What's new
By:

Is "Purgatory" in the NBA a myth?

I

idiot

Well-Known Member
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):

NBA winning percentages.png

(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.
 
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.
 
Elizah Huge said:
Went to the playoffs 11 times in that span, 2nd round twice and WCF once. Sounds pretty good to me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
idiot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Championship or bust, amirite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top