The Myth of the NBA Championship Hangover: How Champions Are Defying Convention

A deep dive into nearly 50 years of data reveals that champions are finding their identity faster than ever - and what that means for the modern NBA.

Every NBA season starts the same way. The defending champions drop a few early games, maybe look a bit sluggish, and somewhere, someone inevitably mutters those familiar words: "championship hangover."

It's one of basketball's most enduring theories - the idea that teams who reach the NBA Finals, especially those who win it all, start the following season in a fog. The narrative is compelling. The short offseason, the endless victory celebrations, the target on your back, the complacency that comes with reaching the mountaintop. It all makes intuitive sense.

But what if we could actually measure this? What if we could pinpoint exactly when championship teams find their identity compared to everyone else?

Last week's dive into the True Team metric - a way to identify when teams start consistently playing at their eventual season-ending level - got me thinking about something deeper. If we can track when teams typically become themselves, what might that tell us about teams coming off a Finals appearance?

So, I went back to the data. Every NBA champion and Finals runner-up since the NBA-ABA merger in 1976. Over 90 Finals teams, each telling their own story about what happens after basketball's biggest stage.

What I discovered challenges the conventional wisdom. It turns out that championship teams aren’t as plagued by hangovers as we think. In fact, they’re finding their rhythm faster than ever before.

But here's the twist: while champions are quickly establishing their identity, Finals losers are taking a different path. They're slower to find their footing, often remaining closer to the league average. This growing gap between winners and losers suggests that the ability to quickly establish an identity might be an indicator of championship success.

The numbers reveal a surprising truth about championship DNA, the modern NBA's evolution, and why some of our most basic assumptions about basketball might need updating. Champions aren't just playing better - they're becoming themselves faster than everyone else. And in a league increasingly driven by analytics and efficiency, that might be the most important edge of all.

Part I: The Numbers Behind the Narrative

Before we dive into what happens after a Finals appearance, let me quickly explain what we're measuring here.

The True Team metric, introduced last week, identifies the first point in a season where a team starts consistently playing at their eventual season-ending level. Specifically, when do they first match or exceed their final winning percentage in three out of four consecutive games, after having played at least eight games?

Take the 2021-22 Cavaliers, who would finish the season with a .537 winning percentage (44-38). Through 7 games, they sat at 3-4 (.428) - well below what would become their season-ending mark. Over their next four games, they went 4-0, resulting in a winning percentage (.634) that exceeded their final level. That stretch marks their True Team point - 11 games into what would become a surprising 44-win season. Even as their record eventually regressed toward .537, those early games had shown us who they really were: a young team ready to make a leap.

It's not a perfect measure, but it gives us a consistent way to identify when teams become themselves.

Since the NBA-ABA merger in 1976 (what we'll call the modern era), teams typically need about 22.4 games to hit their True Team mark in a season. But Finals teams? They're different.

Teams that win championships need just 18.14 games on average to establish their identity during their title season, about four games earlier than the league average. Teams that lose in the Finals are just barely quicker than average at 21.87 games.

Remember that 'championship hangover' we all talk about? The numbers tell a different story. Throughout the modern era, championship teams actually play more consistently the following season, needing just 17.81 games to hit their True Team mark - slightly better than their championship season. Finals losers show an even more noticeable uptick in consistency, needing 16.82 games the following year, beating their Finals season by about 5 games on average.

The last decade (since 2014-15, what we'll call the analytics era) paints an even more striking picture. Recent champions need just 11.6 games to establish their identity during their title run, and Finals losers need 21.13 games. Teams that eventually lose the Finals are significantly more likely to have a True Team number that’s close to league average.

What's interesting is how this gap has widened in recent years. In the analytics era, teams that make the Finals establish themselves around the 16-game mark (average of champions and runners-up combined), which is six games sooner than league average. That's a bigger gap than we saw in earlier decades, suggesting that elite teams are separating themselves from the pack more quickly than ever before.

