Would you really tank?

[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.

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.

except that you disregard basically the entire 1990's in which every single team that won a title was led by at least 1 player that they drafted in the top 5 of the draft.  The 2000's were a bit sparser in that regard, but there have been 4 champions in the 2010's, the Lakers - no, the Mavericks - yes (though Kidd is a bit convoluted), and the Heat twice - yes.  This year the favorites to win are the Thunder with 2 top 5 picks at the top, the Heat (with Wade), the Spurs (with Duncan), and the Pacers (no top 5 picks they drafted).  If you include the Clippers (who have a better record than the Heat), then you add another team that fits the category with Griffin.

[indeedproceed]

^this, and if you expand the criteria to include all Finals teams, and not just the winners, it gets even less nebulous.

[D.o.s.]

You guys are still missing the point:

[it] wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of [them]not fitting into the category I was looking for.

[Mr October]

It seems that most of those who are in favor of "tanking" will tell you that players and coaches don't tank.  Rather, management tanks by putting a team on the floor that doesn't have the talent to win. 

My stance all along has been that management can't precisely engineer the team's final win/loss tally in the off-season.  Sometimes teams play above expectations and sometimes they play below. 

Too many people try to pretend they can predict in November with accuracy how a season will turn out.  They can't. 

As much as some like to think that the script has already been written, it hasn't.  That's one of the things that appeals to me most about sports.

When I saw the roster for this Celtic team at the beginning of the season, i thought they would win 27-30 games. Las Vegas set the over/under at 27.5. Here we are over 3/4 the way through the season, and right on target for 28 wins.

I think win totals are more predictable than not, especially for a team that one follows the closest. Certainly there are exceptions each year. Very few saw the blazers and knicks records coming.

I absolutely think ainge knew the celtics were headed for a rough record this year. They lacked star talent most of the year. I am glad to see Rondo looking better and better to help end this season in a positive trajectory. Our future looks good.

And to the OP's question, i do not want to tank games via coaching decisions. That rarely pays off. I believe in management tanking of a roster though. The celtics had too many holes to begin the season.

And I do believe in resting players more than usual, giving the keys to the up and coming guys a touch more, when you are a losing team. And that team should keep its eye on the future and maintain cap flexibility and keeping the future roster healthy.

If the celtics are still tied at the 4-7th worst record with 6 games to go, we will see just how much ainge and Stevens can stay away from the game to game tanking.

[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.

except that you disregard basically the entire 1990's in which every single team that won a title was led by at least 1 player that they drafted in the top 5 of the draft.  The 2000's were a bit sparser in that regard, but there have been 4 champions in the 2010's, the Lakers - no, the Mavericks - yes (though Kidd is a bit convoluted), and the Heat twice - yes.  This year the favorites to win are the Thunder with 2 top 5 picks at the top, the Heat (with Wade), the Spurs (with Duncan), and the Pacers (no top 5 picks they drafted).  If you include the Clippers (who have a better record than the Heat), then you add another team that fits the category with Griffin.

Saying "every single team" is a nice, convenient way of waiving your hands over two player picks:  Jordan and Olajuwan, both of whom were picked prior to the modern weighted lottery system.

The point I'm trying to make here is, again, look at all the teams that have picked a top-5 pick during the last 30 years.    That's 150 picks.   

Now, how many times has being one of the teams that was bad enough to earn one of those picks directly helped that team (participation or trade) to a title within some reasonable time-frame (say, within 10 years)?

You don't get to count the Jordan pick 6 times in that tally.

And, again, my point is not that I won't be happy as a clam to get a top-3 pick.  Given where we are right now, I want the most talented player we can get.

My point is, it won't bother me at all if we end up with #10.  Or go on a small win streak and end up with #14.    In the long run, it (where we pick in this draft) is not likely to be the critical factor on how we get back to a title.

Even Jordan did not win a title until he was in his 7th season.   Olajuwan, not until his 10th.

[Celtics18]

You guys are still missing the point:

[it] wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of [them]not fitting into the category I was looking for.

Very cute.  I just presented some facts.  Folks are choosing to interpret those facts in the ways that they see fit. 

