The 2025 NBA Playoffs are fast approaching. This has inspired me to conduct a new NBA historical statistics survey. While most attention going into the playoffs typically goes to the favorites, my survey will take a different approach. We will examine the worst teams to make the NBA Playoffs in the 16-team playoff era, which began with the 1984 postseason.
Defining “Worst Playoff Teams”
To begin, we must define the term worst playoff teams. One approach would be to take the teams with the worst playoff records to make the NBA playoffs. However, and as I have explained in earlier articles covering the question of whether defense wins championships and perceptions going into the 2004 NBA Finals, records can be deceptive. For example, while winning close games is valuable, there is more randomness in when assessing team performance in games decided by 1-2 points than in games decided by 10-11. As we saw in my 2004 survey on the Pistons’ Finals “upset” of the heavily favored Lakers, there were solid grounds for arguing that there was statistical evidence that the Pistons had been the stronger team all season, notwithstanding the Lakers’ slightly better win-loss record in their much stronger conference.
In my article addressing whether defense wins championships, I used stats called offensive rating and defensive rating to evaluate how strong the 51 NBA champions were on both sides of the ball. Offensive rating refers to points scored per 100 possessions and defensive rating refers to points allowed per 100. You can glean Net Rating, which is a team’s defensive rating subtracted from its offensive rating, for a simple catch-all assessment of a team’s pace-adjusted strength. In a vacuum, I would use Net Rating to select the worst NBA playoff teams from 1984-2024. But we are not in a vacuum, so for this survey I will instead use Simple Rating System (“SRS”). Basketball Reference helpfully explains SRS:
[A] rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average
While Net Rating is based on the difference between a team’s pace-adjusted points scored and points allowed, SRS takes the team’s average per-game scoring margin and then adds the team’s strength of schedule value. I am using SRS instead of Net Rating for my own convenience. Basketball Reference’s season standings pages, which show which teams made the playoffs, include team SRS on the same charts. I demonstrated in an article comparing the playoff outcomes of teams that had led the NBA in regular season net rating vs the outcome of teams with the best regular season win-loss record that in most cases, the team with the best Net Rating also has the best SRS – meaning they tend not to diverge significantly. However, in the context of this survey, there is an important difference between Net Rating and SRS tied to SRS’s strength of schedule component. In seasons where one conference is significantly stronger than the other, teams in the weaker conference tend to be docked by SRS’s strength of schedule component because teamplay more games against in-conference opposition. For much of our 41-season sample, the Western Conference has been stronger from top to bottom than the Eastern Conference (that seems to still be the case in the current 2024-25 season from a cursory look at records, Net Rating, and SRS). Thus, there have been a number of cases where some teams with marginally negative SRS ratings have positive net ratings and where teams with marginally negative net ratings have positive SRS scores.
Prefatory Notes About the NBA Playoffs
I assume that most people who take the time to read this article are reasonably well-versed in how the NBA Playoffs work. However, on the off-chance we have some curious readers who are not familiar with the NBA Playoffs, I will offer a brief intro here.
The NBA has two conferences: East and West. Eight teams from each conference make the NBA Playoffs. Teams are seeded in its conference based on their season record. Playoff match-ups in the first round in each conference are 1-8, 4-5, 3-6, and 2-7. The team with the better record has home court advantage in the series. Since 2020-21, there has been a four-team play-in tournament for the teams with the 7th-10th best season records for the 7th and 8th playoff seeds, but our survey is only concerned with the eight teams that actually make the playoffs.
(There are edge cases where a team earns a higher seed than its record indicates based on having won its division. This is only an issue in one series we will discuss in this article.)
There are four playoff rounds: Both conferences have a Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Conference Finals. The two Conference Champions face off in the NBA Finals. Since 2002-03, all four playoff rounds have been best-of-seven. From 1983-84 through 2001-02, the first round was best-of-five while the final three rounds were best-of-seven. In theory, the switch from best-of-five to best-of-seven should make it less likely for marginal teams to win their first round playoff series since one would expect the overall stronger team to win more often than not over a longer series.
The NBA has added teams over the 41 seasons covered by our survey:
- 1983-84 to 1987-88: 23 Teams
- 1988-89: 25 Teams
- 1989-90 to 1994-95: 27 Teams
- 1995-96 to 2002-03: 29 Teams
- 2003-04 to PRESENT: 30 Teams
Because there have been 16 playoff teams since 1983-84, the percentage of teams that makes the playoffs has gone down every time the NBA expanded. For the first five seasons of our sample, 16/23 teams, just under 70%, made the 16-team playoff. For the last 21 seasons of our sample, just 16/30 teams, about 53%, make the 16-team playoff. Expansion also affects the overall strength of the NBA. For example, adding four teams from 1988-90 meant that players from the pre-existing 23 teams were spread further among the teams and a number of players who would not have had a place in a 23-team NBA had roster spots. Conversely, one could make a strong case that the NBA is ripe for expansion in 2024-25, with the league having been stuck at 30 teams for more than two decades.
Rules for the Survey
I will only look at NBA Playoffs going back to 1984. This is because 1983-84 was the first season with 16 NBA Playoff teams (the playoff field has remained at 16 ever since). This means that we will have 41 NBA seasons in the sample (1983-84 to 2023-24).
My survey will only look at teams that made the playoffs with a negative SRS rating – which again takes into account a team’s regular season point differential and its strength of schedule. By “negative SRS rating,” I mean -0.01 or worse. (If you think that I am being unnecessarily specific, I promise that my -0.01 cutoff – down to that hundredths place – will be unexpectedly significant in one very notable 2007 case.) As I noted above, this survey effectively ignores the playoff play-in tournament in place since 2020-21. We are concerned with the final playoff seeding, not what the seeding would have been without the play-in tourney.
I recorded the conferences, win-loss records, playoff seeds, and playoff results of every negative SRS playoff team from 83-84 to 23-24. My article will be based on my observations about these various numbers. As I noted in previous articles, I followed the NBA closely from the late 90s through 2015-16, so some of my assessments may be buttressed by my own memories.
The Full Chart
Due to the size of the chart and the length of this article, I posted the chart separately for performance reasons.
See full chart showing 95 negative-SRS playoff teams from 1983-84 through 2023-24.
(Also see a PDF version.)
Below, I will dicsuss top-line conclusions from my survey.
Top-Line Conclusions
Before going into some detailed points and notable cases, let us go through the top-line results.
Percent of Playoff Teams With Negative SRS
There were a combined 656 teams in the 41 NBA playoffs from 1984 through 2024. Of those 656 teams, 95 had negative SRS ratings in the regular season (approximately 14.7%).
38 of the last 41 playoffs featured at least one team with a negative SRS rating. The 2024, 2012, and 1994 NBA Playoffs involved no playoff teams with negative SRS ratings.
By Season
Let us see how many negative-SRS regular season teams made the playoffs in our 41 sample seasons.
- 6: 1986
- 5: 1984
- 4: 1985, 1987, 2004
- 3: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020
- 2: 1988, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2009, 2011, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023
- 1: 1989, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2018
- 0: 1994, 2012, 2024
There have only been five seasons with at least four negative-SRS playoff teams, and four of those seasons are the first four in our sample when the NBA had just 23 teams. The fifth was the 2004 Playoffs, in which half of the Eastern Conference playoff field was below water on SRS. In 25 of the 41 seasons in our sample, there have been either three or two negative SRS playoff teams.
By Conference
There is a dramatic difference between the number of negative SRS teams to have made the Eastern and Western Conference Playoffs. 68 of the 95 negative SRS teams made the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. From 1999-2000 through 2014-15, 35 teams with negative regular season SRS made the Eastern Conference Playoffs. In sharp contrast, no negative SRS teams made the Western Conference Playoffs. Even outside of the 1999-2000 through 2014-15 window, there have been more negative SRS playoff teams in the East (33) than West (27). This gets to the fact that the West has generally (not always, e.g., the East had the edge for much of the 1980s) been more competitive than the East. As I noted, relying on Net Rating instead of SRS would have shifted some cases on the margins (e.g., the 2002-03 Orlando Magic and 2003-04 Miami Heat (Eastern Conference) had apositive Net Rating while the 2006-07 Golden State Warriors (Western Conference) had a negative Net Rating and 0.00 SRS), but it would not have changed the fact that the Eastern Conference has been usually more amenable to allowing entry to marginal playoff teams.
