The Myth of Perpetual Mediocrity.

[Moranis]

no one claims being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity.  You are disproving an argument that you don't understand.  Therein lies the problem with this entire thread.

To be fair to C18, I think there are posters who put it in black and white terms like that, just as there are posters who claim that losing inevitably begets losing.


The more nuanced argument, in my view, is that although there are multiple paths to building an elite roster, the path (or paths) of least resistance invariably require a top 10 lottery pick -- ideally top 5.

If what we care most about is seeing this team return to the top ASAP, then taking the path of least resistance should be without controversy.  However, there are other considerations (integrity, loyalty to fans and to long-tenured players, building a "winning culture," etc).


The key thing to keep in mind, as always, is that there are no guarantees in the NBA, especially when it comes to rebuilding.  The vast majority of teams that rebuild fail to put together a championship roster.  That's true irrespective of which rebuilding strategy each team employs.

Pretty much every franchise that wins a title has a mediocre season or two.  Mediocrity isn't the problem, perpetual mediocrity is the problem.  That is the problem with the analysis, it takes the position that being mediocre is bad, when it isn't, being mediocre on the downside of a title run is bad and being mediocre for multiple seasons is bad.  A season or two, especially on the way up is to be expected. 

[wdleehi]

no one claims being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity.  You are disproving an argument that you don't understand.  Therein lies the problem with this entire thread.

To be fair to C18, I think there are posters who put it in black and white terms like that, just as there are posters who claim that losing inevitably begets losing.


The more nuanced argument, in my view, is that although there are multiple paths to building an elite roster, the path (or paths) of least resistance invariably require a top 10 lottery pick -- ideally top 5.

If what we care most about is seeing this team return to the top ASAP, then taking the path of least resistance should be without controversy.  However, there are other considerations (integrity, loyalty to fans and to long-tenured players, building a "winning culture," etc).


The key thing to keep in mind, as always, is that there are no guarantees in the NBA, especially when it comes to rebuilding.  The vast majority of teams that rebuild fail to put together a championship roster.  That's true irrespective of which rebuilding strategy each team employs.

Pretty much every franchise that wins a title has a mediocre season or two.  Mediocrity isn't the problem, perpetual mediocrity is the problem.  That is the problem with the analysis, it takes the position that being mediocre is bad, when it isn't, being mediocre on the downside of a title run is bad and being mediocre for multiple seasons is bad.  A season or two, especially on the way up is to be expected.

Being mediocre when your young players develop into stars is fine.

Being mediocre because you constantly add nice players to float your team into the playoff while never developing a true star is bad. 



Celtics do not have the stars yet.  That is where they need the draft picks to create a star on this team.  (through drafting or trading)

[Celtics18]

We do have one star (Rondo), and we have 9 first round picks coming up in the next five years.  Those aren't our only assets moving forward, but they are the best ones, and the main reason that I don't see tanking as a necessity for rebuilding this team. 

[Moranis]

no one claims being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity.  You are disproving an argument that you don't understand.  Therein lies the problem with this entire thread.

To be fair to C18, I think there are posters who put it in black and white terms like that, just as there are posters who claim that losing inevitably begets losing.


The more nuanced argument, in my view, is that although there are multiple paths to building an elite roster, the path (or paths) of least resistance invariably require a top 10 lottery pick -- ideally top 5.

If what we care most about is seeing this team return to the top ASAP, then taking the path of least resistance should be without controversy.  However, there are other considerations (integrity, loyalty to fans and to long-tenured players, building a "winning culture," etc).


The key thing to keep in mind, as always, is that there are no guarantees in the NBA, especially when it comes to rebuilding.  The vast majority of teams that rebuild fail to put together a championship roster.  That's true irrespective of which rebuilding strategy each team employs.

Pretty much every franchise that wins a title has a mediocre season or two.  Mediocrity isn't the problem, perpetual mediocrity is the problem.  That is the problem with the analysis, it takes the position that being mediocre is bad, when it isn't, being mediocre on the downside of a title run is bad and being mediocre for multiple seasons is bad.  A season or two, especially on the way up is to be expected.

Being mediocre when your young players develop into stars is fine.

Being mediocre because you constantly add nice players to float your team into the playoff while never developing a true star is bad. 



Celtics do not have the stars yet.  That is where they need the draft picks to create a star on this team.  (through drafting or trading)

exactly.  The question to ask is a simple one.

Can you see the team (and this goes for any team/any sport) as currently constructed legitimately competing for a championship with the current roster with only minor moves?  If the answer is yes, then you go for it, if the answer is no, then you make the moves you need to get the pieces in place (that doesn't have to mean selling off players, but could mean selling off draft picks and young assets to get stars, etc.)

