The last 35 NBA Champions’ Probability of Winning (based on series-by-series betting odds)

[HartfordWhalers]

To the comments above, that 2020 Laker team drops quite dramatically.

[mastermixer]

As a lakers fan I just want to say one thing about Lakers betting odds.

If these betting odds are based on Vegas, which I assume they are… if you’re from LA you know that Vegas is Notorious for overrating Lakers’ betting odds because the Lakers are such a popular team globally and since Vegas is so close to LA.

The the Lakers almost always have worse odds for the better ie considered more of a favorite than they should be because Vegas knows they’re always going to get heavy Lakers betting action from everyone coming to Vegas from LA

[lessthanjake]

Following up on my last post, below is the amount by which a team’s implied probability changes when going from using pre-playoffs odds to using series-by-series odds. Changes between these two largely reflects things changing from what was expected before the playoffs. This could either be getting easier than expected opponents (or, on the flip side, having strong opponents not be upset), the team looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on, and/or the teams’ opponents looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on. So it’s not really measuring one particular thing. Nor does it really get at things that happened in the middle of a series that might’ve change the probabilities (for instance, the 2021 Nets getting injured mid-series isn’t priced into either measure for the 2021 Bucks). Even so, I think it’s interesting to look at.

Bear in mind, the series-by-series implied probability involves four different sets of odds, all of which the oddsmakers are taking a cut on (by making the odds imply a slightly higher probability), while there’s only one set of odds in the pre-playoff odds. So, in general, I’d probably expect that if nothing changed whatsoever from expectations, the series-by-series implied probability would be slightly higher than the pre-playoff odds.

Changes in Implied Title Probability from Pre-Playoff Odds to Series-by-Series Odds for Title Winners since 1989

1. 2020 Lakers: +20.8%
2. 2015 Warriors: +18.0%
3. 1990 Pistons: +17.7%
4. 1999 Spurs: +16.5%
5. 2023 Nuggets: +12.5%
6. 2022 Warriors: +12.3%
7. 2001 Lakers: +10.3%
8. 1991 Bulls: +8.8%
9. 2016 Cavaliers: +8.7%
10. 2018 Warriors: +7.9%
11. 2014 Spurs: +7.8%
12. 1993 Bulls: +7.6%
13. 2009 Lakers: +7.4%
14. 2000 Lakers: +7.0%
15. 1997 Bulls: +6.8%
16. 1994 Rockets: +5.7%
17. 2010 Lakers: +5.6%
18. 2007 Spurs: +5.6%
19. 2005 Spurs: +4.9%
20. 2002 Lakers: +4.0%
21. 2013 Heat: +3.7%
22. 2017 Warriors: +2.1%
23. 1998 Bulls: +1.9%
24. 2011 Mavericks: -0.4%
25. 2021 Bucks: -1.1%
26. 2019 Raptors: -2.0%
27. 1989 Pistons: -2.4%
28. 1995 Rockets: -4.0%
29. 2003 Spurs: -4.3%
30. 2012 Heat: -6.6%
31. 1992 Bulls: -7.7%
32. 2004 Pistons: -8.1%
33. 2006 Heat: -8.3%
34. 1996 Bulls: -9.5%
35. 2008 Celtics: -16.0%

Potential Explanations for the Shifts

I think we can see examples here of a lot of different things.

- There’s some teams near the top of this that were unproven teams and clearly got better odds as the playoffs went on and people got more confidence in them. These are teams like the 2015 Warriors, 1999 Spurs, 2023 Nuggets, 1991 Bulls, etc.

- There’s also some teams near the top that seem to have benefited from other top contenders being upset before they could face the title team. The previously-discussed 2020 Lakers are a good example of this, but so is a team like the 1990 Pistons (whose pre-playoff odds were surely lower based on the chance of facing the Lakers), and the 2022 Warriors (because the 64-win title-favorite Suns lost), just to name a few.

- I think there’s some examples of teams near the top whose probability rose in significant part due to other top contenders not looking as good as expected in the playoffs. The 2016 Cavaliers are a good example IMO (with the Warriors looking much more beatable than expected).

- There’s teams in here who were defending champions but had had a down year in the regular season, and had higher implied probability based on series-by-series odds, presumably because their playoff form quickly proved they still had it. Examples of that include the 2001 Lakers and 1993 Bulls.