Playoff Seeding
Playoff teams are seeded 1-8 in their respective conferences. This means that there are two of each numbered seed in each playoff (for example, because both the Eastern and Western Conferences have a 1-seed, there are two 1-seeds in each playoffs). Because we are covering 41 NBA Playoffs, there are 82 instances of each playoff seed. Below, I present how many times a negative-SRS team has landed at each playoff position from 1-8.
| Seed | Negative SRS Playoff Teams | % of Total Playoff Teams |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | 37 | .45 |
| 7 | 26 | .32 |
| 6 | 19 | .23 |
| 5 | 10 | .08 |
| 4 | 3 | .04 |
| 3 | 0 | .00 |
| 2 | 0 | .00 |
| 1 | 0 | .00 |
There are no surprises on this chart. A plurality of the negative SRS playoff teams made the playoffs as the eight-seed and they become increasingly less frequent as we move up the seeding chart. Every top-three seed from 1984-2024 has had a positive SRS.
(I will note that one of the three four seeds, the 2006-07 Miami Heat, were only the four seed by virtue of having won their division. The Heat had a worse record than their “5” seed opponent in the first round and did not have home court advantage, notwithstanding the seeding.)
Win-Loss Totals
43 of the 95 negative SRS playoff teams had winning records. The best win-loss record for a negative-SRS playoff team is held by the 1994-95 Los Angeles Lakers (48-34). 14 negative SRS playoff teams finished exactly .500.This leaves 38 negative-SRS playoff teams which made the playoffs with losing records, with the worst being the 1985-86 Chicago Bulls (30-52).
Playoff Success (Or Lack Thereof)
Of the 95 negative SRS playoff teams, 81 were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. Thus, negative SRS teams won their first round playoff series 14.7% of the time. Below is a table listing only the teams which made the playoffs with negative regular season SRS and then one at least one playoff series.
| Team | SRS | Record (Seed) |
|---|---|---|
| 1984-85 Utah Jazz | -0.33 | 41-41 (W6) |
| 1986-87 Golden State Warriors | -2.54 | 42-40 (W5) |
| 1988-89 Golden State Warriors | -0.59 | 43-39 (W7) |
| 1990-91 Philadelphia 76ers | -0.39 | 44-38 (E5) |
| 1992-93 Charlotte Hornets | -0.02 | 44-38 (E5) |
| 1994-95 Los Angeles Lakers | -0.01 | 48-34 (W5) |
| 2002-03 Boston Celtics | -0.75 | 44-38 (E6) |
| 2003-04 Miami Heat | -0.13 | 42-40 (E4) |
| 2004-05 Washington Wizards | -0.71 | 45-37 (E5) |
| 2006-07 New Jersey Nets | -1.00 | 41-41 (E6) |
| 2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers | -0.53 | 45-37 (E4) |
| 2010-11 Atlanta Hawks | -1.10 | 44-38 (E5) |
| 2013-14 Brooklyn Nets | -1.58 | 44-38 (E6) |
| 2022-23 Miami Heat | -0.13 | 44-38 (E8) |
13 of the 95 negative SRS teams were eliminated in the second round of the playoffs. The lone negative SRS playoff team to make it out of the second round, the 2022-23 Miami Heat, did one better than that and advanced to the NBA Finals, where it fell 4-1 in their bid to become the first negative SRS NBA champion.
There were two first round playoff match-ups in our 41-year sample featuring negative SRS teams against one another, meaning that in those series a negative SRS team was guaranteed to advance to the second round of the playoffs.
- 2004 East Quarterfinals: 4. Miami Heat (-0.13 SRS, 42-40) def 5. New Orleans Hornets (-0.72 SRS, 41-41) 4-2
- 2008 East Quarterfinals: 4. Cleveland Cavaliers (-0.53 SRS, 45-37) def 5. Washington Wizards (-0.61 SRS, 43-39) 4-2
In series where a negative SRS team faced off against a positive SRS team, the negative SRS teams went 12-79 in the first round of the playoffs for a winning percentage of 13.1%.
Playoff winners by record
12 of the 14 negative SRS playoff winners had winning regular season records, while two teams finished 41-41. To date, no team with a negative SRS rating and sub-500 win-loss record has won a playoff series in the 16-team era.
Playoff winners by seed
Now let us look at negative-SRS first round playoff winners by seed:
| Seed | Won QF | % Success |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | 1 | .02 |
| 7 | 1 | .04 |
| 6 | 4 | .21 |
| 5 | 6 | .50 |
| 4 | 2 | .67 |
More than half of the negative SRS teams to make the playoffs as a 4th or 5th seed won their first round playoff series. This is especially notable in the case of the 5th seed teams since (A) they did so without the benefit of home court advantage, and (B) two of the four losses were against negative-SRS four seeds. In fact, if we remove from our sample the two instances when we had 4-5 playoff match-ups where both teams had negative SRS ratings, the negative-SRS 5 seeds won six of eight playoff series in our sample (75%!?). Two of the three four seeded negative SRS playoff teams won their first round playoff match-ups. However, the two negative SRS four seeds that won defeated negative SRS five seeds and the one team that lost (2006-07 Miami Heat) did not have home-court advantage due to having a worse win-loss record than the five seed.
SRS Ratings
| SRS Range | Playoff Teams | QF Wins |
|---|---|---|
| -0.01 to -0.50 | 32 | 6 |
| -0.51 to -1.00 | 23 | 5 |
| -1.01 to -1.50 | 15 | 1 |
| -1.51 to -2.00 | 11 | 1 |
| -2.01 to -2.50 | 6 | 0 |
| -2.51 to -3.00 | 3 | 1 |
| -3.01 to -3.50 | 3 | 0 |
| -3.51 to -4.00 | 1 | 0 |
| -4.00 or worse | 1 | 0 |
45 of the 95 SRS teams had an SRS rating of -1.00 or better. Only 14 of the 95 were worse than -2.00. The only surprise here is that teams with a negative SRS between -0.51 and -1.00 (inclusive) had a slightly better first round playoff winning percentage (.217) than playoff teams in the top 0.01 to -0.50 bracket (.189).
Per the title of this article, I present the 24 worst playoff teams in the 16-team playoff era in terms of SRS (1984-2024).
| Rank | Team | SRS | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| 656 | 87-88 San Antonio Spurs | -5.02 | 31-51 |
| 655 | 91-92 Miami Heat | -3.94 | 38-44 |
| 654 | 85-86 Sacramento Kings | -3.19 | 37-45 |
| 653 | 14-15 Brooklyn Nets | -3.13 | 38-44 |
| 652 | 85-86 Chicago Bulls | -3.12 | 30-52 |
| 651 | 96-97 Los Angeles Clippers | -2.66 | 36-46 |
| 650 | 95-96 Sacramento Kings | -2.62 | 39-43 |
| 649 | 86-87 Golden State Warriors | -2.54 | 42-40 |
| 648 | 83-84 Washington Bullets | -2.36 | 35-47 |
| 647 | 84-85 Phoenix Suns | -2.34 | 36-46 |
| 646 | 84-85 Cleveland Cavaliers | -2.27 | 36-46 |
| 645 | 07-08 Atlanta Hawks | -2.23 | 37-45 |
| 644 | 15-16 Memphis Grizzlies | -2.14 | 42-40 |
| 643 | 85-86 San Antonio Spurs | -2.06 | 35-47 |
| 642 | 03-04 Boston Celtics | -1.99 | 36-46 |
| 641 | 03-04 New York Knicks | -1.97 | 39-43 |
| 640 | 94-95 Boston Celtics | -1.92 | 35-47 |
| 639 | 20-21 Washington Wizards | -1.85 | 34-48 |
| 638 | 12-13 Milwaukee Bucks | -1.83 | 38-44 |
| 637 | 04-05 New Jersey Nets | -1.82 | 42-40 |
| 637 | 96-97 Minnesota Timberwolves | -1.82 | 40-42 |
| 635 | 09-10 Chicago Bulls | -1.64 | 41-41 |
| 634 | 83-84 Kansas City Kings | -1.62 | 38-44 |
| 633 | 13-14 Brooklyn Nets | -1.58 | 44-38 |
Only two of the bottom-24 negative SRS teams (in bold) won their first-round playoff series, and I will discuss those teams further down in the article. I will also discuss the 2007-08 Hawks, which improbably managed to force one of the strongest NBA Champions in terms of SRS in NBA history to a decisive game seven. Of the bottom-24 playoff teams in the 16-team era, only four had winning records. Our series winners come from those four teams.
