In this early season, we always look at the surprise teams, both good and bad. It’s always nice to see a team become great out of nowhere. Going from the lottery to contention in a one-year period is fun but rare. Like the 2007-08 Celtics, the exceptions to the rule are usually memorable (e.g., 2001-02 Nets, 2004-05 Suns). Even intermediate change is rare. We see that this year that some other younger teams in Atlanta and New Orleans are also poking their heads into the playoff picture. This got me wondering how much turnover in the playoff teams should we expect from year-to-year.
The answer is fairly easy to determine. Take a look at the turnover per year since. I thought we’d start out since 1990s and see the year-by-year number of teams that missed the playoffs the year before. Below the chart will explicate the year (ie 1989-90 to 1990-91, which means the number of teams who were not in the playoffs in 1989-90 that made it in1990-91). The team numbers are broken down by conference. With this explanation of the chart, let’s take a look at the results:
Year West East
1989-90 to 1990-91 2 1
1990-91 to 1991-92 1 2
1991-92 to 1992-93 1 2
1992-93 to 1993-94 2 2
1993-94 to 1994-95 1 2
1994-95 to 1995-96 1 2
1995-96 to 1996-97 2 2
1996-97 to 1997-98 1 3
1997-98 to 1998-99 1 4
1998-99 to 1999-00 1 2
1999-00 to 2000-01 1 1
2000-01 to 2001-02 1 2
2001-02 to 2002-03 1 1
2002-03 to 2003-04 3 2
2003-04 to 2004-05 2 4
2004-05 to 2005-06 2 2
2005-06 to 2006-07 3 2
Total Changes 26 36
For the most part, the West averaged less than two new playoff teams per year and the East about two. For all of the 1990s and the early 2000s the West was particularly stable, having never had much turnover. This can be attributed the rock solid playoff runs by the Stockton-Malone Jazz, the Blazers, Lakers, Suns, Sonics, and Rockets, who all were penciled into the playoffs almost every year and leaving little room for newcomers. It also didn’t help that the non-playoff teams were inept for most of the time. More recently, the Warriors resurgence and the emergence of the Grizz and Rockets (again) have created three new playoff teams for 2003-04 and last year.
The East was also relatively stable but with a couple of crazy shuffles. First in the lockout season of 1998-99, the East had the first four-team turnover of newcomers to the playoffs. The the 1998-99 season presented three new playoff teams out of the blue, having the first good 76er and Buck teams in eight years (thanks to Allen Iverson and Larry Brown and George Karl and company in Milwaukee). Orlando also emerged as a good team with the help of Chuck Daly, who led a very tepid team to a 33-17 record (it’s arguable that they could’ve maintained that record over a full season). Finally, Detroit returned to the playoffs, as expected, after a crazy 1997-98 where the team struggled, coach Doug Collins went a little of the deep end, and the team missed the playoffs. This wasn’t too flukey a change, as only Orlando fell out of the playoffs the next season. More recently in 2004-05, the East, again, has a four-team turnover. This time, the Cavs, Bulls and Wiz both broke really long playoff droughts to return to the playoffs. The 76ers also returned to the playoffs after a year off (like Orlando in 1998-99, the resurgence was short lived). So, we can see that in both 1998-99 and 20004-05, the turnover in playoff teams was relatively permanent and marked a change in playoff powers.
So what do we learn from all this? Don’t expect much year-to-year change. Anything more than two new playoff teams is extremely rare. Right now, the East boasts Boston, who will obviously be in playoff position all year and Atlanta, whose hold is much more tenuous. Out West, only New Orleans is a playoff newcomer. While I am skeptical that Hornets are as good as their 14-7 record, there is always at least one change in playoff teams per conference, which is a good indicator for Hornets fans.