The Myth of Perpetual Mediocrity.

[D.o.s.]

Indiana also had the unfortunately luck of having one terrible event (the malice) dismantle a very, very good team and completely ruin pro basketball back at home for a decade in terms of attendance. That Pacers team had built a team that could've made a serious run at the Finals that year.

And it took them a decade of, yes, perpetual mediocrity to rebuild to the point where people got excited about them making it past the first round.

[BballTim]

Ziller's a good writer and a smart guy--I don't agree with him, but knocking his methodology without addressing his point seems a little silly.

  It's likely that his point is dependent on his methodology. You could probably show the opposite if you tailored your data for that. And, again, for this debate "mediocre" is rarely used to mean good lottery teams and is generally understood to mean non-contending playoff teams. The fact that he doesn't look at such teams is suspicious.

[Moranis]

Ziller's a good writer and a smart guy--I don't agree with him, but knocking his methodology without addressing his point seems a little silly.

  It's likely that his point is dependent on his methodology. You could probably show the opposite if you tailored your data for that. And, again, for this debate "mediocre" is rarely used to mean good lottery teams and is generally understood to mean non-contending playoff teams. The fact that he doesn't look at such teams is suspicious.

mediocre is used for both non-playoff and playoff teams.  Generally any team in the 10-20 range is mediocre i.e. average.  The advantage of not making the playoffs and being in that range is that there is that small lottery chance, which is why it would be better to just miss the playoffs then to make the playoffs and get swept year after year if you are in the mediocre range.

[Moranis]

Frankly, I don't really care which direction Boston goes, I just want a direction and not the status quo, because if that happens I do think Boston is mediocre for awhile.  I can see the argument to stand pat this year given Rondo's health, but the team definitely needs to take a direction this summer i.e. either go for it by using assets or trade Rondo and move on.

Are you unhappy that Ainge's M.O. seems to be to maintain flexibility and avoid committing to a single direction for as long as possible?  What if the goal is to be like Houston and be a borderline playoff team with payroll flexibility and just wait for an opportunity to come along?

That is a silly goal because there are no guarantees.  In fact you are probably more likely to be Dallas and keep missing on the key free agents than be Houston and land a guy like Dwight.  I would actually be quite surprised if Ainge didn't make a real move by the end of next off season.  I just can't see him holding firm with the status quo (the one caveat might be if he gets a premier player in the draft you know Parker, Embiid, Wiggins or Randle).  In that situation I think he might just hold pat if he can Rondo extended.  If not, I think Rondo is traded. 

[fairweatherfan]

Out of curiosity I replicated Ziller's method with the 3 worst playoff teams by record for the same time period.  Here are the results - the top 2 groups are Ziller's, bolded is mine:

Category    Base    Year 1    Year 2    Year 3    Year 4    Year 5

Bottom 3    .259     .420      .450      .532      .549      .554

Best Non-Playoff    .482    .473    .477    .466    .476    .510

Worst Playoff            .494    .486    .434    .415     .460    .442

Problem is every single one of the worst playoff teams was in the East.  So I did the same thing for the worst 3 playoff teams in the West each year:

Worst West Playoff  .572   .571    .533    .499    .495   .497


Sorry about the crappy formatting but the fringe playoff teams show an even stronger pattern of decline over the following 5 years.  The best non-playoff teams treadmill on average, but the worst playoff teams tend to drop off sharply after 2-3 years.

[BballTim]

Ziller's a good writer and a smart guy--I don't agree with him, but knocking his methodology without addressing his point seems a little silly.

  It's likely that his point is dependent on his methodology. You could probably show the opposite if you tailored your data for that. And, again, for this debate "mediocre" is rarely used to mean good lottery teams and is generally understood to mean non-contending playoff teams. The fact that he doesn't look at such teams is suspicious.

mediocre is used for both non-playoff and playoff teams.  Generally any team in the 10-20 range is mediocre i.e. average.  The advantage of not making the playoffs and being in that range is that there is that small lottery chance, which is why it would be better to just miss the playoffs then to make the playoffs and get swept year after year if you are in the mediocre range.

  Yes, that's what mediocre means. But for the purposes of the discussion the classic examples of "mediocre" teams are the Bucks from the 80s or the recent Hawks teams, who plateau as good teams with no chance of winning a title or being bad enough to add high level talent through the draft and remain at that level for an extended period of time. My point was the teams he chose don't fit into that category.

[wiley]

I think the bottom line is there is no perfect way to get back to being a contender. If there was every team out of contention would do exactly the same thing every single year.

Agree completely.  The biggest myth of all is that there is only one way
to proceed.  And those who say there's only one way to proceed
ignore another reality blowing around in the wind, which is luck.

[tstorey_97]

Ainge must build a championship roster. He has draft picks and a raft a complementary players led by one legit star. An argument can be made that Ainge will require "two" more stars two add to this "star.".

Mediocrity can be achieved in the NBA through bad luck or poor management. The posters here can supply examples of above with greater efficiency than I.

The steps to building the roster include the draft. A pick is an asset. We have learned that the #12 has lower value than a #3....ask Red Auerbach, if he was still alive.

"Red, would you prefer a #12, and a #15  or, a #3 and a #6?"


Another attempt at defeating this argument refuses to acknowledge the "trade the pick" option. Ainge will trade this years' high pick (Top 3?) for a proven star. He will not be able to trade the #12 for a proven star. Argument defeated?

Ainge built the roster to get us a top 5 pick...this is not speculation....he will trade the pick....that is speculation.

Mediocrity or avoidance of same is simply a version of the order of the day...tank or no tank. Ainge has made the decision for us.

[PhoSita]

Ziller's a good writer and a smart guy--I don't agree with him, but knocking his methodology without addressing his point seems a little silly.

  It's likely that his point is dependent on his methodology. You could probably show the opposite if you tailored your data for that. And, again, for this debate "mediocre" is rarely used to mean good lottery teams and is generally understood to mean non-contending playoff teams. The fact that he doesn't look at such teams is suspicious.

I agree with you.

Personally, I'd define "mediocre" as any team that is in the 35-45 win category, whether or not they make the playoffs.

A 35 win team that makes the playoffs is a mediocre team, while a 49 win team that fails to make the playoffs could still be pretty good.

[BballTim]

I think the bottom line is there is no perfect way to get back to being a contender. If there was every team out of contention would do exactly the same thing every single year.

Agree completely.  The biggest myth of all is that there is only one way
to proceed.  And those who say there's only one way to proceed
ignore another reality blowing around in the wind, which is luck.

  It's important to note that there are multiple ways to proceed in attempts to turn the franchise around. But if two of the ways are to add another player or two to the current core or to sell the current core for assets and build through the draft then those plans would have to be pursued in a certain order. You can try and build around the core for a year or two and unload them and tank if it doesn't work, you can't try to tank for a year or two and then go back to building around our current core if that fails.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm not sure it's a case of "once you become mediocre, you can never snap out of it"—clearly, based on your examples (and others), that's not true.

I think it's more a case of fans wanting to make sure that the team doesn't form bad habits that ensure long-term mediocrity and become, say, the Atlanta Hawks of the last several years.