That's cool.  But, the facts that I presented are, indeed, facts. 

[PhoSita]

The point I'm trying to make here is, again, look at all the teams that have picked a top-5 pick during the last 30 years.    That's 150 picks.   

Now, how many times has being one of the teams that was bad enough to earn one of those picks directly helped that team (participation or trade) to a title within some reasonable time-frame (say, within 10 years)?

The point you're making is that getting a top 5 pick is not a sufficient condition for winning a title, or even getting a really good player. 

Still, it's a bit of a weak point, I'd say, because there are 30 teams in the league, and only one team wins a title in any given season.  So obviously the number of teams that fall short over any given era, and given any particular type of roster construction strategy, is going to far outnumber the teams that manage to win a title.


Personally I look at it more the way that IP does -- make a list of the very best teams in the league at any given time and ask yourself how those teams acquired their best 3-5 players.  Far more often than not, a top 5-10 lottery pick plays a major role in acquiring top talent.

I do think it's important to keep in mind that getting a top pick isn't the answer to everything.  It doesn't solve all of your problems.  But it is the easiest way to get a really talented player on your team and under your control for an extended period of time, and once you get one or two top level talents, it makes everything else that you try to do in order to build a competitive roster much easier.


I agree with you that not getting a pick that falls in the top 5 wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are plenty of examples of players taken in the 5-12 range who are very good, and there are almost always gems even outside of that range.  The draft isn't the only way to acquire a top player, either. 

I've said it many times, though -- ending up with a pick at the end of the lottery, or just outside of the lottery, after enduring a losing season like this one, would be disappointing on a number of levels.

[D.o.s.]

You guys are still missing the point:

[it] wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of [them]not fitting into the category I was looking for.

Very cute.  I just presented some facts.  Folks are choosing to interpret those facts in the ways that they see fit. 

That's cool.  But, the facts that I presented are, indeed, facts.

Well, actually, what you're doing is presenting some 'facts' that are utterly devoid of context and then saying "well that's not actually what I'm talking about" when people are applying context to what you're saying.

Before 2008, using your logic, you could've said "all but four United States Presidents have been at least 47 years and 351 days old. I don't know why people believe Obama is going to win when he doesn't fit that mold."

That 'fact' relates to the 2008 presidential race exactly as much as your 'fact' relates to the role of a top 5 pick in building an NBA championship team.

[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.

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.

except that you disregard basically the entire 1990's in which every single team that won a title was led by at least 1 player that they drafted in the top 5 of the draft.  The 2000's were a bit sparser in that regard, but there have been 4 champions in the 2010's, the Lakers - no, the Mavericks - yes (though Kidd is a bit convoluted), and the Heat twice - yes.  This year the favorites to win are the Thunder with 2 top 5 picks at the top, the Heat (with Wade), the Spurs (with Duncan), and the Pacers (no top 5 picks they drafted).  If you include the Clippers (who have a better record than the Heat), then you add another team that fits the category with Griffin.

Saying "every single team" is a nice, convenient way of waiving your hands over two player picks:  Jordan and Olajuwan, both of whom were picked prior to the modern weighted lottery system.

The point I'm trying to make here is, again, look at all the teams that have picked a top-5 pick during the last 30 years.    That's 150 picks.   

Now, how many times has being one of the teams that was bad enough to earn one of those picks directly helped that team (participation or trade) to a title within some reasonable time-frame (say, within 10 years)?

You don't get to count the Jordan pick 6 times in that tally.

And, again, my point is not that I won't be happy as a clam to get a top-3 pick.  Given where we are right now, I want the most talented player we can get.

My point is, it won't bother me at all if we end up with #10.  Or go on a small win streak and end up with #14.    In the long run, it (where we pick in this draft) is not likely to be the critical factor on how we get back to a title.

Even Jordan did not win a title until he was in his 7th season.   Olajuwan, not until his 10th.

