The Myth of Perpetual Mediocrity.

[PhoSita]

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/13/5294794/nba-tanking-luck-skill-hook

They call it a treadmill of mediocrity for a reason. It's actually likely than teams in that range get worse over the course of five years than get better. The two best teams from the treadmill category in Year 5 are the 2005 Magic (who were a tank team in 2004) and the 2005 Cavaliers (who were the league's worst team in 2003, just outside this data set). Embracing the tank doesn't work? Being just good enough to flirt with the playoffs works even worse.

The choice isn't between being great and being awful. That's not a choice at all. The choice is between being awful and being mediocre. It turns out the being awful works out better on average.

]There are no accidental great teams. Building a contender takes skill. That applies whether you're Sam Presti stripping a roster bare and rebuilding from scratch or whether you're Larry Bird making constant tweaks, additions and subtractions as you stay afloat. But luck — or really, randomness — always has its say, too. Perhaps the tanking teams rely on it more than do the treadmill clubs, and perhaps that's why they seem more likely than their counterparts to reach the highest levels more quickly.

The perfect combination — the championship-winning formula — is top-notch GM skill and excellent luck. The perfect anti-combination — the formula of the Kings and Wolves from 2006 on — is a lack of GM skill and horrible luck. Everyone else tends to have some mixture in shades of gray. To neglect the role that either play is highly dangerous for team owners and problematic for those of us who write about the game.

[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.

  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.

perpetual mediocrity and mediocrity are not the same thing.  You can certainly believe that this team might be headed for perpetual mediocrity without some drastic moves (one way or the other), but I was merely commenting on the statement that being mediocre means you are headed for perpetual mediocrity.  There is a very large difference between those two things.

[LooseCannon]

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.

I'll point to David West choosing to go Indiana as an example that a "bad" location will still attract quality players if you create a good situation.  Maybe some guys won't want to come to Boston, but not everyone will refuse the city, and maybe those guys looking for the best nightlife scene aren't the guys you want to build around anyways.

Putting together a likely first-round exit playoff team where a top free agent can see himself as the guy who can put the team over the top and into legitimate contention is a good situation to be in.  Given that it seems to be more of a buyer's market with a lot of sellers, one strategy that Ainge should consider pursuing is finding some veterans signed through at least next season who can be acquired cheaply and make the team a likely playoff team for next season, if he can also maintain the payroll flexibility to acquire a star at some point.

[PhoSita]

Perpetual anything is a silly concept.  Whether great or terrible, it's hard to stay the same for more than a few years in the NBA.  Even teams that expect to be awful in some seasons somehow end up being pretty decent.


Still, many people believe this Celtics team lacks high end talent.  If you accept that as true, then it's hard to disagree with the idea that a first round exit (and the accompanying mid-1st pick) would do significantly less to help this team be not-mediocre sooner than would a top 10 pick in the lottery.

[indeedproceed]

perpetual mediocrity and mediocrity are not the same thing.  You can certainly believe that this team might be headed for perpetual mediocrity without some drastic moves (one way or the other), but I was merely commenting on the statement that being mediocre means you are headed for perpetual mediocrity.  There is a very large difference between those two things.

I think you really misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, and not as comment on whether or not the theory on perpetual mediocrity is a good one or not, that people actually do use the phrase, and rather casually.

As in saying, "Well if you make a trade like that I hope you like a decade of perpetual mediocrity." And I was surprised that people actually said that. 

[wdleehi]

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.

I'll point to David West choosing to go Indiana as an example that a "bad" location will still attract quality players if you create a good situation.  Maybe some guys won't want to come to Boston, but not everyone will refuse the city, and maybe those guys looking for the best nightlife scene aren't the guys you want to build around anyways.

Putting together a likely first-round exit playoff team where a top free agent can see himself as the guy who can put the team over the top and into legitimate contention is a good situation to be in.  Given that it seems to be more of a buyer's market with a lot of sellers, one strategy that Ainge should consider pursuing is finding some veterans signed through at least next season who can be acquired cheaply and make the team a likely playoff team for next season, if he can also maintain the payroll flexibility to acquire a star at some point.

West went to the Pacers instead of Boston because the Pacer could pay more.  When the sign and trade was on the table, he was ready to come to Boston.