- There’s also teams that just played better than expected in the playoffs. I think the 2014 Spurs are a great example of this—with their playoff form simply being better than expected.

- Near the bottom of the list, there’s also teams that simply played less well than expected in the playoffs, such that their series-by-series implied probability suffered compared to pre-playoff odds. The 2008 Celtics are a great example. So are the 1992 Bulls.

- I also think the bottom of the list also just has some teams who didn’t benefit from any upsets and had to face the most difficult possible slate of teams they could face, which obviously the pre-playoff odds would’ve priced in the chance of not happening. Examples of that include the 1996 Bulls and 2004 Pistons.

- There’s also teams near the bottom whose implied probability went down after the playoffs started, in significant part due to injury. A good example is the 2012 Heat, with Bosh being injured in the middle of the playoffs, as well as the 2021 Bucks having Giannis get injured.

Of course, some teams have a combination of these things, or there could be other explanations. Anyways, I think it’s interesting!

[SportsGuru08]

Following up on my last post, below is the amount by which a team’s implied probability changes when using pre-playoffs odds to using series-by-series odds. Changes between these two largely reflects things changing from what was expected before the playoffs. This could either be getting easier than expected opponents (or, on the flip side, having strong opponents not be upset), the team looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on, and/or the teams’ opponents looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on. So it’s not really measuring one particular thing. Nor does it really get at things that happened in the middle of a series that might’ve change the probabilities (for instance, the 2021 Nets getting injured mid-series isn’t priced into either measure for the 2021 Bucks). Even so, I think it’s interesting to look at.

Bear in mind, the series-by-series implied probability involves four different sets of odds, all of which the oddsmakers are taking a cut on (by making the odds imply a slightly higher probability), while there’s only one set of odds in the pre-playoff odds. So, in general, I’d probably expect that if nothing changed whatsoever from expectations, the series-by-series implied probability would be slightly higher than the pre-playoff odds.

Changes in Implied Title Probability from Pre-Playoff Odds to Series-by-Series Odds for Title Winners since 1989

1. 2020 Lakers: +20.8%
2. 2015 Warriors: +18.0%
3. 1990 Pistons: +17.7%
4. 1999 Spurs: +16.5%
5. 2023 Nuggets: +12.5%
6. 2022 Warriors: +12.3%
7. 2001 Lakers: +10.3%
8. 1991 Bulls: +8.8%
9. 2016 Cavaliers: +8.7%
10. 2018 Warriors: +7.9%
11. 2014 Spurs: +7.8%
12. 1993 Bulls: +7.6%
13. 2009 Lakers: +7.4%
14. 2000 Lakers: +7.0%
15. 1997 Bulls: +6.8%
16. 1994 Rockets: +5.7%
17. 2010 Lakers: +5.6%
18. 2007 Spurs: +5.6%
19. 2005 Spurs: +4.9%
20. 2002 Lakers: +4.0%
21. 2013 Heat: +3.7%
22. 2017 Warriors: +2.1%
23. 1998 Bulls: +1.9%
24. 2011 Mavericks: -0.4%
25. 2021 Bucks: -1.1%
26. 2019 Raptors: -2.0%
27. 1989 Pistons: -2.4%
28. 1995 Rockets: -4.0%
29. 2003 Spurs: -4.3%
30. 2012 Heat: -6.6%
31. 1992 Bulls: -7.7%
32. 2004 Pistons: -8.1%
33. 2006 Heat: -8.3%
34. 1996 Bulls: -9.5%
35. 2008 Celtics: -16.0%

Potential Explanations for the Shifts

I think we can see examples here of a lot of different things.

- There’s some teams near the top of this that were unproven teams and clearly got better odds as the playoffs went on and people got more confidence in them. These are teams like the 2015 Warriors, 1999 Spurs, 2023 Nuggets, 1991 Bulls, etc.

- There’s also some teams near the top that seem to have benefited from other top contenders being upset before they could face the title team. The previously-discussed 2020 Lakers are a good example of this, but so is a team like the 1990 Pistons (whose pre-playoff odds were surely lower based on the chance of facing the Lakers), and the 2022 Warriors (because the 64-win title-favorite Suns lost), just to name a few.

- I think there’s some examples of teams near the top whose probability rose in significant part due to other top contenders not looking as good as expected in the playoffs. The 2016 Cavaliers are a good example IMO (with the Warriors looking much more beatable than expected).