This contrast is even more stark when we compare champions to the teams they beat in the Finals. In the modern era, championship teams needed about 4 fewer games than runners-up to establish their identity during their Finals season. But in the analytics era, that gap has widened to nearly 10 games. This growing divide suggests that the difference between winning and losing might come down to how quickly a team can figure out who they are.

These aren't just numbers. They're telling us something fundamental about how NBA teams develop - and how that development has changed over time. But to understand why, we need to look more closely at what happens to teams before, during, and after their championship runs...

Part II: The Evolution of Champions

One of the most revealing ways to understand championship teams may be to look at their development over a three-year window: the season before their title, the championship season itself, and the season after. This progression tells us something interesting about how great teams evolve.

Throughout the modern era, the pattern has been clear, if counterintuitive. Championship teams typically need 20.55 games to find themselves the season before their title run. This drops to 18.14 games during their championship season. Then, rather than showing signs of a hangover, they actually get faster the following year, needing just 17.81 games to establish their identity.

Think about what this means. Teams that win championships aren't just good - they're getting better at being themselves. Each season, they need less time to find their rhythm, suggesting that championship DNA isn't just about talent - it's about a team's growing ability to establish its identity quickly and consistently.

But something changed.

Looking at champions in the analytics era tells a very different story. Recent title teams need just 12 games to find themselves the season before their championship, 11.6 games during their title run, and then - here's where it gets interesting - 13.25 games the season after.

Yes, you read that right. We're seeing evidence of a slight championship hangover effect. It's not massive - we're talking about needing less than two additional games to find their footing - but it's a break from nearly four decades of pattern.

What changed?

I think several factors are at play:

1. The analytics revolution has made teams more self-aware earlier in the season. They know their strengths and weaknesses before they even step on the court.

2. Load management has changed how championship-caliber teams approach the regular season. They're less likely to push hard early, knowing they need to preserve energy for the playoffs.

3. Player movement has increased dramatically. Championship teams are more likely to see significant roster turnover, even after winning it all.

4. The rise of player empowerment has changed how teams are built and maintained. Superstar cores are more fluid than ever before.

Look at the numbers another way: despite this modern "hangover" effect, today's champions are still establishing their identity nearly 10 games faster than the league average. Even at their "slowest" (that 13.25 game mark the year after winning), they're still far ahead of the typical NBA team (22 games).

This tells us something crucial about modern NBA champions - they might take slightly longer to find themselves after winning it all, but they're still operating at a different speed than the rest of the league. The bar for excellence hasn't lowered; it's just changed shape.

The compelling thing is how this contrasts with what's happening to Finals losers over the same period. Let’s dig a little deeper on that side of things.

Part III: Runners-Up: A Different Story

Throughout the modern era, teams that lose in the Finals have needed 15.90 games on average to find their identity in the season before their Finals appearance, 21.87 games during their Finals season, and then 16.82 games the following year. This pattern is strikingly different from what we see in championship teams.

The analytics era (since 2014-15) shows an even more pronounced contrast. Recent Finals runners-up needed 19.80 games to establish themselves the season before their Finals loss, 21.13 games during their Finals season, and 18.38 games the following year. Compared to the 12, 11.6, and 13.25 games needed by champions before, during, and after their title runs, it's clear that Finals losers are operating on a different timeline - one much closer to league average.

Even though the losing team has been taking about a game and a half less to emerge the following year we do see an interesting trend. The data shows these teams getting off to a somewhat faster start than they did the previous year, and somewhat faster than what we typically would expect from a team that didn’t appear in the Finals.

Here are a few reasons why I think this makes sense:

1. Motivation stays high. While champions might struggle with complacency, Finals losers often return with something to prove. Look at the 2016-17 Warriors after their collapse to Cleveland - they needed just 13 games to establish their identity, suggesting their historic Finals defeat sharpened rather than dulled their focus. Their response to failure was immediate and emphatic.

2. Roster continuity tends to be higher. It isn’t uncommon for Championship teams to see role players depart for bigger contracts elsewhere, while Finals losers are more likely to run it back. The 2021-22 Suns, coming off their Finals loss to Milwaukee, kept their core intact and needed just 16 games to establish their identity. Their chemistry from the previous season's run was evident early in the season.

