The Myth of Perpetual Mediocrity.

[Celtics18]

For the purposes of this argument, I will define mediocrity as winning between 35 and 45 games and not advancing past the second round of the playoffs.

There is an oft repeated theory that if a team finds itself in the realm of mediocrity at any point in time that it is doomed to stay in that realm for perpetuity.  This claim is a myth. 

Some recent examples that prove the above to be a myth:

The 2009 and 2010 Lakers:

Before winning the title in consecutive seasons, they were solidly mediocre during both the 2006 and 20007 seasons, winning 45 and 42 games, respectively and getting knocked out in the first round during both of those seasons.  In '08 they won 57 games, made the finals, and--woo too--lost to the Celtics.  Unfortunately, they won the next two. 

The 2011 to present Miami Heat:

After winning the title in 2006, the Heat quickly returned to mediocrity.  In '07, they won 44 games and lost in the first round.  They were truly bad, the following year, but got the non-contributing Michael Beasley as their consolation Prize.  In '09 it was back to mediocrity, 43 wins and a first round loss.  In 2010, they barely escaped my criteria for "mediocrity" by winning a whooping 47 games, but they lost in the first round of the playoffs again.

The 2004 Pistons:

In 2000, they won 42 games and lost in the first round of the playoffs.  The following year, they dipped to slightly below mediocrity, winning 32 games and missing the playoffs.  This was followed by two consecutive 50 win seasons where they made the semifinals and then the finals in the East.  The following year, they won it all.

The 2008 Celtics:

Between 2000 and 2005, the Celtics were mediocre for all but the '02 season where they managed 49 regular season wins and a trip to the Eastern Conference finals.  In '06, they dipped to just below mediocre, winning 33 games and missing the playoffs.  I doubt there's any need for reminders about how '07 or '08 ended up. 

The facts should put to bed the argument that any amount of time spent as a mediocre team inevitably can only lead to perpetual mediocrity.  There's no truth to that myth.  As a matter of fact, as shown above, it's not uncommon for teams to go from mediocre to champions in a very short amount of time. 

[indeedproceed]

I don't really like the examples. The Lakers had Kobe Bryant, a top 20 all time player, in his prime, and Andrew Bynum. They got really lucky (at the time...hindsight proved Marc to be a blue chip player) with one trade as well. The Heat pulled off a Free Agent coup we'll never see the likes of again (probably..well, who knows.) and free agency has never brought the Celtics a blue chip player.

The Pistons are the most apt comparison, but they're always the outlier anytime you talk about the champs of the last decade.

And this myth busting falls victim to the same issues that anyone who wants to disprove tanking falls victim to. The Hawks, Bucks, Jazz...the list goes on and on. Lots of teams went for. 40 wins in consecutive seasons or more and ultimately we're forced to rebuild.

And really, is the argument that mediocrity 'inevitably' leads to nothing even really an argument at hard? Plenty of teams have been mediocre andanaged to wander out of it to fringe contention. Many more by an exponential factor have not. In a lot of ways your premise mirrors that of anyone who says tanking is a guaranteed method to success, which isn't really an argument anyone is making either. Nothing is guaranteed. Just like it's not guaranteed that Pat Riley gets away with accessory to collusion or that the Lakers get a godfather deal in acquiring Pau Gasol.

Also the 2008 Celtics example is counter to your argument. They absolutely needed the tank year of 2007 to get KG in the summer . Without Ray, there's no KG. Without the pick that became Jeff Green , there's no Ray.

[chambers]

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?

[Celtics18]

I don't really like the examples. The Lakers had Kobe Bryant, a top 20 all time player, in his prime, and Andrew Bynum. They got really lucky (at the time...hindsight proved Marc to be a blue chip player) with one trade as well. The Heat pulled off a Free Agent coup we'll never see the likes of again (probably..well, who knows.) and free agency has never brought the Celtics a blue chip player.

The Pistons are the most apt comparison, but they're always the outlier anytime you talk about the champs of the last decade.

And this myth busting falls victim to the same issues that anyone who wants to disprove tanking falls victim to. The Hawks, Bucks, Jazz...the list goes on and on. Lots of teams went for. 40 wins in consecutive seasons or more and ultimately we're forced to rebuild.

