Ranking Best (and Worst) Finals Losers by Finals SRS

[lessthanjake]

Below is a ranking of the losers of each Finals, by what their SRS in the Finals was. The method used here is to just take the average MOV in the Finals and add that to the opponent’s regular season SRS. This gives us a sense of how good the team’s performance was in the Finals, accounting for the quality of the opponent. Of course, this can also be affected by factors such as injuries to the teams, form of the opponent, etc. So it’s not a perfect measure, but seems interesting and informative. Note that the loser’s regular-season SRS does not come into play here, so it’s not about how the team did relative to their own baseline.

Finals runners-up by Finals SRS

1. 2000 Pacers: +10.31
2. 1997 Jazz: +10.10
3. 2005 Pistons: +9.64
4. 1984 Lakers: +8.72
5. 2024 Mavericks: +8.34
6. 1963 Lakers: +8.28
7. 1996 Sonics: +8.00
8. 2013 Spurs: +7.73
9. 1970 Lakers: +7.52
10. 1988 Pistons: +7.41
11. 1972 Knicks: +7.25
12. 1993 Suns: +6.19
13. 1969 Lakers: +5.75
14. 1958 Celtics: +5.32
15. 1994 Knicks: +4.99
16. 2016 Warriors: +4.95
17. 1982 Sixers: +4.57
18. 2017 Cavaliers: +4.55
19. 1962 Lakers: +4.15
20. 1987 Celtics: +4.11
21. 1950 Nationals: +3.95
22. 1985 Celtics: +3.88
23. 1948 Warriors: +3.19
24. 2021 Suns: +3.17
25. 1964 Warriors: +2.93
26. 1986 Rockets: +2.86
27. 2015 Cavaliers: +2.81
28. 1992 Blazers: +2.77
29. 2006 Mavericks: +2.59
30. 1968 Lakers: +2.37
31. 2007 Cavaliers: +2.35
32. 1973 Lakers: +2.27
33. 1999 Knicks: +2.12
34. 1952 Knicks: +2.08
35. 2011 Het: +2.01
36. 1953 Knicks: +1.94
37. 1967 Warriors: +1.80
38. 1955 Pistons: +1.73
39. 2012 Thunder: +1.72
40. 2022 Celtics: +1.52
41. 2010 Celtics: +1.28
42. 2008 Lakers: +0.90
43. 1966 Lakers: +0.84
44. 2020 Heat: +0.78
45. 1949 Capitols: +0.50
46. 1990 Blazers: +0.41
47. 1980 Sixers: +0.10
48. 2003 Nets: -0.15
49. 1956 Pistons: -0.17
50. 1960 Hawks: -0.18
51. 2019 Warriors: -0.21
52. 1957 Hawks: -0.32
53. 1971 Bullets: -0.39
54. 1989 Lakers: -0.46
55. 1998 Jazz: -0.56
56. 1977 Sixers: -0.91
57. 1975 Bullets: -1.14
58. 1991 Lakers: -1.23
59. 1974 Bucks: -1.28
60. 1954 Nationals: -1.29
61. 1976 Suns: -2.05
62. 2002 Nets: -2.05
63. 1979 Bullets: -2.11
64. 2009 Magic: -2.29
65. 1983 Lakers: -2.47
66. 1947 Stags: -2.64
67. 1951 Knicks: -2.76
68. 2001 Sixers: -3.06
69. 1981 Rockets: -3.75
70. 2004 Lakers: -3.96
71. 1959 Lakers: -4.46
72. 1995 Magic: -4.68
73. 1965 Lakers: -5.14
74. 2023 Heat: -5.16
75. 1978 Sonics: -5.38
76. 2014 Heat: -6.00
77. 1961 Hawks: -7.46
78. 2018 Cavaliers: -9.21

Plenty of takeaways to be had here, particularly near the top and bottom of this list. I think the 2000 Pacers are definitely an interesting one at the very top—people often forget how close they played the Lakers that year. If this year’s Finals is close and the Thunder win, then the 2025 Pacers might end up joining the 2000 Pacers near the top of this list, given how high the Thunder’s SRS is.

[One_and_Done]

My takeaway is you can't base a team's quality on finals SRS alone.

[f4p]

Interesting that only a third of teams losing in the finals have theoretically played like even a +3 team, when presumably the average finals runner up should presumably be something like a +5 or +6 in the regular season. Does this imply that the finals winner tends to actually be better than they look in the regular season by 2 or 3 points. Or maybe a team who actually wins almost had to be playing well and the +2 or +3 improvement is practically axiomatic?

[lessthanjake]

Interesting that only a third of teams losing in the finals have theoretically played like even a +3 team, when presumably the average finals runner up should presumably be something like a +5 or +6 in the regular season. Does this imply that the finals winner tends to actually be better than they look in the regular season by 2 or 3 points. Or maybe a team who actually wins almost had to be playing well and the +2 or +3 improvement is practically axiomatic?

Yeah, I think your last sentence is right on target. There’s a good bit of variance in how well a team plays over 4-7 games, and the Finals losers are basically definitionally a sample of teams that is biased towards ones where the variance was typically negative (though not always—for instance, the 2000 Pacers appear to have been better in the Finals than in the regular season), while the winners are a sample of ones where the variance was typically positive. We see the opposite effect when people tally up playoff SRS or playoff rNET for title winning teams—the numbers generally are noticeably higher than regular season SRS and net ratings.

[Djoker]

Between the 2000 Lakers being slowed by a Kobe injury in the Finals and the sheer dominance of the 1997 Bulls, that 1997 Jazz team really looks like perhaps the best team to not win the title. Not too long ago, I did an X thread on the 1997 Jazz and coming into the Finals, they were 52-9 with a +10.2 SRS (68-win pace) in the previous 61 games including the playoffs. It's pretty crazy how good this team was and they were in blistering form too!

[lessthanjake]

Between the 2000 Lakers being slowed by a Kobe injury in the Finals and the sheer dominance of the 1997 Bulls, that 1997 Jazz team really looks like perhaps the best team to not win the title. Not too long ago, I did an X thread on the 1997 Jazz and coming into the Finals, they were 52-9 with a +10.2 SRS (68-win pace) in the previous 61 games including the playoffs. It's pretty crazy how good this team was and they were in blistering form too!

Yeah, and in the case of that Jazz team, it’s definitely not just a result of randomly doing well in one series. The 1995-97 Jazz have the best three-year playoff relative net rating of any team in history that didn’t win a title during the relevant three-year span. And the team that is #2 in that regard is the 1996-98 Jazz. Meanwhile, quite a lot of teams that did win the title are below them. There’s only 25 three-year spans above them at all, and most of those are multiple spans of the same several teams.

I think it’s also notable that, unlike some high-relative-net-rating playoff runs, the Jazz weren’t facing the type of no-superstar teams that we often see put up pretty good regular seasons and then do much worse in the playoffs, nor were they facing teams with tons of playoff injuries. Instead, those 1997 and 1998 Jazz were largely facing teams led by all-time guys like Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem (with secondary guys like Pippen, Robinson, and Barkley). There’s just not much of a “Yeah but…” that I can think of for what they did in the playoffs. And, of course, they were a fantastic regular season team (64 wins and 8 SRS in 1997, for instance).