Would you really tank?

[mmmmm]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

LOL - you forgot one:  Jason Kidd was drafted #2 overall by Dallas in 1994.   After a long career that sent him through Phoenix and New Jersey, he eventually landed BACK in Dallas, where he finally won  a title with 'the team that drafted him' in 2010.

What's most relevant is not what happens to top draft picks, though.   Top draft picks are, indeed, the players most likely to end up winning a title.

What's most relevant is what happens to teams that draft high in the draft.

In the last 30 years, of teams that have had the #1 pick, no teams other than Houston (#1 in 1983 & 1984, who won in 1994 & 1995) and San Antonion (#1 in 1987 & 1997, won in 1999, 2003, 2005 & 2007) have won the title.

During that span, only 3 teams that have ever (during that time) had the #2 pick have gone on to win the title after that pick.  Boston (#2 in 1986, won in 2008), Detroit (#2 in 2003, won in 2004) and Miami (#2 in 2008, won in 2012).  It should be noted that not one of those three picks contributed in any way to the title that was subsequently won.

Of a total of 60 picks at #1 or #2 overall, only Olajuwan, Robinson and Duncan directly contributed (whether as a player or via trade) to the team making that pick winning a title.  And both Olajuwan and Robinson took a decade to do so.

So, clearly, being bad enough to be picking #1 & #2 has not been very helpful towards winning a title.

Mind you, I'm not saying that, given where we are, we should not hope for the #1 or #2 pick.  We should.   I'm just pointing out that it hasn't really been a big help to teams towards winning a title and of course, the corollary is that NOT having those picks has not been a hindrance to all the other title winning teams.

So my advice continues to be not to worry about where we draft.

[D.o.s.]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Source?


I'd really like to see the data you used to pull this from, since I can't find a good sortable draft listing that allows this level of detail, myself.

BasketballBall Reference Draft page.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/

But you obviously didn't have a search going with parameters like "Top 5 pick" "won championship" "91-2013" because otherwise you would've seen Jason Kidd, like mmmmmm pointed out.

Which is a drag, because that kind of search tool would be really useful (and I was hoping BKR could do it and I just didn't know how)

[vjcsmoke]

Just a reminder - but we're NOT tanking!!

We have lost games because we sucked.

But now Rondo, Green, etc. are starting to warm up and we've won a few games.

But this is a very young team outside of Rondo and Green, so expect to see some inconsistency.

[Celtics18]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Source?


I'd really like to see the data you used to pull this from, since I can't find a good sortable draft listing that allows this level of detail, myself.

BasketballBall Reference Draft page.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/

But you obviously didn't have a search going with parameters like "Top 5 pick" "won championship" "91-2013" because otherwise you would've seen Jason Kidd, like mmmmmm pointed out.

Which is a drag, because that kind of search tool would be really useful (and I was hoping BKR could do it and I just didn't know how)

I purposefully didn't count Jason Kidd because, although he was originally drafted by Dallas, he was brought there, and helped them win a title, via a trade late in his career.

His championship with Dallas does nothing to further the "you must get a top five draft pick to win a title" argument. 

No, I didn't have a search going with those parameters.  I did my own search.  Leaving Kidd off the list wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of him not fitting into the category I was looking for. 

[Surferdad]

Can anyone recount the ML Carr story when he coached the C's?  Some say he tanked the year.

[freshinthehouse]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

You can twist numbers like this in all sorts of ways.  Since 1999, 7 of the last 15 champions have had a player that they drafted in the top 5 that played significant role on that team (Duncan in 99, 03, 05, 07, and Wade in 06, 12, 13). 

[Celtics18]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

You can twist numbers like this in all sorts of ways.  Since 1999, 7 of the last 15 champions have had a player that they drafted in the top 5 that played significant role on that team (Duncan in 99, 03, 05, 07, and Wade in 06, 12, 13).

True.  However, I'm not saying that you can't win a championship by drafting a top five player (heck, I'd be happy to get one).  All I am saying is that it's not the only way. 

I don't think our future is necessarily sunk if we don't get one in this year's draft. 

[LilRip]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

You can twist numbers like this in all sorts of ways.  Since 1999, 7 of the last 15 champions have had a player that they drafted in the top 5 that played significant role on that team (Duncan in 99, 03, 05, 07, and Wade in 06, 12, 13).

True.  However, I'm not saying that you can't win a championship by drafting a top five player (heck, I'd be happy to get one).  All I am saying is that it's not the only way. 

I don't think our future is necessarily sunk if we don't get one in this year's draft.

