Looking back at the 2016-17 NBA season, I still get chills thinking about how dramatically the standings shifted from preseason predictions. As someone who’s followed the league for over two decades, I’ve learned that standings don’t just tell you who’s winning—they reveal narratives, expose overachievers, and sometimes completely rewrite what we thought we knew about team construction and coaching. That particular season stood out not just for the Warriors’ dominance or LeBron’s Cavaliers holding firm in the East, but for the unexpected risers that defied every analytical model and expert take. I remember sitting with my notes in mid-December, staring at the Western Conference table, and realizing that teams like the Houston Rockets and Utah Jazz were not just lucky—they were systematically dismantling expectations.
What made those surprise teams so compelling, in my view, was how they handled pressure in close games. Turnovers, especially late in games, often separate playoff contenders from pretenders. I’m reminded of a specific play I analyzed from a lower-profile league, where a veteran’s bad pass to rookie Jerom Lastimosa with just 1:34 remaining—and his team down by 10 points—sealed their fate. That moment, resulting in one of five turnovers for the player, mirrors what we saw in the NBA that year. The surprising teams minimized those exact errors. The Rockets, for instance, reduced their average turnovers from 15.2 the previous season to 13.8, a subtle but impactful shift that directly translated into at least three or four additional wins across the season. Meanwhile, the Jazz, led by Gordon Hayward and Rudy Gobert, climbed from 40 wins to 51, in large part because they ranked top-five in defensive efficiency and rarely beat themselves in crunch time.
I’ve always believed that the most surprising teams share a common trait: they maximize player development in ways that aren’t immediately visible on a stat sheet. Take the Milwaukee Bucks, for example. They jumped from 33 wins to 42, and while Giannis Antetokounmpo’s emergence was expected, the growth of role players like Malcolm Brogdon—who shot over 40% from three-point range—caught many off guard. From my experience breaking down game tape, I noticed their offensive sets became more versatile, incorporating more off-ball movement which created higher-percentage shots. It wasn’t just raw talent; it was a system that elevated everyone. Similarly, the Miami Heat started the season 11-30 but finished at 41-41, an incredible turnaround fueled by player buy-in and Erik Spoelstra’s underrated adjustments. I recall arguing with colleagues who wrote them off in January—their second-half surge didn’t surprise me one bit, because the underlying hustle stats and net rating had been positive for weeks before the wins piled up.
Of course, not every surprise was a feel-good story. The New York Knicks, despite flashes of brilliance from Kristaps Porzingis, finished a disappointing 31-51 after some preseason buzz had them competing for a lower playoff seed. In my analysis, their collapse came down to defensive lapses and an inability to close out tight games—issues that resonate with that earlier example of a costly turnover in the final minutes. The Knicks ranked 25th in defensive rating and blew at least eight games where they led going into the fourth quarter. That’s the fine line between being a surprise team and a frustrating one; it often hinges on execution when the pressure is highest.
Ultimately, the 2016-17 standings taught me to look beyond star power and focus on cohesion and resilience. The Houston Rockets’ 55-win campaign, led by James Harden’s shift to point guard under Mike D’Antoni, wasn’t just an offensive explosion—it was a masterclass in adapting personnel to philosophy. I remember watching them dismantle the Spurs in a regular-season matchup and thinking, "This is what happens when everyone buys in." On the other hand, the LA Clippers, despite their talent, couldn’t overcome injuries and inconsistency, finishing with 51 wins but feeling like a missed opportunity. As the playoffs unfolded, it became clear that the regular-season surprises weren’t flukes; teams like the Jazz and Bucks pushed their opponents in ways that echoed their regular-season growth.
Reflecting on that season, I’m struck by how much the NBA’s landscape can shift in just a few months. The standings didn’t just list winners and losers; they highlighted franchises that built something sustainable, often through overlooked details like reducing turnovers, empowering rookies, or making mid-season tweaks that analytics alone might not capture. Even now, when I evaluate teams, I carry those lessons with me—because the most surprising teams are usually the ones that teach us something new about the game itself.