- There’s teams in here who were defending champions but had had a down year in the regular season, and had higher implied probability based on series-by-series odds, presumably because their playoff form quickly proved they still had it. Examples of that include the 2001 Lakers and 1993 Bulls.

- There’s also teams that just played better than expected in the playoffs. I think the 2014 Spurs are a great example of this—with their playoff form simply being better than expected.

- Near the bottom of the list, there’s also teams that simply played less well than expected in the playoffs, such that their series-by-series implied probability suffered compared to pre-playoff odds. The 2008 Celtics are a great example. So are the 1992 Bulls.

- I also think the bottom of the list also just has some teams who didn’t benefit from any upsets and had to face the most difficult possible slate of teams they could face, which obviously the pre-playoff odds would’ve priced in the chance of not happening. Examples of that include the 1996 Bulls and 2004 Pistons.

- There’s also teams near the bottom whose implied probability went down after the playoffs started, in significant part due to injury. A good example is the 2012 Heat, with Bosh being injured in the middle of the playoffs, as well as the 2021 Bucks having Giannis get injured.

Of course, some teams have a combination of these things, or there could be other explanations. Anyways, I think it’s interesting!

I'm surprised the '94 Rockets and '07 Spurs aren't higher given both teams benefited from their Conference's No. 1 seed suffering a first round defeat. Especially given that Dallas had beaten San Antonio the year prior and Seattle always had Houston's number.

Both teams were essentially assured a Finals birth once they got past the second round.

[NO-KG-AI]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

[NO-KG-AI]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

[sjballer03]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

People say the same thing about the 2004 pistons too. 4.4% is just crazy lol.

[lessthanjake]

I'm surprised the '94 Rockets and '07 Spurs aren't higher given both teams benefited from their Conference's No. 1 seed suffering a first round defeat. Especially given that Dallas had beaten San Antonio the year prior and Seattle always had Houston's number.

Both teams were essentially assured a Finals birth once they got past the second round.

Yeah, I think I might’ve expected the 1994 Rockets to go up more, with the Sonics losing early. I think there’s probably a few things going on there. First of all, the Rockets did get the hardest possible Finals opponent (Knicks easily had the best pre-playoff title odds in the East), and the Rockets’ conference semifinals opponent was the toughest possible matchup too (the Suns had the 3rd best pre-playoff title odds in the NBA). So, while the Sonics losing surely helped their implied title odds, the rest of the slate of opponents was as hard as possible (with the Finals being the biggest thing IMO, since the chance of getting the hardest possible Finals opponent isn’t all that high, given how many chances that team has to lose before meeting you). Second of all, the pre-playoff odds perhaps already priced in a decent chance of the Sonics being upset before meeting the Rockets—the West was strong that year and the Sonics were going to face either the 55-win Spurs or 53-win Jazz in the second round.

The 2007 Spurs are actually a bit more surprising IMO. And that’s because, not only did the title favorite Mavericks lose before they could meet the Spurs in the conference finals, but the Eastern Conference favorite didn’t make the Finals. So the road did actually open up for the Spurs in multiple rounds. I think the main thing here is just that the Spurs were not betting favorites against the Suns, and that puts a big cap on how high the implied probability based on series-by-series odds could go. But, of course, given that that was going to be the case *and* the Spurs looked set to have to face the Mavs in the conference finals, you’d think their pre-playoff odds would be even lower.

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

Yeah, the 2008 Celtics were a weird one. Personally, by the time the playoffs came around, I thought the Celtics were going to easily win the title, given how well they’d done in the regular season. I think I probably had more confidence in them than even the pre-playoff odds suggested. But their struggles in the early rounds of the playoffs definitely lowered confidence in them (for both me and evidently for oddsmakers).

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

People say the same thing about the 2004 pistons too. 4.4% is just crazy lol.

Have people really said that about the 2004 Pistons? My recollection from that time period is that they were definitely a surprise winner.

[Raptor_Guy]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

Lol yea because the popular opinion in the 2007 offseason was that they had no depth and therefore couldn't win.

