Sustained success as measured by playoff appearances

[ArthurVandelay]

Lots of sad Raptor fans these days and depressing posts, especially in game and PG threads. I've said a few times now this brings back the memories of pre-2013 Raptors fandom where a good team and playoff basketball was the exception and not the rule.

Based on the comments, I don't think people understand or appreciate how hard it is to have sustained success as measured by playoff appearances in the NBA.


For poops and giggles, I looked at most of the playoff or play in teams in the current standings then went through their records and playoff appearances over the last 10 or so years. Doing this we see:

Cleveland won it all in 2016 then 51 and 50 wins. Lebron leaves 19, 19*, 22 and now 44, 51

Knicks won 54 in 2012-2013 then 37, 17, 31, 32, 29, 17, 21* before 41, 37, 47

Orlando made the playoffs with 37(!) wins in 2012-13 and followed up with 20, 23, 25, 35, 29, 25, 42, 33*, 21, 22, 34 and will make the playoffs this year for just the third time in 11 seasons and first time since 2020 bubble.

Indiana has historically been the definition of mid or a treadmill team. From 2010-2011 through 2019-2020 they made the playoffs every year except 1. They had one season in the 50s with 56 wins. Their last 5 playoff appearances have been first round exit. They followed that up with 34*, 25, and 35 wins.

Philly is in their 6th winning season due to a MVP talent, yet they have never made it to Conference Finals and to get to this point they endured 34, 19, 18, 10, and 28 win seasons and significant roster and FO drama.

OKC is a team that made the playoffs 9 out of 10 previous years (45 wins didn't get in in 2014-2015!) then famously blew it up in 2019 when the Clippers landed Kawhi. They had 22 and 24 wins while also collecting every draft pick between now and 2030. 40 wins last year and on pace for 55 or so this year. They are set up for a long run of success after 2 dreadful years...totally worth it.

Denver went 5 years without a playoff berth before they returned to the playoffs in 2018-2019 (granted they didn't make the playoffs with 46 wins the year before). Seasons of 36, 30, 33, 40, and 46 wins before making playoffs and a 2nd round draft pick generational talent has kept them, plus won a title.

Minnesota has made the playoffs the last two years with 46 and 42 wins. Before that 16 of 17 years in lottery with many 10's and 20's win seasons.

New Orleans made the playoffs twice between 2011-2012 and 2020-2021 before making the playoffs the last 2 seasons (and this season). Along the way they had 21, 27, 34, 30, 34, 33, 30, 31, and 36 win seasons.

Sacramento made the playoffs last year and are flirting with 6th and a play in this year. Before this they had not been to the playoffs since 2005-2006 with wins of 33, 38, 17, 25, 24, 22, 28, 28, 29, 33, 32, 27, 39, 31*, 31, 30.

Phoenix has made the playoffs the last 3 seasons with radically different rosters. Prior to that they had not been in the playoffs since 2009-2010. A tough western conference saw them miss the playoffs with 48 wins one season and leading to their return to the playoffs they had their worst stretch of 23, 24, 21, 19, and 34 win seasons.

The Lakers won the bubble championship with a 52 win season and followed it up with mid 42, 33, and 43 win seasons, and that is with two superstars. Prior to the championship season, they had 27, 21, 17, 26, 35, and 37 win seasons.

Memphis put together a good 7 year run with ZBo, Gasol, Conley core. Then went for 22, 33, and 34 wins. They are a bit of an anomaly given what has led to their current losing.


Next I looked at active playoff streaks and we see it is very rare to put together a playoff team beyond 3-4 seasons.
Currently only 6 teams have a playoff streak greater than or equal to 4 seasons: Boston, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Denver, and Miami. Brooklyn's run at 5 is ending this season and Miami barely made it last year.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/statistics/playoffs_active_streaks.htm

Boston is the outlier of the league. They have the longest active playoff streak at 10 years and they've made the playoffs 16 of 17 seasons. In that stretch they have one 25 win season that produced Marcus Smart but it was the infamous Nets fleece to get Brown and Tatum responsible for recent success.