15 of our negative SRS playoff teams had SRS ratings between 0.01 and 0.22.
- 1994-95 Los Angeles Lakers (-0.01)
- 2015-16 Dallas Mavericks (-0.02)
- 1992-93 Charlotte Hornets (-0.02)
- 2020-21 Miami Heat (-0.06)
- 2001-02 Indiana Pacers (-0.07)
- 1996-97 Orlando Magic (-0.07)
- 2012-13 Atlanta Hawks (-0.08)
- 2014-15 Milwaukee Bucks (-0.09)
- 2022-23 Miami Heat (-0.13)
- 2003-04 Miami Heat (-0.13)
- 2008-09 Chicago Bulls (-0.16)
- 1987-88 Washington Bullets (-0.16)
- 1998-99 Minnesota Timberwolves (-0.17)
- 1986-87 Indiana Pacers (-0.17)
- 2022-23 Minnesota Timberwolves (-0.22)
Of this group, we have four first-round playoff winners and one NBA Finalist. Additionally, the 1996-97 Magic, 2008-09 Bulls, and 1987-88 Bullets came one game short of advancing to the second round of their respective playoffs.
Negative SRS Playoff Series Winners
Below, I will take a look at the 14 negative SRS teams that won a first-round playoff series. I will describe their playoff match-ups with links to relevant resources.
For each of the negative SRS playoff winners, I will also provide three additional stats: Relative Offensive Rating, Relative Defensive Rating, and Net Rating. I explained earlier in the article that Offensive Rating is simply points scored per 100 possessions while Defensive Rating is points allowed per 100 possessions. Unlike SRS, Net Rating does not contemplate strength of schedule. Relative Offensive and Defensive Rating are how much better or worse the team in question is than the league average. For example, if the average NBA offensive rating is 100.0 and Team A scores 101 points per 100 possessions and allows 99, its relative offensive and defensive ratings would be one point better than the NBA average. Note that a team wants its relative offensive rating to be positive (scoring more than league average) and its relative defensive rating to be negative (allow fewer points than the league average). Net rating is simply offensive rating minus defensive rating. The league average Net Rating is always 0. My criteria for inclusion in the survey is making the playoffs with a negative SRS rating, but the Net Rating information will help us understand a bit more about the negative-SRS playoff winners and their opponents as well as see how closely Net Rating tracks SRS.
1984-85 Utah Jazz
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41-41 | W5 | -0.33 | -4.6 | -4.5 | -0.1 |
The Jazz were the first negative SRS winner in the 16-team playoff era and one of just two to not have a winning record. This Jazz team included a rookie John Stockton coming off the bench, but no Karl Malone (he would be their first round draft pick that spring). Despite their middling overall standing, the Jazz ranked first in the NBA in defensive rating thanks in no small part to center Mark Eaton, who was selected as Defensive Player of the Year. Their comparatively lackluster offense (21st out of 23 teams in ORtg) was led by the high scoring Adrian Dantley, who is now in the NBA Hall of Fame and wasonce featured in a New Leaf Journal article.
The Jazz were up against the Houston Rockets (1.38 SRS, +1.7 Net, 48-34 WEST 3), which was led by rookie center Hakeem Olajuwon and fellow seven-footer Ralph Sampson. Unsurprisingly given their tall interior duo, the Rockets were also a defense-first squad, albeit with a more effective offense than the Jazz. The Jazz stole game one on the road and recovered from a blow-out loss in game two to take a 2-1 series lead. The Jazz nearly ended the series on their home court, falling 96-94 in game four. But they erased a 9-point deficit entering the final quarter of the decisive game five on the road to win 104-97 and advance to the second round of the playoffs. (See 1985 Jazz-Rockets Summary.)
The Jazz faced the fastest team in the NBA in round two, the Denver Nuggets (2.05 SRS, +2.2 Net, 52-40 WEST 2). Here the Jazz fell in a five-game gentleman’s sweep, with Nuggets star Alex English having one of the best playoff series of his Hall of Fame career. (See 1985 Nuggets-Jazz Summary.) Interestingly, the roles were reversed in 1983-84. In that season, the Nuggets entered the playoffs as the 38-44 7-seed with a -1.27 SRS. They were matched up against the 2-seed 45-37 Jazz, which had a +0.81 SRS. This series went the full five-game distance, with both teams winning once on the road in the first four before Utah ended the series at home with a 127-111 win.
1986-87 Golden State Warriors
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42-40 | W7 | -2.54 | +0.6 | +2.9 | -2.3 |
The 1986-87 Warriors were the 8th worst playoff team in terms of SRS from 1984-2024. The Warriors had two All Stars that season – Joe Barry Carroll and Sleepy Floyd, and a promising second-year forward by the name of Chris Mullin. (They also had the high-scoring Purvis Short, but he missed more than half of the regular season.) The Warriors slightly above average offense was largely undone by a very weak defense. They went up against the Utah Jazz (+0.04 SRS, +0.4 Net, 44-38 WEST 4). This Jazz team was somewhat similar to the 84-85 edition, having the NBA’s best defense thanks no doubt to center Mark Eaton to go along with one of the NBA’s worst offenses. Their leading scorer was second-year forward Karl Malone (John Stockton was still coming off the bench – but he finished 8th in the NBA in assists per game despite only playing 22.7 minutes per game). The Jazz jumped out to a 2-0 series lead before the Warriors returned the favor by winning their two home games to force a decisive game five. There, the Warriors pulled off the upset, winning 118-113 in Utah to advance to the second round. (See 1987 Warriors-Jazz Summary.)
ed a 14-point deficit entering the final quarter. Warriors point guard Sleepy Floyd posted one of the great performances in NBA history, scoring 29 of his game-high 51 points in the fourth quarter, and adding 10 assists for what became known as the Sleepy Floyd Game. Trivia question: Who holds the all time NBA Playoff records for most points in a quarter and most points in a half? Answer: Sleepy Floyd with 29 and 39 respectively. (See 1987 Lakers-Warriors Summary.)
1988-89 Golden State Warriors
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43-39 | W7 | -0.59 | -0.4 | -0.1 | -0.3 |
We are back with the Warriors and the Jazz. This Warriors team rates significantly better than two years prior in terms of both SRS and Net. It was led by Chris Mullin, who was selected to the All NBA Second Team, and Rookie of the Year Mitch Richmond. Once again, the Warriors faced the Utah Jazz (+4.01 SRS, +5.1 Net, 51-31). This Jazz Team was led by Karl Malone, who was selected to the All NBA First Team, and John Stockton, who made All NBA Second Team (they also finished 3rd and 7th respectively in MVP voting). However, like the previous two Jazz teams we reviewed, the Jazz led the NBA in Defensive Rating while having a below average offense. The star of their defense was again Mark Eaton, who won his second Defensive Player of the Year award. On paper, this looked like it should be a quick series – and quick it was. The Warriors one the first two games on the road (123-119 and 99-91) before completing a stunning sweep of the Jazz with a 120-106 win at home in game 3. The upset becomes stranger when we note that Jazz stars Malone and Stockton, who ended up with a reputation over their careers for under-performing in the playoffs, both had big series. Mr. Malone averaged 30.7 points on .574 TS% to go with 16.4 RPG and Mr. Stockton averaged an out-of-character 27.3 points per game (.601 TS%) to go with 13.7 APG. But the Warriors star duo of Mr. Mullin (32.7 PPG on .626 TS%) and Mr. Richmond (25.7 PPG on .655 TS%) carried the day. (See 1989 Warriors-Jazz Summary.)
The Warriors’ second round opponent was the Phoenix Suns (+6.84 SRS, +7.3 Net, 55-27). The Warriors looked poised to make a tough series of it after stealing game two in Phoenix to even the series at 1-1, but the Suns, led by All Stars Kevin Johnson and Tom Chambers, won games 3-5 going away to defeat the Warriors 4-1. (See 1989 Suns-Lakers Summary.)
1990-91 Philadelphia 76ers
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E5 | -0.39 | +0.0 | +0.2 | -0.2 |
The 76ers were led by star forward Charles Barkley, who finished fourth in MVP voting and made the All NBA Team. However, they had a down year, perhaps due in part to the fact Mr. Barkley missed 15 games. Hersey Hawkins, one of the finest shooters of the 90s, made his lone All Star Game in 1991. The 76ers faced the Milwaukee Bucks (+2.33 SRS, +2.6 Net, 48-34), which were led by All Stars Ricky Pierce and Alvin Robertson and high-scoring guard Dale Ellis (who missed the series). This series played out much like the Warriors-Jazz series two seasons prior. The 76ers won two relatively close games on the road to start the series before comfortably completing the sweep back home in game three. (See 1991 76ers-Bucks Summary.)