I don't believe it's the only way either. I believe that a well run team eventually gets "lucky". So even if Rondo walks in FA and Sully goes down with some permanent back injury, I still think DA can build a contender eventually. Meanwhile, poorly run franchises (like the Cavs) can be given all the luck in the world (multiple #1 overalls, including Lebron) and only make it to the finals once.

That said, getting a top 5 pick would be what would likely help the rebuild the most right now, and it would definitely help speed things up. I'm a "pro tanker" but not a "gloom and doom sayer". I want us to get back on track as quickly as possible, and that is why I'm rooting for lottery balls. Whether we draft with the pick or we trade the pick, I'm sure it will be a bigger help than ending up with the 12th overall pick and a few extra wins in the season.

[celtsfan44]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Extremely misleading.   I think all 10 titles from the 1990's had a top 5 pick.  Most of those titles just had players(Jordan/Pippen) and Hakeem selected in the top 5 in the 1980's.

This just shows that the dividends from tanking can last over a decade.

It's an argument for tanking and not against.

[guava_wrench]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Extremely misleading.   I think all 10 titles from the 1990's had a top 5 pick.  Most of those titles just had players(Jordan/Pippen) and Hakeem selected in the top 5 in the 1980's.

This just shows that the dividends from tanking can last over a decade.

It's an argument for tanking and not against.

Before those teams you have Detroit with Thomas, the Lakers with Magic, and the Celtics with Bird. After you have the Spurs with Robinson and Duncan. Duncan and Wade account for 6 of the last 11 titles.

Unfortunately, Pierce, Kobe and Dirk were drafted outside the top 5 to be included here. On the other hand, they were lottery picks who won with the teams that drafted them.

It is irrelevant if not all top 5 picks lead to a championship. We can come up with countless criteria that don't ensure championships. What is relevant is how important top 5 picks have been to winning championships for the teams that drafted them.

Since we won in 83-84, the only teams to win without having a player on their team that they drafted top 5 were Kobe's Lakers, Pierce's Celtics, Dirk's Mavs, and the one of a kind Pistons in 03-04.

[LilRip]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Extremely misleading.   I think all 10 titles from the 1990's had a top 5 pick.  Most of those titles just had players(Jordan/Pippen) and Hakeem selected in the top 5 in the 1980's.

This just shows that the dividends from tanking can last over a decade.

It's an argument for tanking and not against.

TP

[Moranis]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

there were 20 champions in that period though, 6 of which had players in the top 5 of the team that drafted them on them.  And of course Wade picked up two more in 12 and 13 and Kidd picked up one in 2011.  so of the last 23 champions, 9 have had players drafted in the top 5 on them.  Of course that doesn't account for the 6 Bulls titles and the 2 Rockets titles in the 90's which were led by top 5 draft picks during that time period.  In fact every single champion in the 90's (which adds the Pistons and Spurs) was led by at least 1 player drafted in the top 5 by the team that drafted them.  So when you make weird arbitrary cut offs you get weird arbitrary results.

[mmmmm]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Extremely misleading.   I think all 10 titles from the 1990's had a top 5 pick.  Most of those titles just had players(Jordan/Pippen) and Hakeem selected in the top 5 in the 1980's.

This just shows that the dividends from tanking can last over a decade.

It's an argument for tanking and not against.

You are misunderstanding the point.  The point isn't that teams don't need top 5 lottery talent.  The evidence is overwhelming that top-5 lottery talent is a key component of title teams.

The point though, is that being a team that picks high in the draft is not well correlated with winning a title.

All but a tiny, tiny handful of players picked in the 'top 5' that have eventually won a title have done so on teams _other_ than the one that earned that draft spot.    And when you discount Darko (who contributed zilch) and Kidd (who came back a decade later) there are only a couple of teams that have benefited towards winning a title due to earning a top-5 draft pick by losing.

This is evidence that more title teams were able to win titles without having been so bad that they 'earn' a top-5 pick.

[D.o.s.]

Can anyone recount the ML Carr story when he coached the C's?  Some say he tanked the year.

He admitted to taking one for the team over the summer:

According to Carr, Gaston made his objective for the 1996-97 season clear: Land Tim Duncan in the draft.

It's so difficult," M.L. Carr said of guiding a 15-67 season in 1996-97, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA."

Thus, Carr's charge, with a roster that included Antoine Walker, David Wesley, Dana Barros, Dino Radja and Rick Fox, was to play hard -- and lose.

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

"Danny (Ainge) is absolutely doing the right thing for the Celtics franchise. But he's going to have a real tough road while they rebuild."

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

[D.o.s.]

No, I didn't have a search going with those parameters.  I did my own search.  Leaving Kidd off the list wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of him not fitting into the category I was looking for.

Right. That's just less helpful for me (and others) than if you'd been able to recreate that with the search tools.