For me the current group of Celtics will never legitimately compete for a title (and I'm including Rondo) without at least one major addition.  It is possible that major addition comes this year through the draft or maybe Boston trades some current assets to get another star or two to get there.  It doesn't really matter to me, I just want to see some steps taken in one direction or the other because I do believe when Rondo comes back there is a decent chance Boston wins enough games to make the playoffs and even if it doesn't I believe it will win enough games to cost itself at least a couple of draft spots, and I just don't see the point in that.

EDIT: Here is a win now trade for Boston that at least makes some sense for all 4 teams (obviously some things can be tweaked here and there).

Boston - Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Omer Asik
New Orleans - Gerald Wallace, Jordan Crawford, 2016 Boston 1st
Houston - Bass, Bogans, 2015 Clippers 1st, 2015 Boston 2nd
Minnesota - Humphries, Sullinger, 2014 Boston 1st, 2014 Brooklyn 1st

Boston is a little light at backup SF, but would have a strong starting 5 that could realistically compete (if healthy) with the Pacers, Heat, Thunder, Spurs, etc.

[Eja117]

But it's better than being perpetually bad. I would take the Hawks for the last ten years over Sacramento any day. At least the Hawks had to be respected.

[guava_wrench]

The OP misses the target. People aren't arguing in terms of record. People are arguing about talent. A team full of decent starters remains mediocre. In order to become a threat, you need to get top level talent on to the team. The Heat did this through free agency. OKC did it by being bad.

Look at the Bulls. With a healthy Rose, they are in the running for best team in the league. WIthout Rose, despite having 2 all star caliber players in Noah and Deng (when he was there), and a third who was once at that level in Boozer, they are just first round fodder.

It is irrelevant whether the team won 35-45 games.

[guava_wrench]

But it's better than being perpetually bad. I would take the Hawks for the last ten years over Sacramento any day. At least the Hawks had to be respected.

True.

Wasn't Horford a #3 pick?

[Celtics18]

The OP misses the target. People aren't arguing in terms of record. People are arguing about talent. A team full of decent starters remains mediocre. In order to become a threat, you need to get top level talent on to the team. The Heat did this through free agency. OKC did it by being bad.

Look at the Bulls. With a healthy Rose, they are in the running for best team in the league. WIthout Rose, despite having 2 all star caliber players in Noah and Deng (when he was there), and a third who was once at that level in Boozer, they are just first round fodder.

It is irrelevant whether the team won 35-45 games.

I agree that we need to add top level talent to be a contender again.  My original post doesn't argue that we don't.  What I would argue, though, is that a top five pick in the 2014 draft doesn't represent the only chance at getting that talent. 

[Moranis]

But it's better than being perpetually bad. I would take the Hawks for the last ten years over Sacramento any day. At least the Hawks had to be respected.

True, but part of the Kings problem was they took too long to crater.  I mean their wins went like this: 61, 59, 55, 50, 44, 33, 38 before they finally cratered at 17 (and they still only managed the 4th pick with those 17 wins) and they have been in the mid-20's in the wins the last 4 years (and are on pace again this year), so they only hit rock bottom once and have never picked higher than 4 (in that 10 year span).  They have had 7 coaches in the last 8 years and turmoil over the ownership situation before finally selling.  I'm not sure they are a great example, but they do show the importance of ripping the bandaid off and not holding onto the past.  When it is over, just rip that crap off and crater out as soon as possible (which is what Ainge did this summer).

[Eja117]

The Kings also did some pretty bad picking.  Q Douby at 19. Jimmer. T Rob at 5.  Jason Thompson at 12.  At least they got Isiah with the last one.

[BballTim]

So what about the other teams that won 35-45 games in the last 10 seasons?
The Bucks, The Hawks, the Suns,  the new jersey nets,  the Seattle Sonics, the clippers before Griffin with Elton Brand....
Excellent selective memory.

You've also included a the Lakers who are the number one free agency destination in the NBA,  as well as a Heat team that managed to sign the best player in the world and a top 5 big man in the world to join their own top 5 player.
The Lakers happened to have their own top 5 player in Kobe before getting Gasol.
The Celtics pulled off one of the greatest trade combinations in modern NBA history to get banner 17 too.
We have one All Star, coming off surgery. We also have a top 10 pick this year and we have Sully.

What exactly are the Bucks and Hawks of the last 10 years again?
What do we gain from 35-40 wins this year?
Is the possible 'positive' outcome anywhere near the possible positive outcome of landing a top 5 pick this year?

It's no myth. The myth comes from people ignoring the logic and thinking if they play hard and do the right thing-good things will come their way.

I wonder what Red Auerbach would do in Ainge's situation?

