I rarely post anything that doesn't involve some form of statistical analysis, but I feel like this needs to be said. All year long, pundits have lamented the injustice of the NBA Playoffs. Specifically, the fact that a couple "alright" West-teams will miss the Playoffs (like every other year), while a couple "terrible" East-teams will make the Playoffs (like every other year). As the season draws to a close, this narrative has coalesced around the Phoenix-Suns, a 47-win team who may not make the Playoffs. The feeling that this constitutes some grave injustice was recently articulated by Ethan Sherwood Strauss, whose article I must credit for breaking the Camel's (me) back.
My position, which I will articulate below, can be summarized as such. The inclusion of the Phoenix Suns, and teams like them, won't increase league popularity or alter the results of the Playoffs. Therefore, we'd do better to avoid unnecessary rule-changes or narrative building.
The first major issue raised when discussing the "tragedy" of the Phoenix Suns, is how "exciting/compelling" they are, and therefore, what a shame it is they'll miss the Playoffs. Strauss echoes these sentiments in his piece, describing how, "Dragic traverses a full NBA court in the time it takes normal people to sprint across their living rooms...Eric Bledsoe makes 'The Dragon' look slow.". He continues by alluding to improved Suns players who were once bad, but are now merely mediocre, as well as surprise MVP-candidate Goran Dragic. For reasonable observers, the proper reaction to this malarkey should be, "So what?".
Who cares if the Suns can be exciting, if they have improved players, and if Bledsoe can jump high? The answer is "nobody", and that's the issue. Aside from the residents of Phoenix, and "League Pass addicts" as Strauss accurately describes, no one cares about the Phoenix Suns. The casual sports/NBA fan (who the league is desperately trying to court) makes little distinction between the "compelling" Phoenix Suns, and the abysmal Atlanta Hawks. Both are seen as cannon-fodder for top contenders, not teams worthy of a Friday afternoon. This isn't a deficiency unique to the Suns, but to most fringe Playoff teams. If you aren't a contender, don't have a top-star, and aren't in a large-market, then you aren't relevant.
A second canard that is often mentioned, is the idea that the Phoenix Suns (and teams like them), have a legitimate chance of upsetting a top seed. To quote Strauss, "...this is really a shame because the Suns are a rare lottery team that could actually matter if thrown into the postseason. High-variance squads like the Suns are the bane of favorites. Three-pointers are ammunition for David’s sling and give a team like the Suns a chance at beating a superior opponent over the course of a series.". The appropriate response to this point is, "Not really".
Since the 1998 season (modern era), the #7 and #8 seeds have won 4 opening-round-upsets, meaning roughly 6.7%. However, this is an inflated figure when looking at each upset in turn.
- The #7 Spurs defeated the the #2 Mavs in 2010, but despite being 5-wins worse in the regular season, the Spurs outranked the Mavs in raw Point Differential and SRS (Differential adjusted for Strength of Schedule). This would generally indicate that the Spurs were a better team then the Mavs, meaning, this series was not a true upset.
- The #8 Grizzlies upset the #1 Spurs in 2011, but this too was an asterisk win. Manu Ginobli was in-and-out of that series with a broken arm, and according to the most reliable of NBA metrics, was the Spurs' best per-minute player. Conversely, the Grizzlies were without Rudy Gay, freeing up minutes for the superior Shane Battier, and allowing Memphis to play their dominant inside-inside style.
- The #8 Sixers defeated the #1 Bulls in 2012, but as most fans know, this was only due to Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah missing most of the series with injuries.
This leaves only one acceptable "upset" out of 60 tries, which translates to a 1.6% chance. This is to be expected, and is one of the reasons casual sports fans don't care to watch these types of series. It doesn't matter how free-wheeling and 3-Point-Variant the Suns are; they won't beat a top seed 4/7 of the time. As a loose comparison, the 2013 Rockets were essentially the 2014 Suns, and yet for all their 3-Point-Rate records, Harden/Asik duo, and "variance", they were soundly defeated by the Thunder.
This post is already far too long, and far too wordy, so I'll end here. The fact that the Suns (and teams like them) don't make the Playoffs every year isn't a major injustice. These teams (generally) would not generate additional popularity and/or win a series.