As a reward for their upset, the 76ers faced the Chicago Bulls (+8.57 SRS, +9.5 Net, 61-21) in round two for the second consecutive season (the Bulls had eliminated the 76ers 4-1 in the second round in 1990). This series went about as one would expect – with the 76ers only avoiding a sweep by virtue of a two-point win at home in game three. The Bulls would go on to win their first NBA Championship. (See 1991 Bulls-76ers Summary.)
1992-93 Charlotte Hornets
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E5 | -0.02 | +1.5 | +1.7 | -0.2 |
(PSA for the young readers out there – these Charlotte Hornets are not today’s Charlotte Hornets. The 1992-93 Charlotte Hornets became what are today’s New Orleans Pelicans. The “Charlotte Hornets” of today emerged from the former Charlotte Bobcats, which first joined the NBA in 2003-04.)
The Hornets, which joined the NBA in 1987-88, were making the franchise’s first playoff appearance. The team starred second-year forward Larry Johnson (All NBA Second Team) and Rookie of the Year runner-up Alonzo Mourning (he would have been the pick in most years, but he had the misfortune of sharing a rookie class with Shaquille O’Neal). The Hornets’ first round opponent was the Boston Celtics (+0.93 SRS, +0.9 Net, 48-34). Larry Bird had retired in the off-season, but the Celtics still had a strong roster including Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, and leading scorer Reggie Lewis. After dropping game one, the Hornets jumped out to a 2-1 series lead with a 99-98 win on the road on game two and a 30-point win at home in game four. The Hornets found themselves down by one in the waning seconds of game four when their star rookie center, Alonzo Mourning, hit a game winner time expired to send Charlotte to the second round (both Messrs. Mourning and Johnson out-performed their regular season numbers). (See 1993 Hornets-Celtics Summary.)
Waiting for the Hornets in round two were the New York Knicks (+5.87 SRS, +6.4 Net, 60-22), which featured one of the best defenses relative to league average in NBA history (-8.3 R-Drtg). The series turned out to be surprisingly competitive. After the Knicks won game one 111-95, the final five games of the series were decided by 4 points or less. But true to form, the Knicks held the upstart Hornets to 9 points per 100 possessions worse than their regular season average en route to a close 4-2 series win. (See 1993 Knicks-Hornets Summary.)
1994-95 Los Angeles Lakers
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48-34 | W5 | -0.01 | +0.9 | +1.1 | -0.2 |
The 1994-95 Lakers had the best record of the 95 negative SRS playoff teams at 48-34. That 48-34 record was actually better than the eventual 1994-95 NBA Champion Houston Rockets (47-35). The Lakers’ strong record does look to have been somewhat of a fluke in light of their negative SRS and negative Net. Lakers’ leading scorer Cedric Ceballos made his lone All Star Team, and Lakers center Vlade Divac also had a notably strong season. The Lakers’ first round opponent was the Seattle SuperSonics (+7.91 SRS, +8.5 Net, 57-25). The Sonics, featuring All Stars Gary Payton, Sean Kemp, and Detlef Schrempf, led the NBA in SRS for the third consecutive year. However, the Sonics had become the first one-seed to be bounced by an eighth seed the previous season, league-best SRS and all, so caveats applied. The Sonics blew out the Lakers 96-71 in game one and looked poised to advance to the second round of the playoffs. However, the Lakers stole game two in Seattle 84-82 and then won both games three and four by four points each to send the Sonics to another disappointing first-round exit. The star of the series for the Lakers point guard Nick Van Exel, who averaged 24.8 PPG on .645 TS% (well above his regular season averages) and out-played his Seattle counterpart Gary Payton, who had been selected to the All NBA Second Team. (See 1995 Lakers-SuperSonics Summary.)
(Aside: For the kids out there, the former Seattle SuperSonics are today’s Oklahoma City Thunder. I suppose that is relevant since the Thunder are, as of the publication date of this article, on pace to not only lead the NBA in SRS in 2024-25, but to do so with the best single-season SRS in NBA history.)
The Lakers advanced to face the San Antonio Spurs (5.90 SRS, +6.2 Net, 62-20), which were led by NBA MVP David Robinson. The Spurs held serve at home and split two games in Los Angeles to go up 3-1. The Lakers won by 2 in San Antonio to make it back to Los Angeles, but the Spurs closed the Lakers out with a 100-88 win in game six. (See 1995 Spurs-Lakers Summary.)
2002-03 Boston Celtics
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E6 | -0.75 | -2.4 | -2.0 | -0.4 |
These Celtics need little introduction because they featured prominently in an article I wrote about their unprecedented (for the time) three point attempt numbers. The Celtics were largely a two-man show on offense, featuring All Stars Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker. But while they were known for their sky-high three point attempt rate, the Celtics were one of the worst offenses in the NBA but above average on defense. Boston faced the Indiana Pacers (+2.79 SRS, +3.8 Net, 48-34) in round one (we will talk about the 2001-02 Pacers a bit further down). Boston stole game one in Indiana and then won games three and four by double digits at home to jump out to a 3-1 lead. The Pacers narrowly avoided elimination with a 93-88 win at home, but the Celtics ended the series in Boston 110-90 in game six. The Celtics won in part because they upped their three point accuracy, hitting 57/149 in the series (38.8%) after shooting 33.4% in the regular season. (See 2003 Celtics-Pacers Summary.)
Round two was a rematch of the previous season’s Eastern Conference Finals, with the Celtics going up against the New Jersey Nets (+4.42 SRS, +5.7 Net, 49-33). This series is a good example of win-loss records being deceptive. The Celtics record was a bit of an over-performance whereas the Nets, which had the NBA’s top defense, were better than their 49-33 record. After a close 97-93 win in game one, the Nets won games 2-4 comfortably en route to a second round sweep. The Celtics’ 29/94 (30.9%) three point shooting did not help matters. (See 2003 Nets-Celtics Summary.)
2003-04 Miami Heat
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42-40 | E4 | -0.13 | -0.7 | -1.2 | +0.5 |
The 2003-04 Heat are unique among negative SRS playoff winners in that they actually had a positive Net rating. Why was their SRS negative? I submit for the record that their 42-40 record was good for the fourth seed and home court advantage as evidence of how the strength of schedule component of SRS dragged them down. This brings us to another rarity – the Heat’s first-round opponent, the New Orleans Hornets (having recently moved from Charlotte), also had a negative SRS (-0.72 SRS, -0.1 Net, 41-41). This Heat team featured a very promising rookie by the name of Dwyane Wade along with veterans Lamar Odom and Eddie Jones. This series went the full seven-game distance, with neither team losing at home. Save for an ugly 93-63 Heat win in game two and a 96-85 Hornets win in game four, the other games were decided by single digits. The highlight of the series was Dwyane Wade’s go-ahead basket with one second to go in game one. Like most series in the 2004 Playoffs, it was a defensive grind, with the victorious Heat having an offensive rating of 95.8, 6.4 points per 100 possessions worse than their below average regular season total. (See 2004 Heat-Hornets Summary.)
The Heat’s second round opponent was a much-improved (from 2002-03) Indiana Pacers team (+4.93 SRS, +6.3 Net, 61-21). The Pacers had a stifling defense led by Defensive Player of the Year Ron Artest and Jermaine O’Neal. Both teams held serve at home through the first five games, with four of the five games being decided by double digits. The Heat had a chance at home to extend the series to seven, but their season ended in one of the lowest scoring playoff names in NBA history – the Pacers advanced by a score of 73-70. (See 2004 Pacers-Heat Summary.)
2004-05 Washington Wizards
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45-37 | E5 | -0.71 | +1.1 | +1.4 | -0.4 |
The Wizards, led by star guard Gilbert Arenas (All NBA Third Team), Larry Hughes, and Antawn Jamison, had an offense-first reputation. To be sure, they were better on offense than defense – but the difference is less stark than I thought when compared to the league average. Their first-round opponent was the Chicago Bulls (+0.65 SRS, +1.1 Net, 47-35), which featured an elite defense and poor offense. The Bulls won the first two games at home comfortably before the Wizards returned the favor at home in games three and four. The series turned when the Wizards won 112-110 in Chicago to go up 3-2, and they the avoided game seven with a 94-91 win at home in game six. (See 2005 Wizards-Bulls Summary.)