[BruttoNostra]

Following up on my last post, below is the amount by which a team’s implied probability changes when going from using pre-playoffs odds to using series-by-series odds. Changes between these two largely reflects things changing from what was expected before the playoffs. This could either be getting easier than expected opponents (or, on the flip side, having strong opponents not be upset), the team looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on, and/or the teams’ opponents looking better or worse (or getting injuries) as the playoffs go on. So it’s not really measuring one particular thing. Nor does it really get at things that happened in the middle of a series that might’ve change the probabilities (for instance, the 2021 Nets getting injured mid-series isn’t priced into either measure for the 2021 Bucks). Even so, I think it’s interesting to look at.

Bear in mind, the series-by-series implied probability involves four different sets of odds, all of which the oddsmakers are taking a cut on (by making the odds imply a slightly higher probability), while there’s only one set of odds in the pre-playoff odds. So, in general, I’d probably expect that if nothing changed whatsoever from expectations, the series-by-series implied probability would be slightly higher than the pre-playoff odds.

Changes in Implied Title Probability from Pre-Playoff Odds to Series-by-Series Odds for Title Winners since 1989

1. 2020 Lakers: +20.8%
2. 2015 Warriors: +18.0%
3. 1990 Pistons: +17.7%
4. 1999 Spurs: +16.5%
5. 2023 Nuggets: +12.5%
6. 2022 Warriors: +12.3%
7. 2001 Lakers: +10.3%
8. 1991 Bulls: +8.8%
9. 2016 Cavaliers: +8.7%
10. 2018 Warriors: +7.9%
11. 2014 Spurs: +7.8%
12. 1993 Bulls: +7.6%
13. 2009 Lakers: +7.4%
14. 2000 Lakers: +7.0%
15. 1997 Bulls: +6.8%
16. 1994 Rockets: +5.7%
17. 2010 Lakers: +5.6%
18. 2007 Spurs: +5.6%
19. 2005 Spurs: +4.9%
20. 2002 Lakers: +4.0%
21. 2013 Heat: +3.7%
22. 2017 Warriors: +2.1%
23. 1998 Bulls: +1.9%
24. 2011 Mavericks: -0.4%
25. 2021 Bucks: -1.1%
26. 2019 Raptors: -2.0%
27. 1989 Pistons: -2.4%
28. 1995 Rockets: -4.0%
29. 2003 Spurs: -4.3%
30. 2012 Heat: -6.6%
31. 1992 Bulls: -7.7%
32. 2004 Pistons: -8.1%
33. 2006 Heat: -8.3%
34. 1996 Bulls: -9.5%
35. 2008 Celtics: -16.0%

Potential Explanations for the Shifts

I think we can see examples here of a lot of different things.

- There’s some teams near the top of this that were unproven teams and clearly got better odds as the playoffs went on and people got more confidence in them. These are teams like the 2015 Warriors, 1999 Spurs, 2023 Nuggets, 1991 Bulls, etc.

- There’s also some teams near the top that seem to have benefited from other top contenders being upset before they could face the title team. The previously-discussed 2020 Lakers are a good example of this, but so is a team like the 1990 Pistons (whose pre-playoff odds were surely lower based on the chance of facing the Lakers), and the 2022 Warriors (because the 64-win title-favorite Suns lost), just to name a few.

- I think there’s some examples of teams near the top whose probability rose in significant part due to other top contenders not looking as good as expected in the playoffs. The 2016 Cavaliers are a good example IMO (with the Warriors looking much more beatable than expected).

- There’s teams in here who were defending champions but had had a down year in the regular season, and had higher implied probability based on series-by-series odds, presumably because their playoff form quickly proved they still had it. Examples of that include the 2001 Lakers and 1993 Bulls.

- There’s also teams that just played better than expected in the playoffs. I think the 2014 Spurs are a great example of this—with their playoff form simply being better than expected.

- Near the bottom of the list, there’s also teams that simply played less well than expected in the playoffs, such that their series-by-series implied probability suffered compared to pre-playoff odds. The 2008 Celtics are a great example. So are the 1992 Bulls.

- I also think the bottom of the list also just has some teams who didn’t benefit from any upsets and had to face the most difficult possible slate of teams they could face, which obviously the pre-playoff odds would’ve priced in the chance of not happening. Examples of that include the 1996 Bulls and 2004 Pistons.

- There’s also teams near the bottom whose implied probability went down after the playoffs started, in significant part due to injury. A good example is the 2012 Heat, with Bosh being injured in the middle of the playoffs, as well as the 2021 Bucks having Giannis get injured.

Of course, some teams have a combination of these things, or there could be other explanations. Anyways, I think it’s interesting!

