This was the most lopsided season since 1997-98

This season, 8 teams either won 60 games (DET, OKC, SAS) or lost 60 games (BKN, IND, SAC, UTA, WAS). I saw this in the standings and was curious as to how this metric has varied over the years, hence this chart.

https://preview.redd.it/cicku3h5j6vg1.png?width=3354&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d3be3885c39062b34614e7c80667c78f9761099

Some takeaways:

In 1997-98, 10 teams either won or lost 60 games. The league only had 29 teams then, too!
There are multiple seasons (2000-01, 2022-23) in which multiple teams lost 60 games but none won 60 games. The opposite has never happened – in every full season in the last 20 years, there has always been at least one team that loses 60 games. (Guess it’s easier to lose than win…)
Both Detroit and San Antonio lost 60 games just 2 years ago and now won 60 games!

ajmcgill | Trail Blazers

59 | 6 hours ago

Really cool visual representation of the data - my one major note is that using the OKC logo for Sonics seasons is nasty work

surajrampure

14 | 6 hours ago

Fixed, both for the Supersonics and the Vancouver Grizzlies!

Peteyy34 | NBA

6 | 5 hours ago

If you need every era-accurate primary logo for every NBA team, I can hook you up. Having accurate logos for teams from the 90s helps improve charts a ton

wwenk821 | Bulls

14 | 6 hours ago

The result of how bad tanking has gotten. There are a finite number of wins in a season. If teams are losing at a higher rate, it increases other teams wins as a result.

_Meece_ | Lakers

4 | 4 hours ago

The result of how bad tanking has gotten

I don’t know what this data is telling you, but it isn’t this. The amount of bad teams does not increase the amount of top teams.

wwenk821 | Bulls

5 | 2 hours ago

I’m not saying it increases the amount of top teams. I never said that in my comment at all.

It does increase the amount of wins for non-tanking teams.

Zigxy | Pacers Bandwagon

1 | 2 hours ago

The data shows only a modest correlation.

There are more sophisticated ways to analyze it but one of the simplest ways to look at it is number of Terrible 60 Loss teams versus how many Excellent 60 Win teams there are on average:

6 - 4.00

5 - 2.33

4 - 1.60

3 - 1.57

2 - 1.29

1 - 2.00

livefreeordont | 76ers

0 | 4 hours ago

Yes it does. It means there are more wins shared among the non bad teams, increasing the likelihood that some of them get to 60

_Meece_ | Lakers

0 | 3 hours ago

Dude, read the data in the post. There’s no way you can conclude based on this information that more 60 loss teams = more 60 win teams.

You only play a team a max on 4 times until these NBA cup seasons.

Look at the 08 season 4 60 loss teams, 1 60 win team.

Or the 05 season, 3 60 win teams, 1 60 loss team.

This data is not telling you anything like that. Truthfully I don’t think there’s much to determine based on this data when it comes to tanking, 60 wins/losses is an arbitrary marker.

And you don’t get better lottery odds by increasing your losses. You get it by having the worst record relative to the rest of the league right, so you can have a really bad tanking year… without any or many 60 loss teams.

livefreeordont | 76ers

1 | 3 hours ago

If you took a plot of 60 loss teams on the x axis and 60 win teams on the y axis there would definitely be some positive correlation.

Of the 7 seasons with 3+ 60 win teams

-0 seasons with zero 60 loss teams

-1 season with one 60 loss team

-0 seasons with two 60 loss teams

-2 season with three 60 loss teams

-1 season with four 60 loss teams

-2 seasons with five 60 loss teams

-1 season with six 60 loss teams

_Meece_ | Lakers

-2 | 3 hours ago

Read the data in the post, it’ll tell the same thing an plot chart would.

There’s no correlation between 60 win teams and 60 loss teams.

In the very post you’re commenting on, it’s all over the place. There’s nothing consistent going on. Some seasons have a bunch of 60 win teams and few 60 loss teams, sometimes the opposite. Sometimes a bunch of both.

Almost as if, 60 is an arbritary marker and not an indicator of anything substantial.

It’s definitely interesting. But you could also say this is occuring because all the talent is being held by a few teams, rather than spread out amongst the league.

livefreeordont | 76ers

2 | 3 hours ago

I see correlation in the data. I just added it to my previous post.

Just because 60 is an arbitrary threshold doesn’t negate the correlation.

If you have more tanking teams with a ton of losses since they’re losing on purpose, then you have more wins to share amongst the remaining teams. You cannot refute this point

_Meece_ | Lakers

0 | 3 hours ago

There’s literally no correlation, the data you posted shows no correlation. What are you reading, you’re literally showcasing how it’s all over the place and again, why are you picking an arbitrary number of 3?

What is with these weird markers.

then you have more wins to share amongst the remaining teams. You cannot refute this point

This would not increase the 60 win teams, that’s the point you’re trying to make.

This just makes it so there’s more over .500 teams. Like we see this yeah in the east, with it having 10 over .500 teams.

swizznastic

10 | 6 hours ago

This is technically the most “efficient” game plan for tanking teams. If you are among the 10 teams outside the playoffs/play-in, you are incentivized to lose as many games as you can bear.

Thats why i take these “historic” winning streaks and records with a grain of salt. Even the turnarounds, like detroit and san antonio. These teams were not as bad as their records, and possibly, are not as good as their records are now. Still great teams, but a 60 win team back in the day was more of a monster.

Sartheking | Warriors

5 | 4 hours ago

Detroit definitely wax that bad because of their coaching.

n00bn00b

3 | 4 hours ago

Another reminder that Monty is a basketball terrorist

DetroitSportsPhan | Pistons

2 | 3 hours ago

I appreciate you not letting the world forget that

Ok-Wash-9386

3 | 6 hours ago

With expansion looming, the time to fix tanking is now. Glad they’re bringing in new rules.

whatifiwerejesus

3 | 3 hours ago

Man, the Bulls really fell off after 98. Makes you wonder what happened there.

Uncle_Freddy | SAS

2 | 6 hours ago

Interesting that there were more 60 loss teams for the “weak” 2024 draft than there were for the Wemby draft

_Meece_ | Lakers

1 | 4 hours ago

Almost as if you cannot draw any conclusion from tanking, from an arbitrary mark of 60 losses.

Antisystemization | Cavaliers

2 | 5 hours ago

I feel like teams shoot for 50 wins but care less about 60 wins. Like 57 is fine and they take their foot off the gas - but if they’re at 47 they want to get to 50.

I might be wrong but as a long time fan, that’s the vibe I get.

Sammyd1108 | Hornets

2 | an hour ago

I don’t know about the entire NBA, but this season definitely wasn’t lopsided in the East. 2/3rds of the teams finished above .500.

fisheggsoup | Jazz

1 | 6 hours ago

Since COVID alone, the Rockets lost 60 games in two straight seasons, the Spurs did as well, so did the Pistons, so did the Hornets, and the Wizards have now done it for three straight seasons, yet we’re the most egregious tankers?

Sidenote: It’s nostalgic to see just how terrible the Grizzlies were while in Vancouver. 🍁

_Meece_ | Lakers

2 | 3 hours ago

NBA does not care about bad teams, they want teams to stop fucking with their lineups and rosters so much to increase their losses.

Bad teams will always exist. That’s not the sore point here.

the Spurs did as well

They literally implemented a bunch of changes because of the Spurs and OKC tanking, so that falls a bit flat.

CMYGQZ | Grizzlies

0 | 5 hours ago

feel like the shortened season can just use win percentage equivalent to ⁶⁰⁄₈₂.

_Meece_ | Lakers

0 | 4 hours ago

Why 60 and not 55 or 57 or 52