I am not even talking about what is the best way to rebuild a contender.  You obviously have a very strong opinion about that. 

I am not claiming that being mediocre can't be a dismal place for an NBA franchise to be.  Clearly, it can.  There are plenty of examples, as you and IP have both pointed out. 

I am not ignoring logic.  I am using logic.  The only claim I am attempting to debunk is the one that claims that "being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity."  The teams I mentioned prove this statement to be false.  There are exceptions to the quoted rule.  If there are exceptions, the rule is false.  That's actually fairly basic logic. 

Everything else you posted is completely irrelevant to my point.

no one claims being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity.  You are disproving an argument that you don't understand.  Therein lies the problem with this entire thread.

  You must not read many of the other posts in the threads you post in if you've never seen people talking about perpetual mediocrity being in our future if we don't get a high pick in this draft.

[PhoSita]

But it's better than being perpetually bad. I would take the Hawks for the last ten years over Sacramento any day. At least the Hawks had to be respected.

That's definitely true.  Thankfully, I trust Danny Ainge to steer us out of the midden heap much more capably than Geoff Petrie.

[GreenWarrior]

The teams used as an example in the original post are poor examples of the point trying to be made with the exception of maybe Detroit.

teams like LA, Miami, Houston, san Antonio, dallas (and i'll even throw the knicks in there as well) will always have the opportunity to overcome perpetual mediocrity. because of their locations.


I say opportunity because this whole thing comes down to front office smarts and even luck. the knicks being a perfect example of a team stuck in perpetual mediocrity. they can get the big stars to go there but have no real concept of how to put a team together. but big name FA will continue to go there because of location.

I think Indiana would have been a better example than any of the teams mentioned in the original post. they were seemingly stuck in "perpetual mediocrity" for yrs and they're very similar to the C's in that they don't have a great location and big name FA aren't lining up to go here or there.

so they mainly built through the draft & adding key FA's(example of smarts & luck right there) when they became available.

it took 'em a while to achieve the level of contention they are in now but it's working.

you can overcome "perpetual mediocrity". it's just a matter of how long you're willing to wait.

[indeedproceed]

So what about the other teams that won 35-45 games in the last 10 seasons?
The Bucks, The Hawks, the Suns,  the new jersey nets,  the Seattle Sonics, the clippers before Griffin with Elton Brand....
Excellent selective memory.

You've also included a the Lakers who are the number one free agency destination in the NBA,  as well as a Heat team that managed to sign the best player in the world and a top 5 big man in the world to join their own top 5 player.
The Lakers happened to have their own top 5 player in Kobe before getting Gasol.
The Celtics pulled off one of the greatest trade combinations in modern NBA history to get banner 17 too.
We have one All Star, coming off surgery. We also have a top 10 pick this year and we have Sully.

What exactly are the Bucks and Hawks of the last 10 years again?
What do we gain from 35-40 wins this year?
Is the possible 'positive' outcome anywhere near the possible positive outcome of landing a top 5 pick this year?

It's no myth. The myth comes from people ignoring the logic and thinking if they play hard and do the right thing-good things will come their way.

I wonder what Red Auerbach would do in Ainge's situation?

I am not even talking about what is the best way to rebuild a contender.  You obviously have a very strong opinion about that. 

I am not claiming that being mediocre can't be a dismal place for an NBA franchise to be.  Clearly, it can.  There are plenty of examples, as you and IP have both pointed out. 

I am not ignoring logic.  I am using logic.  The only claim I am attempting to debunk is the one that claims that "being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity."  The teams I mentioned prove this statement to be false.  There are exceptions to the quoted rule.  If there are exceptions, the rule is false.  That's actually fairly basic logic. 

Everything else you posted is completely irrelevant to my point.

no one claims being mediocre dooms a team to perpetual mediocrity.  You are disproving an argument that you don't understand.  Therein lies the problem with this entire thread.

  You must not read many of the other posts in the threads you post in if you've never seen people talking about perpetual mediocrity being in our future if we don't get a high pick in this draft.

Tim and others are right. You can search for the phrase 'perpetual mediocrity' on the boards, there's 3 pages of posts, and about 60% of them are making the point the OP is attempting to disprove..IE that if the Celtics aren't terrible, they'll 'enter a decade of perpetual mediocrity', or if they do this or that trade idea: 'Maybe if we pull this off, we can return to perpetual mediocrity. 41 wins or bust'.

Stuff like that is more common than I would've expected.

[fairweatherfan]

I feel like these conversations always boil down to tremendous difficulty understanding or explaining that certain team situations sometimes work out well and sometimes don't, and how likely each "sometimes" is to happen to us is the real argument, not whether one or the other is inevitable.

In other words, individual examples don't do jack but disprove an position nobody's really taking.