3. The pressure is different. Champions face the burden of defending their title, while runners-up can play with relative freedom. This might explain why the 2022-23 Celtics needed just 12 games to establish themselves after their Finals loss to the Warriors.

But there are outliers. The 1997-98 Jazz needed 76 games to find themselves after losing to the Bulls in the '97 Finals - one of the longest such delays for any Finals team in my dataset. This might be explained by the team wrestling with whether that was their last real shot at a title.

What makes these findings interesting to me is how they've evolved in the modern NBA. While championship teams have seen their patterns shift significantly in the analytics era, runners-up have maintained some semblance of average even as the league has transformed around them.

To better understand these changes, let's take a closer look at how the modern game itself has been transformed.

Part IV: The Modern Transformation

Something profound changed in the NBA around 2014-15. While I initially picked this season as a convenient dividing line for "modern" basketball, the data suggests it really was close to an inflection point in how championship-caliber teams develop.

During the modern era (since 1976), champions needed about 4 fewer games than runners-up to establish their identity during their Finals season. But in the analytics era, that gap has widened dramatically. Champions are now reaching their True Team mark nearly 10 games faster than the teams they beat in the Finals.

This widening gap suggests a fundamental shift in how elite teams operate. Champions aren't just good - they're figuring out who they are at record speed. Meanwhile, runners-up are taking longer to find themselves, often playing close to league-average basketball for much of the season. This isn't just a difference in talent - it's a difference in how quickly teams can establish a winning identity.

Several factors might explain this shift. Analytics have transformed how teams understand themselves, allowing the best teams to act on data faster than ever. Load management has created two distinct regular seasons, yet the best teams are establishing their identity faster despite being more cautious with minutes. Recent superteams have accelerated expectations - when you assemble multiple stars, there's immediate pressure to figure things out.

The fact is that champions are somehow getting to their True Team mark faster even as the league average has remained steady at around 22 games. This transformation reflects broader changes in how basketball operates at the highest level. The best teams aren't just playing differently - they're developing differently.

But what does this mean for how we watch and evaluate NBA basketball?

Part V: What This Tells Us About Modern Basketball

After diving into nearly half a century of data, we're left with some fascinating conclusions about how NBA teams - particularly championship-caliber ones - develop their identity. Some of these challenge our most basic assumptions about basketball.

The data suggests that a “championship hangover” is more myth than reality. While modern champions do take slightly longer to find their footing after winning a title, the effect is minor - and they're still operating at a much higher level than the rest of the league. In fact, the bigger story might be how quickly champions are establishing their identity in the first place.

Also interesting is how this reflects the changing nature of NBA excellence. In the modern era, champions needed 20.55 games to find themselves in the season before their title run. Now, that number is down to just below 12 games for recent champions, meaning elite teams are showing us who they are almost immediately. This has profound implications for how we should watch early-season basketball. The 20-game mark might just be a tad too long to wait for judgment - if a team hasn't established its identity by game 15, history suggests they're unlikely to be a serious championship contender.

In essence, the data is telling us that the old adage 'it's not how you start, it's how you finish' might need an update. In the modern NBA, how you start is becoming increasingly predictive of how you'll finish. The ability to quickly establish an identity isn't just a nice-to-have - it might be an important factor separating the great teams from the merely good ones.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Championship teams are establishing their identity faster than ever, needing just 11.6 games in the analytics era compared to 18.14 games in the modern era.

• The gap between champions and runners-up is widening, with recent champions finding themselves nearly 10 games faster than the teams they beat in the Finals.

• The "championship hangover" effect is minor for modern teams, with champions still establishing their identity much faster than the league average even after winning a title.

---

Stay tuned for the next dive into another statistical oddity from sports history. Have a suggestion for a statistical achievement that deserves analysis? Share it in the comments below, or if you're a subscriber, email boxscorebrain@substack.com.