And really, is the argument that mediocrity 'inevitably' leads to nothing even really an argument at hard? Plenty of teams have been mediocre andanaged to wander out of it to fringe contention. Many more by an exponential factor have not. In a lot of ways your premise mirrors that of anyone who says tanking is a guaranteed method to success, which isn't really an argument anyone is making either. Nothing is guaranteed. Just like it's not guaranteed that Pat Riley gets away with accessory to collusion or that the Lakers get a godfather deal in acquiring Pau Gasol.

Also the 2008 Celtics example is counter to your argument. They absolutely needed the tank year of 2007 to get KG in the summer . Without Ray, there's no KG. Without the pick that became Jeff Green , there's no Ray.

Yes, surprisingly, it is an argument that I've read more than once around here.  I agree with you that obviously it's not true. 

I just want to make sure that everybody realizes that if we were to end up winning more than 35 games this year and sneaking into the playoffs that it doesn't automatically doom us to perpetual mediocrity. 

Becoming a contender again will take very smart management and a considerable amount of luck regardless of which path Danny takes.  I'm aware of that. 

[indeedproceed]

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

He would've traded Ray Allen for a pick 2 years ago and used it on Jabari Parker while he was still in high school .

[indeedproceed]

Yes, surprisingly, it is an argument that I've read more than once around here.

Well don't listen to those guys. EVERYONE who speaks in certainties is ALWAYS wrong, and NOTHING will ever change that.

[Celtics18]

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. 

[Celtics18]

Yes, surprisingly, it is an argument that I've read more than once around here.

Well don't listen to those guys. EVERYONE who speaks in certainties is ALWAYS wrong, and NOTHING will ever change that.

Well done, as ALWAYS. 

[LooseCannon]

How many teams avoided going through at least a season or two where they were mediocre by this definition between being a bad team and being a legitimate contender?

Of those teams, how many did so by adding multiple All-Star caliber players?

[Sketch5]

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.

[obnoxiousmime]

The difference with those teams (besides the Pistons) is that they already had one or two homegrown stars on the team drafted in the lottery. The Celtics are not at that point where they even have that one star, unless you consider Rondo to be on the same level as a Wade, Kobe + Bynum, or Pierce (I don't, and don't laugh at Bynum because when healthy and motivated he was a dominant big man important to their title teams).

Also, making the playoffs is only a possibility this year because the East is historically bad. Usually when you talk about those mediocre teams, there actually is some talent there. They might have one superstar and a bad supporting cast. Or, they have a few overrated occasional all-star types. The Celtics don't even have that level of talent. That's why it wouldn't be optimal to make the playoffs.

Put it this way: The current system was designed to give the least talented teams the lower, more valuable picks. The Celtics are one of those teams, but due to a historical aberration they may receive a 15th pick instead of something probably in the 5-8 range, 1-3 if they're lucky. I don't think "playoff experience" is worth the difference in value between those picks.

The Celtics should continue rebuilding according to their cap situation and talent level and not alter the timetable due to the East being particularly bad from teams 3-15 this year.

[PhoSita]

As IP points out so well, you can find examples of teams that were "stuck in the middle" and yet found a way to a championship caliber roster without tanking (though the examples you gave were mostly flawed), but you can also find plenty of examples of teams that used a year or two of bottom-feeding to collect the supertalented pieces required to form a championship core.


It seems to me that championship teams need to be exceptionally well managed and to also be exceptionally lucky, to have a lot of things go their way.  Teams that enjoy sustained success also tend to have owners who are willing to spend, although small market teams can succeed, too. 

My point is that however they decide to rebuild, the best franchises tend to rise to the top over time, and the lesser ones tend to sink back to the bottom.  Luckily for us, I think we have one of the good ones (wasn't the case in the early 2000s).



What would interest me more is a look at how very good teams are put together, not just looking at championship teams.  As the saying goes, only one team wins a championship in any given year, which means that the sample size is exceedingly small, especially if you stay within the last couple of decades so as to avoid major differences in the rules of the game and of the CBA.


Taking a quick look at the landscape of the NBA today, there are 6 teams currently on pace to win two thirds or more of their games (~55+) -- Indiana, Miami, Oklahoma City, Portland, San Antonio, and LAC.

Of those teams, only Indiana put together its contending core without a top 5 pick.  Still, Indiana needed to get a top 10 pick to acquire its clear-cut best player, Paul George.

[Moranis]

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.

[PhoSita]

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.

[Celtics4ever]

80% of the GMs are mediocre.   That is the reason for mediocrity, some guys have deep purses on their side and some guys have an eye for talent.   The good ones have both.