In round two the Wizards faced an upgraded (from the year before) Miami Heat team (+5.76 SRS, +7.1 Net, 59-23). The Heat had acquired Shaquille O’Neal in the off-season and Dwyane Wade made a big leap in his second season. This series was over almost as soon as it began, with the Heat completing a clean four-game sweep of the Wizards. (See 2005 Heat-Wizards Summary.)
2006-07 New Jersey Nets
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41-41 | E6 | -1.00 | -0.8 | +0.1 | -0.8 |
The Nets gradually declined throughout the 2000s after making consecutive NBA Finals appearances in 2002 and 2003. This mediocre Nets squad, led by All Stars Vince Carter and Jason Kidd, took advantage of a weak Easter Conference to earn a 6-seed with a 41-41 record. In the first round they faced Mr. Carter’s former team, the Toronto Raptors (+0.61 SRS, +1.1 Net, 47-35). In hindsight, this is one of the less upsetting upsets. Between Messrs. Carter and Kidd, the Nets had two of the three best players on the floor, with the other being Raptors’ All Star Chris Bosh. New Jersey won game one on the road and games three and four by wide margins at home to go up 3-1. The Raptors narrowly avoided elimination with a 98-96 win at home before the Nets even more narrowly avoided returning to Toronto for game seven with a 98-97 win in New Jersey. The star of the series was Jason Kidd, who averaged a triple double while scoring fairly efficiently with his 18/41 shooting from behind the arc. (See 2007 Nets-Raptors Summary.)
In round two the Nets faced the Cleveland Cavaliers (+3.33 SRS, +4.2 Net, 50-32), which were led by LeBron James, who already had a colorable best player in the NBA case. The series was a competitive defensive slog. After both teams held serve at home in games 1-3, Cleveland won game three on the road 87-85 to go up 3-1. The Nets and Cavaliers exchanged double digit wins on their home floors in games 5 and 6, resulting in Cleveland advancing 4-2. The Cavaliers would go on to upset the favored Detroit Pistons in the next round to reach the franchise’s first NBA Finals. (See 2007 Cavaliers-Nets Summary.)
Speaking of Cavaliers teams which played games in 2007…
2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45-37 | E4 | -0.53 | -1.5 | -1.1 | -0.4 |
2008 may well be the strangest year in our negative SRS sample. The defending Eastern Conference Champion Cavaliers regressed in 2007-08, with their 45-37 record undermined by a negative SRS and Net Rating. While LeBron James continued to add to his claim of being the NBA’s best player, the rest of the Cavaliers’ roster left much to be desired and their 0-7 record in games Mr. James missed along with their margins in those losses contributed to their poor SRS and Net. Fortunately for Cleveland, the Eastern Conference remained weak, so their first round opponent, the Washington Wizards (-0.61 SRS, -0.4 Net, 43-39) were also negative in the SRS and Net departments. Moreover, the Wizards were without their best player, Gilbert Arenas, who missed most of the season with injury. This was an odd series – Cleveland won game one at home 93-86 before they and the Wizards exchanged 30-point home blowouts in games 2 and 3. The Cavaliers broke serve in game four, winning on the road 100-97 to take a 3-1 lead. Washington avoided elimination with an 88-87 road win in Cleveland in game five, but Cleveland won convincingly on the road in game six to close out the series. (See 2008 Cavaliers-Wizards Summary.)
Now let us step away from the Cavaliers for a moment. Cleveland would face the winner of the Boston Celtics–Atlanta Hawks series. The Celtics, led by the newly-assembled “big three” of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen had one of the most dominant regular seasons in NBA history (+9.30 SRS, +11.2 Net, 66-16). As I noted in my survey answering whether defense wins championships, the Celtics (spoiler alert) had the best regular season defensive rating of any NBA Champion from 1974-2024. The Celtics’ first round opponent was the Atlanta Hawks (-2.23 SRS, -2.0 Net, 37-45). In SRS terms, the Hawks were the 12th worst playoff team from 1984-2024. Surely this would be a quick series…
Boston won games one and two at home 104-81 and 96-77 to jump out to the expected 2-0 lead. Atlanta pulled off a mild surprise with a 102-93 win at home in game three to guarantee that they would avoid a sweep. But then the Hawks did one better, also winning game four at home 97-92 to even the series at 2-2. Returning to Boston, the Celtics blew out the Hawks 110-85 to go up 3-2. Surely this would be the end – but it was not the end. Back in Atlanta, the Hawks came from behind in the fourth quarter to win 103-100 and force an unexpected game seven. The Hawks were one win shy of what would have arguably been the biggest playoff upset in NBA history (I vote that it would have been) – but if you have been following the trend, you can see why it was not to be. The Celtics won game seven at home 99-65 to advance. This peculiar seven-game series also serves as an example of the value of margin. While it did go the distance, the Celtics outscored the Hawks by an average of 12 points per 100 possessions, and Boston’s dominance in its four wins are indicative of the fact that it never felt like they were in serious danger. (See 2008 Celtics-Hawks Summary.)
The Celtics-Hawks series sets up the Celtics-Cavaliers showdown. While the Cavaliers, like the Hawks, were negative in the SRS column – they had LeBron James and had won the Eastern Conference with a similar roster the year before. Nevertheless, Boston was still heavily favored (for good reason). The Celtics suffocated Mr. James and the Cavaliers offense 76-72 and 89-73 in Boston. But the tables turned in Cleveland, with the Cavaliers blowing out the Celtics 108-84 and 88-77 to even the series at 2-2. Back in Boston, the Celtics overcame Mr. James’ then series-high 35 points to win 96-89 and push Cleveland to the brink. Game six in Cleveland joined the list of lowest scoring playoff games of the shot clock era, with the Cavaliers prevailing 74-69 behind Mr. James’ 32 points. Game seven in Boston proved to be an all-time classic. Just one point separated the teams at the two-minute mark before Boston pulled away to survive 97-92. The game is remembered for a shootout between LeBron James and Paul Pierce, with Mr. James scoring 45 in the losing effort and Mr. Pierce leading the Celtics to victory with 41. The underdog Cavaliers narrowly out-scored the Celtics in the series – but they came up just short in the wins department. (See 2008 Celtics-Cavaliers Summary.) The Celtics went on to comparatively easy six-game series wins over the Pistons (+6.67 SRS, +8.4 Net, 59-23) and Lakers (+7.34 SRS, +7.6 Net, 57-25) en route to the Championship. As history would have it the negative-SRS Cavaliers gave the Celtics what was by far the stiffest challenge in their 2008 championship run.
2010-11 Atlanta Hawks
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E5 | -1.10 | -1.4 | -0.5 | -0.9 |
The 2010-11 Hawks bore a striking resemblance to the 2007-08 edition (discussed above), by which I mean their playoff starting line-up had three of the same starters (a fourth starter from the 2008 team served as sixth man). Atlanta’s first-round opponent was the Orlando Magic (+4.92 SRS, +5.9 Net, 52-30), anchored by MVP runner-up and Defensive Player of the Year Dwight Howard. Despite that the stats strongly favoring Orlando, I will submit for the record I picked Atlanta going into the series – and I was not the only one to do so (I recall it being a popular upset pick at the time). The Hawks boasted backup center Jason Collins, who was unusually good at guarding Dwight Howard without needing much help, and the Hawks had other big men to throw at Howard. Atlanta employed many tactics in guarding the still-dominant Howard, including sending him to the free throw line 88 times in six games. Atlanta went up 3-1 after splitting the first two games in Orlando and winning their first two home games by three points each. Orlando had the series’ lone blow-out win (101-76) in game five to avoid elimination, but the Hawks ended the series with their third three-point home win (84-81) in game six. (See 2011 Hawks-Magic Summary.)
Atlanta faced the top-seeded Chicago Bulls (+6.53 SRS, +8.0 Net, 62-20), led by MVP Derrick Rose and the NBA’s best defense, in round two. Things got off to a good start with a 103-95 upset on the road in game one. After dropping the next two, Atlanta evened the series at home with a 100-88 win. That would be Atlanta’s final win of the playoffs – Chicago won games five and six to advance to the East Finals. (See 2011 Bulls-Hawks Summary.)
