The NBA already plays 82 games to decide its playoff teams. So why are 20 out of 30 teams still getting a shot at the postseason? The current version of the play-in was adopted in 2021. The way it works is the 7 and 8-seeds play each other and winner gets the 7-seed. Then the loser of that game will play the winner of the 9 and 10-seed game to see who gets the 8-seed. The goal was to add excitement and opportunity. Instead, it added unnecessary games while weakening the value of the regular season.
7-Seeds Almost Never Make Noise in the Playoffs
The playoffs expanded in 1984 to include 16 playoff teams, the top 8 from each conference. Since then, only seven 7-seeded teams out of 84 advanced past Round 1. Of those 7, only 2 won another series in that same postseason to reach the Conference Finals. Those 2 teams were the 86-87 SuperSonics and the 22-23 Lakers. Both were swept in those Conference Finals. No 7-seed has ever made the NBA Finals.
And honestly, the 22-23 Lakers weren’t even a “true” 7-seed that season. LeBron James played in only 55 games that year, and Anthony Davis only played 56. If they don’t miss that time, they absolutely finish higher in the standings. Even with their two superstars missing time, they finished only 1 game back of the 5 and 6-seeds. It’s pretty safe to say if LeBron James and Anthony Davis just played in a handful more games they finish higher than 7. I mention these specifics to show this run shouldn’t be used as evidence that the league needed more playoff teams. It was a very good team that just dealt with some injuries that made them the 7-seed.
Some media argued the Lakers’ 2023 run somehow validated the play-in tournament. But they would have qualified as the 7-seed under the previous format anyway before the stupid play-in. Making that argument ridiculous.
8-Seeds Don’t Fare Much Better
Now let’s move on to the 8-seeds. 8-seeds have won a Round 1 series 6 out of 84 times. Four of those 6 lost the next round. But the other two 8-seeded teams actually made it all the way to the NBA Finals. Neither won, in fact both lost in five, but those two teams were the 98-99 Knicks and the 22-23 Heat. But let’s take a closer look at these two 8-seeds similar to the Lakers above.
Let’s start with the 98-99 Knicks. The 98-99 NBA season was a lockout-shortened season where only 50 games were played. So right off the bat this was not a full 82-game schedule to determine the top 8 teams from each conference. In addition to that the Knicks best player, Patrick Ewing, missed 12 of those 50 games. That’s roughly a quarter of the shortened season missed by Ewing. And the Knicks still finished just one game back of the 7 and 6-seeds. Also only 2 games back of the 5-seed. If this were a full NBA season and Ewing gets to play more, the Knicks very likely finish higher than an 8 or even 7-seed. The Knicks were a great team throughout the 90’s, with Jordan’s Bulls standing in their way a lot in the East. This ’99 Knicks team was not a typical 8-seed profile. Nor was this a typical NBA season.
Then we have Miami. The Heat finished the regular season as the 7-seed, but entered the playoffs as the 8-seed after losing their first play-in game before winning the second. This truly was an awesome run by Miami. Jimmy Butler missed 18 games during the season, and Herro missed 15, but this was a surprising playoffs regardless.
I honestly give a lot of credit to this Heat team as they shocked me with this Finals run, but some luck certainly played a factor too. The Heat played the 1-seed Bucks in the first round, where Giannis Antetokounmpo hurt his back in Game 1. He would go on to miss Games 2 and 3. Who knows what happens if he doesn’t get hurt. And he likely wasn’t 100% upon his return in Game 4, but of course wanted to be back for the playoffs as soon as possible. Antetokounmpo was even considered by many to be the best player in the league at that time. So even the best example of a modern Cinderella run required some fortunate circumstances.
It’s also crazy to think this Heat team was one game away from going home due to the the play-in. If they lose that second play-in game, this Heat team that was capable of making the Finals wouldn’t even have been seen in the playoffs. But in the old format, they would have been firmly in seventh with no risk of being bounced out.
If 7 and 8-Seeds Rarely Matter, Why Expand the Field?
I wish I could answer this question above. Well actually maybe I can. Money? But competitively, the play-in still makes little to no sense at all. How much money could this possibly be making the league? Top NBA guys are making $60 mill+ per season these days, and soon it will be $80 mill plus! Do we really need to institute dumb ideas just to make an extra few bucks for a league already flourishing?
I already broke down the Lakers, Knicks, and Heat runs above. Those are three of the most notable deep playoff runs by a 7 or 8-seed in the 42 seasons since the league expanded to 16 teams. You could add the 1987 SuperSonics as well. That’s basically four meaningful examples across more than four decades — and even those came with unusual situations tied to injuries, shortened seasons, or fortunate circumstances.
Expanding the playoffs beyond these seeds solves absolutely nothing. The league already had the correct cutoff for the postseason. The NBA didn’t expand the play-in because lower seeds were succeeding. It expanded the play-in because lower seeds weren’t relevant.
The Play-In Punishes Teams That Already Earned Their Spot
Eighty-two games during an NBA regular season determine the standings and top 8-seeds. That is plenty of time to determine the top teams in the league. Consistency should matter and be rewarded. I don’t know how a 7-seed who may finish 5 games above a 10-seed needs to go play a random sudden-death format tournament with them. I understand it’s tougher for the 9 and 10-seeds as they need to win two games, but still anything can happen here. Weaker teams get an undeserved chance, and better teams now have to play extra games and have more pressure.
When two-thirds of the league can still reach the postseason, the value of an 82-game regular season is going to naturally decrease. An 82-game season shouldn’t come down to one or two bad games.
Let’s combine the 7 and 8-seeds and look at them together:
13 of 168 won Round 1.
4 of 168 won Round 2 and made the Conference Finals.
2 of 168 made the NBA Finals
0 of 168 won the Finals.
Commissioner Adam Silver actually looked at this and said “yeah, we need more teams in the playoffs”. He supported expanding postseason access despite decades of evidence showing lower seeds rarely make deep runs as is. So in reality, expansion was completely unnecessary. The regular season is already long enough, and it is unfair to 7/8 seeds who performed consistently better during that season than the 9/10 seeds. The play-in adds drama, sure, but not legitimacy. Also it hasn’t been going on for too long, but worth mentioning no team entering the play-in as a 9 or 10-seed has ever won a playoff series after the play-in.
The NBA didn’t make the playoffs better by adding the play-in tournament. It just made the regular season matter less.
Have a take on this? Leave a comment below.