But this current Celtics team is far from where the Pacers were before that happened. 


How many years did it take to make that team?

[LooseCannon]

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.

I'll point to David West choosing to go Indiana as an example that a "bad" location will still attract quality players if you create a good situation.  Maybe some guys won't want to come to Boston, but not everyone will refuse the city, and maybe those guys looking for the best nightlife scene aren't the guys you want to build around anyways.

Putting together a likely first-round exit playoff team where a top free agent can see himself as the guy who can put the team over the top and into legitimate contention is a good situation to be in.  Given that it seems to be more of a buyer's market with a lot of sellers, one strategy that Ainge should consider pursuing is finding some veterans signed through at least next season who can be acquired cheaply and make the team a likely playoff team for next season, if he can also maintain the payroll flexibility to acquire a star at some point.

West went to the Pacers instead of Boston because the Pacer could pay more.  When the sign and trade was on the table, he was ready to come to Boston.


But this current Celtics team is far from where the Pacers were before that happened. 


How many years did it take to make that team?

The rumor was that the Celtics were working on a deal around $29m/3yr vs the $20m/2yrs that West got from the Pacers.  That was said to have fallen through because of an inability to move Jermaine O'Neal, but it sounds like that may have been a bit of a face-saving claim so that it didn't look like West snubbed Boston.

At the time of the deal, I recall saying that it looked like West was motivated by picking the place with the longer window of contention.

If the Celtics made a deal for Asik, I think it would put them in a spot where acquiring a David West-caliber player at whatever position makes the most sense would make the team a legitimate contender next season if you believe that Stevens can produce a top-five defense with better-configured personnel.

[Moranis]

perpetual mediocrity and mediocrity are not the same thing.  You can certainly believe that this team might be headed for perpetual mediocrity without some drastic moves (one way or the other), but I was merely commenting on the statement that being mediocre means you are headed for perpetual mediocrity.  There is a very large difference between those two things.

I think you really misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, and not as comment on whether or not the theory on perpetual mediocrity is a good one or not, that people actually do use the phrase, and rather casually.

As in saying, "Well if you make a trade like that I hope you like a decade of perpetual mediocrity." And I was surprised that people actually said that.

I can certainly see the argument that Boston if it stands pat (i.e. keeps Rondo and most of the other players) will be in a situation where it will be mediocre for awhile.  Boston has no meaningful cap space until after the 2015 season and by then you are already at year 3 of the current status (i.e. already mediocre for 3 years, not to mention at least the one year prior with KG, PP, etc.), Rondo will be in his 30's, and there are no guarantees that anything will come of the cap space (other than more non-contender status or worse i.e. Dallas, New York, etc.) or the more mid-level draft picks from its own picks (sure Boston might hit on the Clippers or Nets picks, but I think the better odds those are at least mid-teen if not in the 20's).

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.

[LooseCannon]

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?

[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.

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.

perpetual mediocrity and mediocrity are not the same thing.  You can certainly believe that this team might be headed for perpetual mediocrity without some drastic moves (one way or the other), but I was merely commenting on the statement that being mediocre means you are headed for perpetual mediocrity.  There is a very large difference between those two things.

  Again, I'm sure that you can find plenty of posts claiming that if we make the playoffs this year and miss the lottery then we'll be mediocre for an extended period of time.

[BballTim]

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/13/5294794/nba-tanking-luck-skill-hook

They call it a treadmill of mediocrity for a reason. It's actually likely than teams in that range get worse over the course of five years than get better. The two best teams from the treadmill category in Year 5 are the 2005 Magic (who were a tank team in 2004) and the 2005 Cavaliers (who were the league's worst team in 2003, just outside this data set). Embracing the tank doesn't work? Being just good enough to flirt with the playoffs works even worse.

The choice isn't between being great and being awful. That's not a choice at all. The choice is between being awful and being mediocre. It turns out the being awful works out better on average.

]There are no accidental great teams. Building a contender takes skill. That applies whether you're Sam Presti stripping a roster bare and rebuilding from scratch or whether you're Larry Bird making constant tweaks, additions and subtractions as you stay afloat. But luck — or really, randomness — always has its say, too. Perhaps the tanking teams rely on it more than do the treadmill clubs, and perhaps that's why they seem more likely than their counterparts to reach the highest levels more quickly.