Of course you get to count the 6 Bulls titles.  The 5 Lakers titles.  The 4 Spurs titles.  The 3 Heat finals.  etc.  If you don't count every title then you skew the numbers even more.  There is 1 champion a year.  Period.  Only one team gets that honor every year.  So starting out you are already at no better than 20%, now you are saying instead of 23 titles since 90-91, it is really only 8 that work (since the Bulls 6=1, the Lakers 5=1, etc.).  It really is a nonsensical argument.

[Celtics18]

I agree with you that not getting a pick that falls in the top 5 wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are plenty of examples of players taken in the 5-12 range who are very good, and there are almost always gems even outside of that range.  The draft isn't the only way to acquire a top player, either. 

I've said it many times, though -- ending up with a pick at the end of the lottery, or just outside of the lottery, after enduring a losing season like this one, would be disappointing on a number of levels.

That would depend how that end of the lottery or just outside the lottery pick pans out relative to the guys picked ahead of him, wouldn't it?

And, we won't have the answer to that for a number of years.

[PhoSita]

I agree with you that not getting a pick that falls in the top 5 wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are plenty of examples of players taken in the 5-12 range who are very good, and there are almost always gems even outside of that range.  The draft isn't the only way to acquire a top player, either. 

I've said it many times, though -- ending up with a pick at the end of the lottery, or just outside of the lottery, after enduring a losing season like this one, would be disappointing on a number of levels.

That would depend how that end of the lottery or just outside the lottery pick pans out relative to the guys picked ahead of him, wouldn't it?

And, we won't have the answer to that for a number of years.

Sure, the #15 pick could end up better than even the #5 pick. 

But a pick in the top 10 obviously has greater inherent value than a pick in the 15-20 range, especially in the short term -- even players who don't show a lot immediately have more trade value while they are still young and on a rookie deal than guys taken later.

That being the case, ending up with essentially the same value pick that we would have gotten if the team hadn't gotten intentionally worse by dumping Garnett and Pierce and inflicting this season of largely uninspired / uninspiring basketball on us fans would be pretty disappointing.  Unless making the playoffs with 30-35 wins, and earning the right to get brutally swept in the first round, is worth that much to you.

[Celtics18]

You guys are still missing the point:

[it] wasn't an oversight.  Rather, it was a case of [them]not fitting into the category I was looking for.

Very cute.  I just presented some facts.  Folks are choosing to interpret those facts in the ways that they see fit. 

That's cool.  But, the facts that I presented are, indeed, facts.

Well, actually, what you're doing is presenting some 'facts' that are utterly devoid of context and then saying "well that's not actually what I'm talking about" when people are applying context to what you're saying.

Before 2008, using your logic, you could've said "all but four United States Presidents have been at least 47 years and 351 days old. I don't know why people believe Obama is going to win when he doesn't fit that mold."

That 'fact' relates to the 2008 presidential race exactly as much as your 'fact' relates to the role of a top 5 pick in building an NBA championship team.

That's not what I'm doing at all.  My facts were presented as a counter-argument to those who were saying that we "can't possibly rebuild" without getting a top five draft pick.

I'm not saying a top five pick couldn't be extremely useful to rebuilding a contender, I'm only saying it's not an absolute necessity.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my point. 

[Celtics18]

I agree with you that not getting a pick that falls in the top 5 wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are plenty of examples of players taken in the 5-12 range who are very good, and there are almost always gems even outside of that range.  The draft isn't the only way to acquire a top player, either. 

I've said it many times, though -- ending up with a pick at the end of the lottery, or just outside of the lottery, after enduring a losing season like this one, would be disappointing on a number of levels.

That would depend how that end of the lottery or just outside the lottery pick pans out relative to the guys picked ahead of him, wouldn't it?

And, we won't have the answer to that for a number of years.

Sure, the #15 pick could end up better than even the #5 pick. 

But a pick in the top 10 obviously has greater inherent value than a pick in the 15-20 range, especially in the short term -- even players who don't show a lot immediately have more trade value while they are still young and on a rookie deal than guys taken later.

That being the case, ending up with essentially the same value pick that we would have gotten if the team hadn't gotten intentionally worse by dumping Garnett and Pierce and inflicting this season of largely uninspired / uninspiring basketball on us fans would be pretty disappointing.  Unless making the playoffs with 30-35 wins, and earning the right to get brutally swept in the first round, is worth that much to you.