*This post is in no way a shot at Ethan Sherwood Strauss. He's one of my favorite writers and follows on Twitter, but as he most clearly articulated this narrative that's been building all season, I thought it would be useful to reference his piece.
Apologies for any spelling/grammar mistakes, as I usually don't post so many words with so few tables/graphs.
Thanks to Sporting Charts
My position, which I will articulate below, can be summarized as such. The inclusion of the Phoenix Suns, and teams like them, won't increase league popularity or alter the results of the Playoffs. Therefore, we'd do better to avoid unnecessary rule-changes or narrative building.
The first major issue raised when discussing the "tragedy" of the Phoenix Suns, is how "exciting/compelling" they are, and therefore, what a shame it is they'll miss the Playoffs. Strauss echoes these sentiments in his piece, describing how, "Dragic traverses a full NBA court in the time it takes normal people to sprint across their living rooms...Eric Bledsoe makes 'The Dragon' look slow.". He continues by alluding to improved Suns players who were once bad, but are now merely mediocre, as well as surprise MVP-candidate Goran Dragic. For reasonable observers, the proper reaction to this malarkey should be, "So what?".
Who cares if the Suns can be exciting, if they have improved players, and if Bledsoe can jump high? The answer is "nobody", and that's the issue. Aside from the residents of Phoenix, and "League Pass addicts" as Strauss accurately describes, no one cares about the Phoenix Suns. The casual sports/NBA fan (who the league is desperately trying to court) makes little distinction between the "compelling" Phoenix Suns, and the abysmal Atlanta Hawks. Both are seen as cannon-fodder for top contenders, not teams worthy of a Friday afternoon. This isn't a deficiency unique to the Suns, but to most fringe Playoff teams. If you aren't a contender, don't have a top-star, and aren't in a large-market, then you aren't relevant.
A second canard that is often mentioned, is the idea that the Phoenix Suns (and teams like them), have a legitimate chance of upsetting a top seed. To quote Strauss, "...this is really a shame because the Suns are a rare lottery team that could actually matter if thrown into the postseason. High-variance squads like the Suns are the bane of favorites. Three-pointers are ammunition for David’s sling and give a team like the Suns a chance at beating a superior opponent over the course of a series.". The appropriate response to this point is, "Not really".
Since the 1998 season (modern era), the #7 and #8 seeds have won 4 opening-round-upsets, meaning roughly 6.7%. However, this is an inflated figure when looking at each upset in turn.
- The #7 Spurs defeated the the #2 Mavs in 2010, but despite being 5-wins worse in the regular season, the Spurs outranked the Mavs in raw Point Differential and SRS (Differential adjusted for Strength of Schedule). This would generally indicate that the Spurs were a better team then the Mavs, meaning, this series was not a true upset.
- The #8 Grizzlies upset the #1 Spurs in 2011, but this too was an asterisk win. Manu Ginobli was in-and-out of that series with a broken arm, and according to the most reliable of NBA metrics, was the Spurs' best per-minute player. Conversely, the Grizzlies were without Rudy Gay, freeing up minutes for the superior Shane Battier, and allowing Memphis to play their dominant inside-inside style.
- The #8 Sixers defeated the #1 Bulls in 2012, but as most fans know, this was only due to Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah missing most of the series with injuries.
This leaves only one acceptable "upset" out of 60 tries, which translates to a 1.6% chance. This is to be expected, and is one of the reasons casual sports fans don't care to watch these types of series. It doesn't matter how free-wheeling and 3-Point-Variant the Suns are; they won't beat a top seed 4/7 of the time. As a loose comparison, the 2013 Rockets were essentially the 2014 Suns, and yet for all their 3-Point-Rate records, Harden/Asik duo, and "variance", they were soundly defeated by the Thunder.
This post is already far too long, and far too wordy, so I'll end here. The fact that the Suns (and teams like them) don't make the Playoffs every year isn't a major injustice. These teams (generally) would not generate additional popularity and/or win a series.
*This post is in no way a shot at Ethan Sherwood Strauss. He's one of my favorite writers and follows on Twitter, but as he most clearly articulated this narrative that's been building all season, I thought it would be useful to reference his piece.
Apologies for any spelling/grammar mistakes, as I usually don't post so many words with so few tables/graphs.
Thanks to Sporting Charts