Roster continuity is typically viewed as a positive trait for NBA teams. It's not uncommon for players to express appreciation for the opportunity to spend multiple seasons getting comfortable with the same teammates rather than having to deal with significant personnel changes from year to year.
Still, it's roster turnover - rather than continuity - that draws the most headlines during the NBA offseason and generates the most hype entering the fall. That's why we spent way more time talking about teams like the Knicks and Sixers in the weeks and months leading up to opening night than we did discussing the Cavaliers, who added exactly one new player (rookie Jaylon Tyson) to the standard roster they carried into the end of last season.
There's no set formula to NBA success -- carrying over a significant number of players from last year's team doesn’t necessarily give a club a leg up entering a new season. But continuity was a signifier of success in 2023/24.
Of the seven teams who carried over at least 13 players (including two-ways) from their end-of-season rosters in 2022/23 to the start of the '23/24 season, five improved their records and a sixth equaled its win total from the previous season. The Grizzlies were the only exception, and they were hurt far more by injuries than they were by a lack of roster changes.
Good stuff.
It would be interesting to see stats measuring the historical effect of continuity on W-L. Anybody know of such a thing?
For a single season, do the stats suggest teams with a lot of new players win more over the course of a season?
Year-over-year, do stats support the value of continuity? Do teams that retain players tend to do better over time than teams that don’t? Or, is there some optimal level of turnover.
Looking at a very large sample would be fascinating. (And for all pro sports, not just NBA.)