I'm not actually all that concerned about whether or not we make the playoffs.  I would, however, like to see this team finish up on a strong note.  By "strong note," I don't mean being the best at losing, but rather winning enough games to show some hope for the future among the players that are here now.

I think Danny will do well this off-season regardless of our draft position. 

[PhoSita]

I'm not saying a top five pick couldn't be extremely useful to rebuilding a contender, I'm only saying it's not an absolute necessity.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my point.

This is a conversation that's been going on all season long, and I've said variations of this many times, but here goes again:

A top pick isn't necessary to build a great team, that's true.  Neither does getting one guarantee that you'll be able to turn it into a great player, or that you'll win a championship even if you do get a great player with the pick.

Still, I think it's pretty hard to dispute that getting a top pick lowers the degree of difficulty of building a great team, especially compared to the alternative of making the playoffs and getting a pick in the mid to late teens. 

So, to the extent that we want to see Danny Ainge rebuild the Celtics into a great team -- and as soon as possible -- we should want the Celtics want to come away from this season with a top pick.

There's also the fact that this has been a pretty lame season in terms of pure entertainment value, so it'd be nice to feel like enduring this season has been worth it.

[ By "strong note," I don't mean being the best at losing, but rather winning enough games to show some hope for the future among the players that are here now.

I think Danny will do well this off-season regardless of our draft position.

I agree that Danny will make the most of whatever picks we end up with.  But the ceiling for "making the most" becomes higher as the pick gets higher.

As for the "strong note" thing, I feel like this is where you and I have differed the most all season long -- I don't feel like the talent level is very high on the team right now, aside from Rondo and perhaps Sullinger.  I'm not sure that many of these guys have much of a future with this team.  So I'm not particularly concerned with this group of guys 'showing some hope for the future.'

[Celtics18]

I'm not saying a top five pick couldn't be extremely useful to rebuilding a contender, I'm only saying it's not an absolute necessity.

I'm sorry you misunderstood my point.

This is a conversation that's been going on all season long, and I've said variations of this many times, but here goes again:

A top pick isn't necessary to build a great team, that's true.  Neither does getting one guarantee that you'll be able to turn it into a great player, or that you'll win a championship even if you do get a great player with the pick.

Still, I think it's pretty hard to dispute that getting a top pick lowers the degree of difficulty of building a great team, especially compared to the alternative of making the playoffs and getting a pick in the mid to late teens. 

So, to the extent that we want to see Danny Ainge rebuild the Celtics into a great team -- and as soon as possible -- we should want the Celtics want to come away from this season with a top pick.

There's also the fact that this has been a pretty lame season in terms of pure entertainment value, so it'd be nice to feel like enduring this season has been worth it.

[ By "strong note," I don't mean being the best at losing, but rather winning enough games to show some hope for the future among the players that are here now.

I think Danny will do well this off-season regardless of our draft position.

I agree that Danny will make the most of whatever picks we end up with.  But the ceiling for "making the most" becomes higher as the pick gets higher.

As for the "strong note" thing, I feel like this is where you and I have differed the most all season long -- I don't feel like the talent level is very high on the team right now, aside from Rondo and perhaps Sullinger.  I'm not sure that many of these guys have much of a future with this team.  So I'm not particularly concerned with this group of guys 'showing some hope for the future.'

Personally, I'm much higher on Olynyk than most seem to be.  I could end up being wrong about him, but I think he can be a legitimate NBA starting power forward--and a good one.  I think Sully and Green are talented enough to be legit starters in this league as well. 

I'm looking forward to seeing what Bradley can do with a healthy Rondo when he gets back.  Avery's jumper has improved immensely this season, and I think he can be more effective when he has to create his own shots less and gets to rely on Rondo to create them for him.

In short, I like some of the talent on this team, and I like the direction they are headed.  I don't think they are there yet, though. 

I do, however, think finishing the season on a strong note would represent a boost for future team chemistry as well as helping trade values of those who need to be sacrificed for the bigger picture.