2013-14 Brooklyn Nets
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E6 | -1.57 | +0.0 | +1.0 | -1.1 |
The 2013-14 Nets brought much of the 2008 Celtics and Hawks together, featuring older versions of 2008 Hawks leading scorer Joe Johnson and 2008 Celtics stars Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce. The Nets struggled with injuries all season but managed to limp into the playoffs with a 44-38 record, which masked their subpar SRS and Net ratings. The Nets faced the Toronto Raptors (+2.55 SRS, +3.5 Net, 48-34), which was making its second playoff appearance since the Raptors were eliminated by a different negative SRS Nets playoff team (one from before the Nets moved from New Jersey to Brooklyn) in 2007. The Raptors were led by guards Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan. Much like the Hawks-Magic series I discussed above, I recall Brooklyn being a popular upset pick, both on account of the experience on their roster and the fact that they were mostly healthy going into the playoffs. This turned out to be a close series – by which I mean it came down to the very last shot. Brooklyn and Toronto split the first four games, each winning once going away. Toronto narrowly went up 3-2 with a 115-113 win at home in game five before Brooklyn extended the series to seven with a 97-83 win in game six. Toronto, trailing by one, had a chance to win it at the very last second, but Paul Pierce blocked Kyle Lowry’s six-foot attempt to win the series and Brooklyn pulled off the minor upset with a 94-93 road win in game seven. (See 2014 Nets-Raptors Summary.)
Brooklyn’s second round match up was against the Miami Heat (4.15 SRS, +5.2 Net, 54-28). This was the last and weakest of the four “big three” Miami Heat teams starring LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh. The Heat and Nets won the first three games at home by double digits. Brooklyn came close to evening the series at 2-2 in game four, but they could not quite overcome LeBron James’ 49 points on 16-24 shooting, and the Heat went up 3-1 with a 102-96 win. Brooklyn then led by 9 entering the fourth quarter in game five, but the Heat charged back to win 96-94 and advance to their fourth consecutive Eastern Conference Finals. (See 2014 Heat-Nets Summary.)
2022-23 Miami Heat
| Record | Seed | SRS | R-ORtg | R-DRtg | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44-38 | E8 | -0.13 | -1.8 | -1.5 | -0.3 |
We save the best for last. The Heat, led by All Stars Jimmy Bulter and Bam Adebayo, underachieved in the regular season – perhaps due in part to the fact their three leading scorers (add Tyler Herro) combined to miss 40 games. The Heat would have been the seven-seed based on record, but they dropped to eighth in the play-in tournament.
The Heat’s first round opponent was the Milwaukee Bucks (+3.61 SRS, +3.6 Net, 58-24), which had a much better record than their SRS and Net ratings would suggest. The Heat stole game one in Milwaukee (130-117) and after dropping game two, held serve at home (121-99 and 119-114) to go up 3-1. Game four is especially notable. The Bucks led by 11 entering the fourth, but Jimmy Butler scored 21 of his 56 points in the 4th quarter to lead the Heat comeback. Mr. Butler followed his 56-point performance in game four with 42 in a 128-126 overtime win in game five to eliminate the top-seeded Bucks 4-1. (See 2023 Heat-Bucks Summary.)
In round two the Heat faced the New York Knicks (+2.99 SRS, +3.0 Net, 47-35), rekindling an old rivalry that was played out in four consecutive playoffs (1997-2000). The first four games followed the same path as the previous series – Miami won game one on the road and then games three and four at home to go up 3-1. The Knicks did one better than the Bucks and held serve at home, 112-103, to extend the series to six. But the Heat won a close 96-92 game at home to close out the series 4-2. In so doing, the Heat became the first negative SRS playoff team in the 16-team era to reach the conference finals and just the second eight seed to do so (the first was the 1998-99 New York Knicks). (See 2023 Heat-Knicks Summary.)
The Heat faced the Boston Celtics (+6.38 SRS, +6.5 Net, 57-25) in what was a rematch of the 2021-22 East Finals, which the Celtics won 4-3. This edition of the Celtics led the NBA in both SRS and Net rating (not, however, with the historic totals they would accrue one season later). The Heat jumped out to a 3-0 series lead, winning games one and two (123-116 and 111-105) in Boston before taking game three 128-102 in Miami. No team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit, but the Celtics won going away 116-99 in game four to avoid the sweep and made it 3-2 with a 110-97 game five win at home. Boston then won again in Miami 104-103 to force a decisive game seven in Boston. Someone would make history in game seven – and that someone was the Heat, winning 103-84 to become the second eight-seed to reach the NBA Finals (again after the 98-99 Knicks) and the first negative SRS team to reach the Finals in the 16-team playoff era. (See 2023 Heat-Celtics Summary.)
The Heat faced the Denver Nuggets (+3.04 SRS, +3.4 Net, 53-29) in the Finals. We have come full circle – the first negative SRS playoff winner in our sample, the 1984-85 Jazz, lost to the Denver Nuggets. So too would the Heat. Miami did win game two on the road, but the rest of the series was all Denver behind a dominant Finals performance by Nikola Jokić. The Nuggets won their first championship 4-1 and, in so doing, denied us what would have been the first NBA Champion to have posted a negative SRS in the regular season. (See 2023 Nuggets-Heat Summary.)
Pre-16 Team Playoff Negative SRS Finalists
My survey only covers the 16-team playoff era beginning in 1983-84. As I just noted, the 2022-23 Miami Heat were the only NBA Finalist with a negative SRS rating. I was curious whether there were any NBA Finalists (or Champions) with negative SRS ratings before the 16-team playoff era. I reviewed every NBA Finals going back to 1949-50.
- 2022-23 Miami Heat: -0.13 SRS, 44-38
- 1980-81 Houston Rockets: -0.20 SRS, 40-42
- 1958-59 Minneapolis Lakers: -1.42 SRS, 33-39
- 1956-57 St. Louis Hawks: -0.27 SRS, 34-38
There were just three negative SRS NBA Finalists prior to the 2022-23 Miami Heat. All four of the negative SRS Finalists lost in the NBA Finals. However, the 1956-57 Saint Louis Hawks came painfully close to upsetting the Boston Celtics (4.78 SRS, 44-28) in the Finals. The Hawks won games one, three, and six by a combined five points to force a decisive game seven in Boston. Game seven would go to double overtime, with the Hawks falling 125-123 when Bob Pettit’s last-second tip-in attempt to force a third overtime did not fall. (This remains the only NBA Finals Game Seven overtime in NBA history.) The series is also remembered for being the first of what would be 11 Celtics championships in 13 years. One additional fun fact: The first three negative SRS NBA finalists all lost to the Celtics in the Finals.
8-Seed Playoff Winners
The Heat were the sixth eight-seed to defeat a number-one seed in the playoffs. But despite the fact that close to half of all eight-seeds have had negative SRS ratings, the previous five teams that topped number one seeds did not have negative SRSs. Note my careful word choice.
| 8-Seed Series Winner | Record | SRS | Net |
|---|---|---|---|
| 93-94 Denver Nuggets | 42-40 | +1.54 | +1.5 |
| 98-99 New York Knicks | 27-23 | +1.45 | +1.2 |
| 06-07 Golden State Warriors | 42-40 | +0.00 | -0.3 |
| 10-11 Memphis Grizzlies | 46-36 | +2.55 | +2.5 |
| 11-12 Philadelphia 76ers | 35-31 | +3.59 | +4.7 |
| 22-23 Miami Heat | 44-38 | -0.13 | -0.2 |
Had I used Net instead of SRS, the 2006-07 Warriors would have made my survey with their negative Net rating. Unfortunately for the Warriors, the strength of the Western Conference dragged their SRS up to 0.00 to the hundredths decimal place. I had made the rule -0.01 or worse before seeing that the 06-07 Warriors were exactly 0.00, but it was too late to reconsider my rules. Both the Knicks and 76ers would have possibly, if not probably, earned a higher seed in a full-82 game season (especially the Knicks given that they made the Finals). Other than the 06-07 Warriors and 22-23 Heat, the other 8-seeds to topple a 1-seed were clearly in the green in SRS (the 11-12 76ers was fifth in the NBA in both SRS and Net). Moreover, while the 99 Knicks and 23 Heat were the only 8-seeds to make it out of the second round, the 1994 Nuggets, 2011 Grizzlies, and 2012 76ers all went the full seven-game distance in round two.
