As I sit here reflecting on the 2017-18 NBA season, I can't help but marvel at how dramatically the landscape shifted from preseason predictions to the final buzzer. This was the season where we truly saw teams take it straight to the chin and go on a deep dive into the nitty-gritty of setbacks, only to emerge stronger or completely crumble under pressure. I remember thinking halfway through that we were witnessing something special – a genuine redistribution of power across both conferences that would reshape the league for years to come.
The Western Conference race was particularly brutal, with Houston Rockets defying all expectations by clinching the top seed with a staggering 65-17 record. Having covered the NBA for over a decade, I've rarely seen such a perfectly executed regular season campaign. Chris Paul's arrival created a backcourt synergy that was simply mesmerizing to watch, though I'll admit I was among those skeptical about how his partnership with James Harden would work. They proved us all wrong, running Mike D'Antoni's system to near-perfection while Golden State, the presumed favorites, seemed to coast through portions of the season, finishing second at 58-24. What fascinated me most was how Portland quietly secured the third seed at 49-33 – Terry Stotts did phenomenal work with that roster, though they never quite got the recognition they deserved.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Conference presented a fascinating study in organizational stability versus emerging forces. Toronto's 59-23 record wasn't just impressive – it represented a fundamental shift in their approach. Watching them play, you could see they'd finally moved beyond their isolation-heavy offense, and as someone who's always valued ball movement, I found their transformation particularly satisfying. Boston's 55-27 achievement deserves special mention considering they lost Gordon Hayward just five minutes into the season. Brad Stevens worked absolute magic with that roster, though I maintain they would have challenged Cleveland more seriously with a healthy Hayward. Speaking of Cleveland, their 50-32 record and fourth seed placement revealed significant cracks in their armor – the midseason roster overhaul was desperate, and frankly, never really gelled the way they'd hoped.
The middle of the pack told equally compelling stories. Utah's surge after a dismal 19-28 start was one of my favorite narratives – Quin Snyder deserves Coach of the Year consideration every season, in my opinion. Donovan Mitchell's rookie campaign was nothing short of historic, though I'd argue Ben Simmons had the more complete season overall. Philadelphia's 52-30 record and 16-game winning streak to close the season had us all believing in "The Process" finally paying dividends. What amazed me was how Oklahoma City, despite having three bonafide stars, never quite found their rhythm, finishing 48-34. As someone who's watched countless superteams form, I can tell you chemistry matters far more than talent on paper.
At the bottom, the tanking phenomenon reached new heights of strategic transparency. Phoenix's 21-61 record was almost impressive in its consistency, while Memphis' 22-60 collapse demonstrated how quickly a franchise can unravel. Having visited both cities during the season, the atmosphere in those arenas was palpably different – fans knew what was happening, and frankly, I don't blame organizations for playing the long game, even if it makes for some unwatchable basketball in the short term.
The final rankings told a story of preparation meeting opportunity. Houston's offensive revolution, Toronto's cultural reset, Utah's midcourse correction – these weren't accidents but the results of organizations willing to confront their shortcomings head-on. What stays with me most is how the standings reflected coaching philosophies more than individual talents. Teams that embraced modern principles – spacing, three-point shooting, switch-heavy defenses – generally outperformed their talent level, while those clinging to outdated models struggled regardless of roster construction.
Looking back, the 2017-18 standings weren't just numbers on a page – they were a testament to resilience, adaptation, and sometimes, painful but necessary regression. The teams that succeeded were those willing to take their lumps early and learn from them, while those that failed often seemed trapped by their own expectations or outdated approaches. As we move further from that season, I'm increasingly convinced it represented a turning point in how franchises approach both roster construction and in-season development – lessons that continue to resonate across the league today.
