the bad season, but this improvement tends not to last all that long (again, this is on average, so individual team results vary).
• If there is a win total that leads to purgatory (on average), it looks to be in the 29-33 win range (the Kings' favorite range?). However, I suspect that that this win total does not really create purgatory, but rather that bad teams trying to win without effective team-building (poor drafts, poor management, poor coaching, etc.) tend to end up in this win total .
• Though I don't show it here, I ran standard deviations on these results to see whether any particular winning-percentage category is more likely to get "stuck" around a certain average in future years, not really being able to move up or down. Lower standard deviations would indicate that maybe there's something to the idea. But generally, there weren't major differences between the categories in their standard deviations. There doesn't seem to be a win-total that makes a team more likely to get stuck. If there's any (slight) pattern, it's that the standard deviations generally (though not evenly) rise as the initial winning percentage increases.

Now I don't discount the idea that sometimes strategic retreat is needed in a team's cycle over the years. But I do think the data support the notion that there's not simply one formula for ending up with a good team in the future. It's probably not simply all-out tank or get caught in purgatory. I think we should stress out less about what the Jazz's win total will be this coming year and more about whether Ainge & company have a solid plan and execute it well.

While I think your overall thought process is solid, I also think having solid team culture + a good head coach + a GM that can actually evaluate talent and has a good philosophy on team building (plus a little luck) are required to build a championship team.

Mediocre teams that get stuck in purgatory generally seem to be lacking two of those things. The plain and simple fact is that NBA post-season success is almost always star driven. A team’s goal (regardless of where they’re at in that process) should always be to identify and acquire those star players. I feel like Danny Ainge is actually pretty good at that. So, I’m hopeful.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The Kings are not in NBA purgatory, they are in NBA hell.

Pretty sure purgatory means you are making the playoffs as a 7/8 seed some years, not constantly missing the playoffs.

Their pain is also self inflicted by terrible management. Had a chance to take Luka, JJJ, or Trae and took Bagley... They also gave up a pick swap and unprotected pick to the sixers to dump some salary they never needed to. The pick swap is the difference between have Fox or Tatum.

Their curse is stupidity.

 

[MT Steve]

I mean, having a middle-of-the-pack record isn't the sole component of NBA purgatory as people describe it.

If you're middle-of-the-pack, and it's not a result of injuries, and you don't have young talent, and you have a pretty barren chest of draft capital, and you have several aging vets, and your lone young star player is a virtual guarantee to leave at the end of his contract, then I'd say you don't have a very realistic path for improvement and you should consider blowing it up.

 

[LogGrad98]

This would be interesting to see based on market size. Maybe large, mid and small market teams and how their win rates differ. I would bet the large market teams recover faster and have overall better records than the smaller market teams. The effects of the phenomenon of players pushing to be in the large markets could be seen through this kind of analysis.

 

[JimLes]

that's sorta the point. i'm fairly certain most nba teams are trying to win championships, not flame out in the first and second round of the playoffs every year. but congrats to portland on their participation trophies.

Championship or bust, amirite?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

explain the portland trailblazers for the last 15 years.

Extremely bad luck with injuries. Two career ending injuries to two guys that were probably destined to be top 20 players in the NBA over that time span.

Also they ran into GSW at their peak a lot, right?

 

[KqWIN]

This is a great post but only because it aligns with my existing opinion But seriously, great work. Draft position is not necessarily what drives the success of a franchise. The end result of a team a cumulation of so many different decisions, we should be careful to put too much weight on simply having a higher draft pick.

Humans have a really hard time processing probability, it does not come natural. This is especially the case in stochastic or markov sense. When it comes to tanking, I think people are too biased because the championship is low probability to begin with. When people are met with a low probability decision, they typically will favor of a wider range of possibilities.....even if the initial low probability was the best you would get.

A good example of this is the situation where you're down 2 points on the last possession. Traditionally, teams would favor shooting a 2....but the stats would say you should shoot a 3. Even though your chances of losing in regulation are higher, the chances of winning the game as a whole are higher. Tanking is not the same as going for the 2, but it invokes a similar kind of decision.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

How many teams fit y'alls definition of purgatory of the past 10 or so years?

How long do you have to be in the win/seed range of a purgatory team to be considered in purgatory?

 

[Hearsky]

that's sorta the point. i'm fairly certain most nba teams are trying to win championships, not flame out in the first and second round of the playoffs every year. but congrats to portland on their participation trophies.

I think most NBA teams are trying to make money. Championships are a nice side benefit. I think most hardcore fans only see championships. The average fan is more than willing to support teams like the Jazz that have never won a championship and won't in the foreseeable future, but put out a nice competitive product by making the playoffs more often than not. Especially in a small market like SLC that doesn't have any real entertainment competition. Would you say LHM was a successful NBA owner, even though his team never achieved a championship? I would say he was wildly successful with his six million dollar investment.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

I think most NBA teams are trying to make money. Championships are a nice side benefit. I think most hardcore fans only see championships. The average fan is more than willing to support teams like the Jazz that have never won a championship and won't in the foreseeable future, but put out a nice competitive product by making the playoffs more often than not. Especially in a small market like SLC that doesn't have any real entertainment competition. Would you say LHM was a successful NBA owner, even though his team never achieved a championship? I would say he was wildly successful with his six million dollar investment.

it's not mutually exclusive, my friend. you can make money and win championships. that should be and is the goal of every nba team. there is a reason Ainge traded rudy and don. he wasn't satisfied with the status quo - to be sure, he wasn't satisfied with just making money. thank goodness.

you go be a fan of portland. must be a blast

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

it's not mutually exclusive, my friend. you can make money and win championships. that should be and is the goal of every nba team. there is a reason Ainge traded rudy and don. he wasn't satisfied with the status quo - to be sure, he wasn't satisfied with just making money. thank goodness.

you go be a fan of portland. lol. sounds fun.

It also helped they were absolutely pathetic in the playoffs. Wasnt really a hard decision.

 

[idiot]

I’d like to see a similar analysis that is tied to nba champions.

That's one of the things I was thinking of.

I've provided a forward-looking analysis here (if you have a certain record now, what's your future likely to look like.) But you could also go backward based on the idea that the only thing that counts is championships (see what kind of records NBA champions had in the years that preceded their championships).

This would actually be much easier, since there's only a relatively few teams that have actually won championships over the past 20 or 30 years. (But that also means it's probably less statistically reliable -- that is, it's based on much smaller sample sizes and situations that may or may not be replicable for other teams). You could do it probably pretty easily. Or maybe if I have time, I might get to it some time.

 

[idiot]

that's sorta the point. i'm fairly certain most nba teams are trying to win championships, not flame out in the first and second round of the playoffs every year. but congrats to portland on their participation trophies.

As I implied to my response to @Pinhead, yeah championships are the really interesting things. Problem is there's very likely too few teams that have actually won them to actually figure out a reliable path toward one. They probably each have their own ideosyncracies (which would kind of strengthen my point that there's not just one path). But if anyone can figure out a record-based path that likely leads to a championship, I'm willing to be persuaded.