2025-11-17 10:00

I still remember sitting in my favorite armchair last April, watching the final games of the 2017-18 NBA season unfold with that particular mix of excitement and melancholy that only the end of a basketball season can bring. The air was thick with anticipation - not just about which teams would secure those final playoff spots, but about how the entire postseason picture would crystallize after 82 grueling games. As someone who's followed the league religiously for over two decades, I've developed this ritual of creating my own detailed spreadsheet tracking every team's position, something that probably says more about my obsessive nature than I'd care to admit. The Final NBA Standings 2017-18 Season represented more than just numbers on a page - they told the story of breakout performances, heartbreaking collapses, and everything in between.

Looking back at that Houston Rockets team still gives me goosebumps. They finished with a league-best 65-17 record, which was genuinely remarkable considering they'd added Chris Paul to a system that was already perfectly tailored to James Harden's unique talents. What many casual observers might not remember is how they started the season 25-4, immediately establishing themselves as legitimate threats to Golden State's dominance. Meanwhile, out East, the Toronto Raptors quietly assembled a 59-23 campaign that felt different from their previous successful seasons - there was a certain resilience to them that hadn't been there before. The most fascinating story for me, though, was the Philadelphia 76ers. They went 52-30 and closed the season on a 16-game winning streak, announcing to the league that "The Process" was finally yielding results. On the flip side, seeing teams like the Memphis Grizzlies bottom out at 22-60 after years of being playoff fixtures felt like watching a dynasty crumble in real time.

The most compelling aspect of analyzing that season's standings was understanding why certain teams exceeded expectations while others dramatically underperformed. Take the Cleveland Cavaliers, for instance - they finished 50-32, which sounds respectable until you consider they'd been to three straight Finals and had LeBron James. Their defensive rating of 109.5 points allowed per 100 possessions ranked 29th in the league, which was frankly atrocious for a supposed contender. Meanwhile, the Utah Jazz started 19-28 before going 29-6 the rest of the way to finish 48-34, largely because rookie Donovan Mitchell developed into a superstar before our eyes. The Oklahoma City Thunder assembled their "Big Three" of Westbrook, George, and Anthony but only managed 48 wins, which felt disappointing given the hype. For one, she takes it straight to the chin and goes on a deep dive into the nitty-gritty of such setbacks - that's exactly what I found myself doing with these underperforming teams, trying to understand the chemistry issues and tactical flaws that prevented them from reaching their potential.

What separated the truly great teams from the merely good ones that season came down to several key factors that I've noticed throughout my years of analyzing basketball. The Rockets mastered the math problem - they took 42.3 three-pointers per game while limiting opponents to just 28.7 attempts from deep, creating a massive differential that overwhelmed teams. The Warriors, despite "only" winning 58 games, maintained the league's best net rating at +9.1 because they could flip a switch when necessary. The Raptors completely reinvented their style, moving from isolation-heavy offense to a system that generated 24.5 assists per game compared to 18.5 the previous season. Meanwhile, teams like the San Antonio Spurs (47-35) showed the limitations of relying too heavily on one superstar, as they struggled whenever Kawhi Leonard was unavailable. The solution for most struggling franchises wasn't just acquiring talent - it was building coherent systems where the whole became greater than the sum of its parts.

Reflecting on that season's standings provides valuable lessons that I believe still apply today. The teams that succeeded weren't necessarily the most talented on paper, but rather those who adapted to the evolving nature of the game. The league was accelerating toward positionless basketball and three-point dominance, and organizations that recognized this trend early reaped the benefits. I've always believed that regular season success, while sometimes dismissed as meaningless, establishes crucial habits that carry into the playoffs. The 2017-18 Boston Celtics went 55-27 despite losing Gordon Hayward just five minutes into the season, demonstrating how culture and coaching can overcome significant obstacles. Meanwhile, the Portland Trail Blazers securing the third seed at 49-33 showed how continuity and backcourt chemistry could defy conventional wisdom about roster construction. These insights have shaped how I evaluate teams today - I pay less attention to big names and more to how pieces fit together systematically. The final standings from that season continue to inform my understanding of what truly drives success in the modern NBA, serving as a fascinating case study in team building and tactical evolution that I frequently reference when analyzing current teams and their trajectories.

« News Releases