The perfect combination — the championship-winning formula — is top-notch GM skill and excellent luck. The perfect anti-combination — the formula of the Kings and Wolves from 2006 on — is a lack of GM skill and horrible luck. Everyone else tends to have some mixture in shades of gray. To neglect the role that either play is highly dangerous for team owners and problematic for those of us who write about the game.

  The problem with studies like this is the high likelihood that he tailored his data to bolster his point. You'd have to consider that he chose only the bottom three teams, or the ones that were most likely to show big improvement. Also, you'd have to wonder why he chose the three best teams that didn't make the playoffs, when the definition of mediocre that is generally intended in this debate is teams good enough to make the playoffs and win the occasional series but aren't good enough to contend.

[Celtics18]

perpetual mediocrity and mediocrity are not the same thing.  You can certainly believe that this team might be headed for perpetual mediocrity without some drastic moves (one way or the other), but I was merely commenting on the statement that being mediocre means you are headed for perpetual mediocrity.  There is a very large difference between those two things.

I think you really misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, and not as comment on whether or not the theory on perpetual mediocrity is a good one or not, that people actually do use the phrase, and rather casually.

As in saying, "Well if you make a trade like that I hope you like a decade of perpetual mediocrity." And I was surprised that people actually said that.

Thank you.  I was fairly certain that I wasn't making it up.

[PhoSita]

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/13/5294794/nba-tanking-luck-skill-hook

They call it a treadmill of mediocrity for a reason. It's actually likely than teams in that range get worse over the course of five years than get better. The two best teams from the treadmill category in Year 5 are the 2005 Magic (who were a tank team in 2004) and the 2005 Cavaliers (who were the league's worst team in 2003, just outside this data set). Embracing the tank doesn't work? Being just good enough to flirt with the playoffs works even worse.

The choice isn't between being great and being awful. That's not a choice at all. The choice is between being awful and being mediocre. It turns out the being awful works out better on average.

]There are no accidental great teams. Building a contender takes skill. That applies whether you're Sam Presti stripping a roster bare and rebuilding from scratch or whether you're Larry Bird making constant tweaks, additions and subtractions as you stay afloat. But luck — or really, randomness — always has its say, too. Perhaps the tanking teams rely on it more than do the treadmill clubs, and perhaps that's why they seem more likely than their counterparts to reach the highest levels more quickly.

The perfect combination — the championship-winning formula — is top-notch GM skill and excellent luck. The perfect anti-combination — the formula of the Kings and Wolves from 2006 on — is a lack of GM skill and horrible luck. Everyone else tends to have some mixture in shades of gray. To neglect the role that either play is highly dangerous for team owners and problematic for those of us who write about the game.

  The problem with studies like this is the high likelihood that he tailored his data to bolster his point. You'd have to consider that he chose only the bottom three teams, or the ones that were most likely to show big improvement. Also, you'd have to wonder why he chose the three best teams that didn't make the playoffs, when the definition of mediocre that is generally intended in this debate is teams good enough to make the playoffs and win the occasional series but aren't good enough to contend.

Yeah, the methods in any of these types of articles are typically somewhat suspect.

I think his ultimate conclusion is spot on, however -- having great management and some good fortune plays the largest role in determining how long it takes your team to become really good (or if you ever get there at all).

[D.o.s.]

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.

[GreenWarrior]

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.

I'll point to David West choosing to go Indiana as an example that a "bad" location will still attract quality players if you create a good situation.  Maybe some guys won't want to come to Boston, but not everyone will refuse the city, and maybe those guys looking for the best nightlife scene aren't the guys you want to build around anyways.

Putting together a likely first-round exit playoff team where a top free agent can see himself as the guy who can put the team over the top and into legitimate contention is a good situation to be in.  Given that it seems to be more of a buyer's market with a lot of sellers, one strategy that Ainge should consider pursuing is finding some veterans signed through at least next season who can be acquired cheaply and make the team a likely playoff team for next season, if he can also maintain the payroll flexibility to acquire a star at some point.

if you quoted the entirety of what I said about Indiana you would have noticed that I pointed out that they were "smart & lucky with their key free agent signings".