So what's to gather from all this?

1. Most teams with sustained success over 4+ seasons have generational talents.

2. While there are exceptions, most teams lose really bad over multiple seasons before putting together any sustained success.

3. Without generational talent, most teams peak mid/treadmill and start over again in about 3 seasons (but even generational talent is no guarantee - looking at you Dallas).


Just something to consider as Raptor fans continue to lick wounds. Raptors were a year late in starting the rebuild, but now that they are 3 months in to it, I hope the FO isn't planning any shortcuts for short term success (a la Colangelo's accelerated rebuild). The most likely result of that would be peaking in 2-3 years and starting over yet again.

[DelAbbot]

Reminder: play-in is not playoffs

Remember what you said Masai "Play-in for what"

[bluerap23]

Conclusion - Kyle Lowry is one of the most underrated NBA players of all time.

[kwajo]

The Lakers won the bubble championship with a 52 win season and followed it up with mid 42, 33, and 43 win seasons, and that is with two superstars. Prior to the championship season, they had 27, 21, 17, 26, 35, and 37 win seasons.

I never looked at it all at once like this, but from the amount of coverage and hype as a contender they get, you'd never know that the Lakers have essentially been a legitimately bad/mediocre team for so many years.

[YogurtProducer]

TLDR - most teams fail

[Psubs]

Reminder: play-in is not playoffs

Remember what you said Masai "Play-in for what"

Why did they not bottom out last year? Getting Poeltl made them decent. Could've just signed him with the MLE this past summer.

[Los_29]

Reminder: play-in is not playoffs

Remember what you said Masai "Play-in for what"

Why did they not bottom out last year? Getting Poeltl made them decent. Could've just signed him with the MLE this past summer.

lol Poeltl is worth more than the MLE.

[StopitLeo]

The fact Toronto has managed to have so much success over the past decade is incredible when you consider that this team has never had an MVP calibre player. The only comparable team is Miami and that's a franchise who has had two championship eras with Wade-Shaq and LeBron-Wade-Bosh. Given their winning history it isn't surprising the Heat have been able to achieve success under a future HOF coach with "only" a multiple time All-NBA and All-Defensive team player in Butler and multiple All-Defensive team player in Bam.

Toronto's "re-building" timeline between eras has been atypical because of the single championship year with Kawhi where Pascal's improvement came out of nowhere, the Tampa year, and perhaps most notably then the uncertainty of whether you could actually build around Scottie Barnes based on his play last season (which justifies waiting until this year to move Pascal imo).

[ontnut]

The Lakers won the bubble championship with a 52 win season and followed it up with mid 42, 33, and 43 win seasons, and that is with two superstars. Prior to the championship season, they had 27, 21, 17, 26, 35, and 37 win seasons.

I never looked at it all at once like this, but from the amount of coverage and hype as a contender they get, you'd never know that the Lakers have essentially been a legitimately bad/mediocre team for so many years.

That's what happens when you continue to max out an aging superstar with nothing left to build around him with for years, tank for a few seasons, then trade all the tank assets in for one injury prone player, then go back to maxing out an aging superstar with nothing left to build around him. lol.

[C_Money]

I hope the FO isn't planning any shortcuts for short term success (a la Colangelo's accelerated rebuild). The most likely result of that would be peaking in 2-3 years and starting over yet again.

Thats kinda what my fear is. If they think they can just leave it at Barnes/Quickley/Barrett trio I think we’ll max out as the 8th seed. We need more draft picks tbh.

[2019nbachamps]

TLDR: You either need to be a free agent destination or tank hard to draft elite players. We are trying to reinvent the wheel leading to being on a treadmill.

[ForeverTFC]

TLDR: You either need to be a free agent destination or tank hard to draft elite players. We are trying to reinvent the wheel leading to being on a treadmill.