Just for fun, let us see the best and worst 1-seeds in SRS and Net terms to lose in round one.
| 1-8 Series Loser | Record | SRS | Net |
|---|---|---|---|
| 93-94 Seattle SuperSonics | 64-18 | +8.68 | +9.5 |
| 98-99 Miami Heat | 33-17 | +5.11 | +5.8 |
| 06-07 Dallas Mavericks | 67-15 | +7.28 | +8.0 |
| 10-11 San Antonio Spurs | 61-21 | +5.86 | +6.2 |
| 11-12 Chicago Bulls | 50-16 | +7.43 | +9.1 |
| 22-23 Milwaukee Bucks | 58-24 | +3.04 | +3.4 |
Both the 93-94 SuperSonics and 11-12 Bulls led the NBA in SRS and Net, although the Bulls loss comes with an asterisk because their best player and leading scorer, Derrick Rose, tore his ACL in the first game of the series against Philadelphia. The Sonics had also led the NBA in SRS and Net in 92-93 and in that season came one game short of reaching the Finals, so their first round loss after taking a 2-0 series lead against Denver was difficult to explain (as was their first round loss in 1995 against the negative SRS Lakers). The Mavericks and Spurs were both thoroughly outplayed by inferior teams in their 1-8 losses, although the Grizzlies, which beat the Spurs, were markedly better than the 2006-07 Warriors. The Heat had been clearly better than the Knicks in 1998-99, but those two teams had gone the distance in playoff series in 1997 and 1998 and, as I noted, the Knicks’ middling SRS and Net ratings have to be understood in the context of the regular season having only been 50 games and the Knicks’ very strong performance in the playoffs.
Close-Calls and Notable Series
Having covered all the negative SRS playoff winners, let us take a look at some close-calls, excluding the 2007-08 Atlanta Hawks which I discussed earlier.
- Three of six negative SRS playoff teams lost their first-round playoff series 3-2 in 1983-84. But just one, the 1983-84 Seattle SuperSonics (-0.34 SRS, -0.2 Net, 42-40), came within one point of advancing to the second round. The Sonics, led by All Star center Jack Sikma, were up against the 4-seed Dallas Mavericks, which were led by the high-scoring duoof Rolando Blackman and All Star Mark Aguirre. The Sonics went down 0-2 with a pair of one-possession losses in Dallas (88-86 and 95-92) before evening the series with two double-digit wins in Seattle (104-94 and 107-96). The decisive game five in Dallas was decided by a single point in the Mavericks’ favor, 105-104. (See 1984 Mavericks-SuperSonics Summary.)
- The 1985-86 Chicago Bulls (-3.12 SRS, -3.8 Net, 30-52) had the worst record of any playoff team in the 16-team era, although they were only fifth worst in terms of SRS. The Bulls were hindered that season by the fact that their best player, second-year guard Michael Jordan, appeared in just 18 of 82 games (the Bulls were 9-9 in games Mr. Jordan appeared in, which was generally consistent with their 38-44 mark the year before). Their reward for improbably making the playoffs with a ghastly 30-52 record was a meeting with one of the greatest teams in NBA history, the 85-86 Celtics (+9.06 SRS, +9.2 Net, 67-15). That Celtics team still holds the record for best regular season home mark at 40-1. However, the playoff Bulls were a bit less bad than their record indicated on account of the fact that Mr. Jordan was healthy. Boston won game one at home 123-104 despite 49 points from Mr. Jordan. But game two in the Boston Garden proved to be a classic, with the Celtics needing two overtimes to overcome Mr. Jordan’s 63 points and avoid what would have been just their second home loss of the entire season. Boston went on to win game three in Chicago 122-104 and continue on their way to the franchise’s 16th championship. (See 1986 Celtics-Bulls Summary.)
- The 1987-88 Washington Bullets (-0.16 SRS, -0.8 Net, 39-43) were thoroughly mediocre by any measure. They were up against the top-seeded Detroit Pistons (+5.46 SRS, +5.2 Net, 54-28) in the first round. Both teams held serve at home in the first four games, forcing a decisive game five (Washington almost stole game two in Detroit, losing 102-101). The Pistons avoided the upset with an easy 99-78 win at home and went on to reach the NBA Finals and come just four points short in the decisive game seven of capturing the NBA Championship. (See 1988 Pistons-Bullets Summary.)
- The Cleveland Cavaliers led the NBA with a +7.95 SRS in 1988-89 – but were bounced in the first round of the playoffs by a shot on Ehlo. Beset by injuries, the 89-90 Cleveland Cavaliers (-0.61 SRS, -0.3 Net, 42-40) limped into the playoffs for a first round matchup against the Charles Barkley-led Philadelphia 76ers (+4.23 SRS, +5.1 Net, 53-29). The series went the full five-game distance with both teams winning their home games. Cleveland was close in the first two games against Philadelphia and ultimately outscored the 76ers in the series. As we know from earlier in the article, the Sixers would do in 1991 what the Cavaliers could not in 1990 and win a playoff series despite having had a negative SRS in the regular season. (See 1990 76ers-Cavaliers Summary.)
- The 1990-91 Indiana Pacers (-0.37 SRS, -0.4 Net, 41-41) were up against the second-seeded Boston Celtics (+5.22 SRS, +5.9 Net, 56-26), which were led by Larry Bird. The Pacers stole game two in Boston and forced a decisive game five with a 116-113 win in game three. The decisive game five was a shoot-out between Mr. Bird and Chuck Person of the Pacers, with each scoring 32 in the Celtics’ 124-121 win. Mr. Person led all players in scoring the series, upping his regular season average of 18.4 PPG on .553 TS% to 26.1 PPG on .655 in the playoffs. (See 1991 Celtics-Pacers Summary.) (Aside: A worse Celtics team without Mr. Bird (due to injury) would sweep a better Pacers team in the first round in 1992 – go figure.)
- The 1992-93 Los Angeles Lakers (-1.20 SRS, -1.3 Net, 39-43) sneaked into the playoffs for the second consecutive year with a negative Net rating. Their opponent was the Phoenix Suns (6.27 SRS, 6.7 Net, 62-20), led by MVP Charles Barkely. The Lakers shockingly won the first two games on the road and lost their first chance to close out the Suns at home 107-102. An easy Suns win in game four sent the series back to Phoenix for game five. The Lakers forced game five to overtime, but their upset bid came up eight points short, 112-104. (See 1993 Suns-Lakers Summary.) The Suns went on to reach the NBA Finals, where they lost in a close six-game series against the Chicago Bulls.
- The 1995-96 Sacramento Kings (-2.62 SRS, -2.9 Net, 39-43) were one of the worst playoff teams of the 16-team era. However, they were led by All NBA Third Team selection Mitch Richmond, who played a starring role on the 1988-89 Warriors (discussed earlier in this article). They faced the Seattle SuperSonics (+7.40 SRS, +8.2 Net, 64-18), who failed to lead the NBA in SRS and Net for the first time since 1991-92, but only because of the existence of the legendary 95-96 Chicago Bulls (+11.80 SRS, +13.4 Net, 72-10). Of course, the Sonics’ league leading SRS and Net in 93-94 and 94-95 led to a combined 3-6 playoff record and two first round upset losses. The Sonics won game one, but Sacramento upset Seattle at home in game two, 90-81, behind Mr. Richmond’s 37 points. The series went to Sacramento, and I can imagine some Sonics fans having heartburn as the Kings entered the fourth quarter of game three with a nine-point lead. However, the Sonics righted the ship, winning game three 96-89 before ending the series in four 101-87. (See 1996 SuperSonics-Kings Summary.) The Sonics would finally break through and make the NBA Finals – but they picked a bad year to do so.
- The 1996-97 Orlando Magic (-0.07 SRS, -0.4 Net, 45-37) were recovering from the offseason departure of Shaquille O’Neal and their best player, star guard Penny Hardaway, having missed 23 games (had Mr. Hardaway been more available, the Magic would have almost certainly not been on our negative SRS list). As it was, the first round opponent was the Miami Heat (+5.56 SRS, +6.2 Net, 61-21). After being pushed to the brink with two blowout losses on the road, Orlando rebounded to win twice at home behind 42 and 41 point efforts by Mr. Hardaway. The Heat won the decisive game five 91-83 (not as close as the score indicates). (See 1997 Heat-Magic Summary.) This was the Heat’s first-ever playoff series win, and they would go on to win their second in a very ugly and fight-filled second round series against the New York Knicks before falling to the eventual champion Bulls in the East Finals.