Thanks for the data, man.
I don't get why people are complaining about it - it's awesome, just like any advanced stats if you understand what it says and more importantly what it doesn't say.

[nbafan38]

This is great data. I was surprised to see the 2018 Warriors only around 50% given the perception including my own that they were unbeatable although that is also a bit of a case with their only real competition (The Rockets) getting injured during the series.

[NO-KG-AI]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

Lol yea because the popular opinion in the 2007 offseason was that they had no depth and therefore couldn't win.

And that they’d be mediocre defensively and would get 45-50 wins at most

[Special_Puppy]

I'm really surprised that the 2008 Celtics were that low given how dominant they were in the regular season

[lessthanjake]

This is great data. I was surprised to see the 2018 Warriors only around 50% given the perception including my own that they were unbeatable although that is also a bit of a case with their only real competition (The Rockets) getting injured during the series.

Yeah, I think the big factor here is that the Rockets were considered pretty close to as good. The 2018 Warriors were overwhelming favorites against most teams, but they only had -200 odds (i.e. 66.7%) against the Rockets. Which I think was pretty justified, given that the Rockets had won at a 74-win pace with both Harden and Paul playing, and they had a good chance of winning if they had stayed healthy throughout the series.

[Doctor MJ]

The asterisk Lakers in 2020 were as favored to win as the KD warriors in 2018.

Can we put the bubble ring to rest now knowing that outsized favourite won?

Nope, doesn't change the fact it was still played in the bubble and players didn't want to be there and some complained that they couldn't sleep.

I for one judge the players who couldn't handle the pressure cooker of the Bubble much more than those who were able to handle it.

[Doctor MJ]

Nope, doesn't change the fact it was still played in the bubble and players didn't want to be there and some complained that they couldn't sleep.

They couldn't sleep the poor babies.

I mean sure but everyone was under the same conditions

Whatever you try it's not going to change the fact it was a bubble ring, wasn't even a crowd. The season should have been cancelled I believe it was Lebron that insisted they play. Most people don't take that ring serious, but you're free to interpret it however you'd like.

You're deluding yourself when you think you speak for most people.
Most people consider champions champions.

Honestly, I always hated when Phil Jackson started that whole asterisk thing to needle the Spurs, but as non-sensical as he was about it:

1. We always knew not to take him seriously. The point was to infuriate others not be logically coherent.

2. The actual quality of play in 1999 was poor due to the lockout. Spurs deserve credit for for coming out on top, but the actual quality of basketball being played was low that year. This is the opposite of how things were in the Bubble where the quality of play was actually quite high compared to normal playoffs.

I think the narrative folks like you are spinning will have future people believing that the high scoring in the Bubble was because the defenses were coasting, when the reality was that guys were just hitting shots like never before. They were helped to do that because of the context of course - fewer distractions, consistent court conditions, etc - but the idea that we should ignore those playoffs because guys were playing basketball too well is just not something that makes sense to people who aren't looking for reasons to ignore what actually happened for fan-based reasons.

[Doctor MJ]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

Lol yea because the popular opinion in the 2007 offseason was that they had no depth and therefore couldn't win.

And of course the other component here:

The expectation that combining 3 offensive stars would lead to a team trying to win with offense. Then they showed up and we saw a team beating everyone with defense that didn't have all that much to do with 2 of their 3 stars.

[NZB2323]

The 2008 Celtics is my favorite one here, because people that weren’t around for that season pretend that everyone just knew they were gonna win, and that it was an unfair squad lol.

After they needed 7 games to take care of the Hawks, I can understand why the Celtics weren’t a huge favorite.

[G35]

They couldn't sleep the poor babies.

I mean sure but everyone was under the same conditions

Whatever you try it's not going to change the fact it was a bubble ring, wasn't even a crowd. The season should have been cancelled I believe it was Lebron that insisted they play. Most people don't take that ring serious, but you're free to interpret it however you'd like.

All you argued was that the conditions were unusually difficult. Under these difficult conditions the expected winner actually won.

I'm not arguing with you, you're agreeing with facts. You're just choosing to ignore the achievement beyond the facts

The bubble conditions are just an added bonus. The real issue is that the season stopped March 10th and then resumed July 30, that is a four month break. What other season has ever had those conditions. That is perfect for an injury prone team that had Lebron and AD on it....

[JasonStern]

Blazers were favored in 1992. /pours a drink