The nerve of a guy that goes by "2019nbachamps" talking about re-inventing the wheel

Sit this one out bud. Longer the better.

[OakleyDokely]

TLDR: You either need to be a free agent destination or tank hard to draft elite players. We are trying to reinvent the wheel leading to being on a treadmill.

The nerve of a guy that goes by "2019nbachamps" talking about re-inventing the wheel

Sit this one out bud. Longer the better.

Don't you remember when we tanked for Kawhi, Gasol, Siakam, VV, Powell, Green, OG, Lowry, Ibaka?

The top 3 contenders for MVP this year were drafted 41st (Jokic), 11th (SGA), 15th (Giannis). DEN/OKC/MIL didn't get these players by being a FA destination or by tanking.

Tanking is a viable strategy in certain situations, but it isn't the only way.

[ItsDanger]

Many fans need to adjust their expectations or at least admit to themselves what they really want as a fan. For some, just making the playoffs is good enough.

[DelAbbot]

TLDR: You either need to be a free agent destination or tank hard to draft elite players. We are trying to reinvent the wheel leading to being on a treadmill.

The Kawhi experience has led the FO to believe in their current approach to team building.

[Scase]

So what's to gather from all this?

1. Most teams with sustained success over 4+ seasons have generational talents.

2. While there are exceptions, most teams lose really bad over multiple seasons before putting together any sustained success.

3. Without generational talent, most teams peak mid/treadmill and start over again in about 3 seasons (but even generational talent is no guarantee - looking at you Dallas).


Just something to consider as Raptor fans continue to lick wounds. Raptors were a year late in starting the rebuild, but now that they are 3 months in to it, I hope the FO isn't planning any shortcuts for short term success (a la Colangelo's accelerated rebuild). The most likely result of that would be peaking in 2-3 years and starting over yet again.

Doesn't that point just prove that what we are doing right now, is setting us up for "failure"? Not that I am suggesting that getting a generational talent by any stretch is easy, but the likelihood of getting one outside the top 5 lotto is pretty slim.

The team as currently constructed, and the result of all the moves thus far, put us in the bottom of the NBA, but not the BOTTOM of the NBA. I don't think we should be pulling a Philly and getting the worst record in the NBA for years, but I think we can all agree that 10th-20th picks, rarely if ever, results in a franchise level talent.

And if we view it from the perspective of, "well you can trade for that". I mean, no, not really, but even if we were able to, will we have the assets (a la Kawhi) to do it in a few years? I don't think so personally. The package(s) required to build that chip, relied on multiple top 10 picks, and a top 5.

Scottie as high as I am on him, is not generational. So really our best hope is another case of a once in a life time rental trade for a superstar, or find one in the lotto.

If our goal is to simply make the playoffs, then yeah I can see this team doing that in a couple years. But if a chip or ECF/finals is the goal, I'm not seeing it unless Scottie takes some massive leap.

So really what it sounds like is, we'll be back having this exact same convo in about 4-6 years.

[deck]

I don't fully agree with the conclusions reached.

1. Equally important to having a generational talent is having a good team and a good organization around that talent. By only looking at the teams that have sustained play off runs, you are glossing over the teams that had a generational talent but the team fell apart anyway or teams that didn't achieve. There are more examples than just Dallas.

2. I don't think you have actually cited many examples of prolonged success after long periods of being bad? Sacramento, Minnesota, Orlando could be on that path, but certainly nothing is guaranteed for these teams. Philly is maybe a legit example via the landing of Embiid, but they seem to be the exception. And of course we must consider the teams that have been really bad for a long time and are still really bad, ie. Washington and Detroit.