- In 1996-97, the Utah Jazz defeated the Houston Rockets, featuring an aging big three of Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and Clyde Drexler, in the Western Conference Finals. They would meet again in the first round in 1997-98, but this time with the Rockets (-1.23 SRS, -0.8 Net, 41-41) as a negative SRS 8-seed. The Jazz (+5.73 SRS, +7.3 Net, 62-20), led by Karl Malone and John Stockton, were heavily favored, but Houston looked more like their 1997 selves when they stole game one in Utah 103-90 and then, after dropping game two on the road, pushed Utah to the brink with an 89-83 win in game three. The final two games were all Utah – which won 93-71 and then 84-70 to advance to round two en route to their second straight NBA Finals. (See 1998 Jazz-Rockets Summary.)
- Just one year after their tough first round series against the Rockets, the Jazz (+5.54 SRS, +7.4 Net, 37-13) were by all rights heavily favored to beat the upstart Sacramento Kings (-0.89 SRS, -0.4 Net, 27-23) in their 2-7 first round matchup in the lockout-shortened 1998-99 season. Again, the Jazz lost one of their first two home games (game two instead of one) and then went down 2-1 with a loss on the road in game three. Utah looked to be done in game four, trailing 89-88 before John Stockton hit a game-winner with less than one second to play. The decisive game five was no easier, with Utah trailing entering the final minute before forcing overtime and ultimately prevailing 99-92 to survive and advance. (See 1999 Jazz-Kings Summary.) The series was a changing of the guard type moment – the Kings, led by Chris Webber, would build on their core and evolve into a bona fide championship contender within two seasons while the sun was slowly setting on the Stockton-Malone Jazz.
- The 2001-02 Indiana Pacers (-0.07 SRS, +0.3 Net, 42-40) entered the playoffs as the Eastern Conference eight-seed for the second year running (a rare case of a team with a positive Net rating on the list). They would face the Jason Kidd-led New Jersey Nets (+3.67 SRS, +4.5 Net, 52-30), which were the surprise of the NBA that season and boasted the NBA’s best regular season defense (in terms of Defensive Rating). Indiana won game one in New Jersey and then, after losing games two and three (their game three loss came by one point), extended the series with a 97-74 win at home. The decisive game five was an instant classic. The Pacers’ season looked to be over as they trailed by three with the clock running down before Reggie Miller hit a 39-foot three pointer as time expired to send it to overtime (replays showed Mr. Miller’s shot was late and should not have counted, but it was more fun that it did). Mr. Miller ensured there would be a second overtime when he tied the game with a rare dunk with 3 seconds to go. New Jersey dominated the second overtime to win 120-109 and advance. The Nets went on to make the NBA Finals, so count this as a very impressive effort by the Pacers. The series’ leading scorer was the 36-year old Reggie Miller, who averaged 23.6 points per game on an impressive .636 TS%. (See 2002 Nets-Pacers Summary.)
- Also in 2001-02, we had the Toronto Raptors (-0.70 SRS, -0.5 Net, 40-42) against the Detroit Pistons (+1.69 SRS, +2.4 Net, 50-32) (note: Ben Wallace was the only player on the 2001-02 Pistons who would also be on their 2003-04 Championship team two seasons later). This is a peculiar series. The Raptors’ best player by a good margin was Vince Carter (well before he would help the Nets send them home in 2007), who averaged 24.7 PPG that season. Mr. Carter missed the end of the regular season and the playoffs with injury – but the Raptors rallied without Mr. Carter (finishing 10-4) to sneak into the playoffs. Detroit jumped out to a 2-0 lead, but Toronto pulled off a minor surprise by winning games three and four at home to force game five. The Raptors came very close to becoming the first negative SRS/losing record team to advance in the playoffs in the 16-team era, losing 85-82 on the road in the decisive game five. (See 2002 Pistons-Raptors Summary.)
- Tracy McGrady had one of the great offensive seasons in NBA history in 2002-03, dragging an under-manned Orlando Magic (-0.39 SRS, +0.1 Net, 42-40). They would face an improved Detroit Pistons team (+2.97 SRS, +4.2 Net, 50-32). The Pistons quickly found themselves in a 3-1 hole, and Mr. McGrady, averaging more than 36 points per game through the first four, infamously talked about how it felt to finally make it to the second round of the playoffs. Alas for the Magic and Mr. McGrady, the first round had switched from best-of-five in 2002 to best-of-seven in 2003. Also unfortunate for the Magic was that the Pistons had added guards Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton, both of whom would start for their 2003-04 Championship team. The Pistons defense wore Mr. McGrady down and outscored the Magic by 61 over the final three games, capped by 40 and 37 point efforts by Mr. Billups in games six and seven. (See 2003 Pistons-Magic Summary.)
- The 2008-09 Chicago Bulls’ .500 record in 2008-09 (-0.16 SRS, -0.3 Net, 41-41) was good for the East’s seventh seed. Their first round opponent was the defending champion Boston Celtics (+7.44 SRS, +8.2 Net, 62-20). However, despite the lopsided stats advantage in favor of the champions, there were reasons to believe the Bulls could be competitive beyond the fact that the Celtics had been dragged to seven games by a much worse Hawks team in the first round one year earlier. The Celtics, which had started the season 27-2, were without their best player, Kevin Garnett. Chicago won game one on the road 105-103 behind a big game by rookie guard (and future MVP Derrick Rose). The series went back and forth, with Boston holding a 3-2 lead going into game six. Chicago avoided elimination with a triple overtime 128-127 win in game six, surviving a career-playoff high 51 point effort by Celtics guard Ray Allen. The Bulls came up just short in a 109-99 loss in game seven in Boston. (See 2009 Celtics-Bulls Summary.)
- The 2013-14 Atlanta Hawks (-0.88 SRS, -0.5 Net, 38-44) entered the playoffs as heavy underdogs against the top-seeded Indiana Pacers (+3.63 SRS, +4.7 Net, 56-26), who had made a point of earning the East’s top seed that season so that they would have home court advantage in an expected playoff showdown against the Miami Heat. But first the Pacers would have to deal with the Hawks, and that proved to be unexpectedly difficult. The Hawks won game one on the road and game three at home to take a 2-1 lead, then only narrowly lost game four (91-88), and ultimately won game five on the road (107-97) to earn a chance to eliminate Indiana in Atlanta. Atlanta led game six with two minutes to play, but Indiana pulled away down the stretch to win 95-88 before taking the decisive game seven at home 92-80. (See 2014 Pacers-Hawks Summary.)
- The 2017-18 Milwaukee Bucks (-0.45 SRS, -0.3 Net, 44-38) faced the second-seeded Boston Celtics (+3.23 SRS, +3.7 Net, 55-27) in the first round of the playoffs. There were reasons to believe it may be competitive – Boston was without leading scorer Kyrie Irving and, while the Celtics were clearly the stronger team that season, Boston’s SRS and Net ratings were not overwhelming. There was also no doubt Milwaukee had the best player in the series in Second Team All NBA forward Giannis Antetokounmpo. The series went the full seven-game distance, with both teams winning their home games. (See 2018 Celtics-Bucks Summary.) It is an interesting series in hindsight in that the Bucks and Celtics would go on to win championships, the Bucks in 2020-21 and Celtics in 2023-24, with some of the same key performers (Giannis Antetokounmpo, Khris Middleton for Milwaukee and Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown for Boston) who featured in their 2017-18 matchup.
Conclusion
The NBA Playoffs almost always feature at least one team (often more) with a negative SRS, Net Rating, and point differential. I rate this as unsurprising in light of the fact that more than half of the NBA has been invited to the playoffs since the 1983-84 season. 1993-94 stands out as unique on account of the fact that all 16 playoff teams in a 27-team league were in the green on SRS, Net, and point differential. While the negative SRS playoff teams have unsurprisingly had limited playoff success, we have seen a decent number advance out of the first round – especially in the doldrums of the Eastern Conference of the 2000s. Save for the 1986-87 and 1988-89 Warriors over the unfortunate Utah Jazz and 1994-95 Lakers over a seemingly championship-caliber Seattle SuperSonics team, most of the negative SRS upsets (excluding the 2003-04 Heat and 2007-08 Cavaliers, which had the better SRS in their playoff matchups) are amenable to being explained. If you are looking for a negative SRS upset in the future, I suggest looking for signs such as the “favorite” not being particularly impressive in its own right, reasons to believe the negative SRS playoff team had under-performed in the regular season, or the classic “but the bad playoff team has the best player on the court” – a helpful metric in the playoffs where the best players tend to play heavier minutes.