And while I agree about not taking short cuts, often lost or avoided in this conversation is the cost to an organization and it's FO of perpetual tanking until a generational talent can be drafted. Orlando is having some success now, but they are on GM #4 since they were last competing in the playoffs. We on realgm often take a far too simplistic view of what it takes to be a GM, and completely avoid the realities of self-preservation and maintaining ones employment. I'm sure all of us that advocate for tanking or 'building the right way' would happily fall on the sword and sacrifice the millions of dollars of personal income to set the franchise on the right long term path so that a subsequent GM 10 years later can reap the benefits. /s

[Basketball_Jones]

I hope the FO isn't planning any shortcuts for short term success (a la Colangelo's accelerated rebuild). The most likely result of that would be peaking in 2-3 years and starting over yet again.

Thats kinda what my fear is. If they think they can just leave it at Barnes/Quickley/Barrett trio I think we’ll max out as the 8th seed. We need more draft picks tbh.

The front office believes in its own players a lot more than most. For better or worse. Going by history, they will likely get immediate help for the trio. While I’m not sold on them, I like Scottie as the hub piece but he needs some really good offensive players around him. Even Siakam wasn’t enough. RJ and Quick are efficient finish players but I’m not quite sure about creators yet.

[Scase]

I don't fully agree with the conclusions reached.

1. Equally important to having a generational talent is having a good team and a good organization around that talent. By only looking at the teams that have sustained play off runs, you are glossing over the teams that had a generational talent but the team fell apart anyway or teams that didn't achieve. There are more examples than just Dallas.

2. I don't think you have actually cited many examples of prolonged success after long periods of being bad? Sacramento, Minnesota, Orlando could be on that path, but certainly nothing is guaranteed for these teams. Philly is maybe a legit example via the landing of Embiid, but they seem to be the exception. And of course we must consider the teams that have been really bad for a long time and are still really bad, ie. Washington and Detroit.

And while I agree about not taking short cuts, often lost or avoided in this conversation is the cost to an organization and it's FO of perpetual tanking until a generational talent can be drafted. Orlando is having some success now, but they are on GM #4 since they were last competing in the playoffs. We on realgm often take a far too simplistic view of what it takes to be a GM, and completely avoid the realities of self-preservation and maintaining ones employment. I'm sure all of us that advocate for tanking or 'building the right way' would happily fall on the sword and sacrifice the millions of dollars of personal income to set the franchise on the right long term path so that a subsequent GM 10 years later can reap the benefits. /s

I think this is moot, considering we've had it said repeatedly that Masai operates unimpeded by MLSE. So if that is truly the case, he has as, at minimum, as long as his contract lasts before having to worry about that.

A properly built plan with recovery times, is typically good enough to retain your job for an extended period of time, during poor stretches. If the down trend is expected and part of the plan, it is not a knee jerk reaction to fire the GM/Pres.

[DelAbbot]

I don't fully agree with the conclusions reached.

1. Equally important to having a generational talent is having a good team and a good organization around that talent. By only looking at the teams that have sustained play off runs, you are glossing over the teams that had a generational talent but the team fell apart anyway or teams that didn't achieve. There are more examples than just Dallas.

2. I don't think you have actually cited many examples of prolonged success after long periods of being bad? Sacramento, Minnesota, Orlando could be on that path, but certainly nothing is guaranteed for these teams. Philly is maybe a legit example via the landing of Embiid, but they seem to be the exception. And of course we must consider the teams that have been really bad for a long time and are still really bad, ie. Washington and Detroit.

And while I agree about not taking short cuts, often lost or avoided in this conversation is the cost to an organization and it's FO of perpetual tanking until a generational talent can be drafted. Orlando is having some success now, but they are on GM #4 since they were last competing in the playoffs. We on realgm often take a far too simplistic view of what it takes to be a GM, and completely avoid the realities of self-preservation and maintaining ones employment. I'm sure all of us that advocate for tanking or 'building the right way' would happily fall on the sword and sacrifice the millions of dollars of personal income to set the franchise on the right long term path so that a subsequent GM 10 years later can reap the benefits. /s

Assuming you are serious, our FO should have taken the Sam Presti path after 2019/2020 because they earned the most leeway and most employment security after the 2019 championship. Sadly they did not, and still end up with several years of losing and still not much to show for it.