Would you really tank?

[PhoSita]

You'd be hard pressed to find any team in the league that hasn't had at least one top ten draft pick in the last decade and a half. 

This renders your example kind of moot.  If all teams have landed in the top ten in the draft at least once in the last decade and a half, saying that the reason that the top teams are elite is because they have players that they've drafted in the top ten represents some fairly faulty logic.

Your response is a fascinating example of why these debates keep going on and on ad nauseum in these forums.

Look closely and you'll realize I never actually said the thing you're picking apart.

The top 10 teams I listed are elite for a number of reasons.  There's no disputing that.  Getting a top 10 pick was not enough on its own for any of those teams to get where they've gotten.  However, for almost all of them, getting a top 10 pick played some part in allowing them to get there.

Not sure what's faulty about coming to that conclusion based upon the information presented.

[Celtics18]

You'd be hard pressed to find any team in the league that hasn't had at least one top ten draft pick in the last decade and a half. 

This renders your example kind of moot.  If all teams have landed in the top ten in the draft at least once in the last decade and a half, saying that the reason that the top teams are elite is because they have players that they've drafted in the top ten represents some fairly faulty logic.

Your response is a fascinating example of why these debates keep going on and on ad nauseum in these forums.

Look closely and you'll realize I never actually said the thing you're picking apart.

The top 10 teams I listed are elite for a number of reasons.  There's no disputing that.  Getting a top 10 pick was not enough on its own for any of those teams to get where they've gotten.  However, for almost all of them, getting a top 10 pick played some part in allowing them to get there.

Not sure what's faulty about coming to that conclusion based upon the information presented.

My point is that "getting a top 10 pick played some part in allowing" all thirty NBA teams to get where they are right now.

If you showed that contenders had top ten picks while non-contenders didn't (or had them at a lesser rate), then your point would be more solid.  But, that's not the case. 

So, I guess that while you are not technically saying anything untrue, you certainly haven't proven any correlation between getting a top ten pick and being a championship contender. 




 

[PhoSita]

You need to, as IndeedProceed also stated, look at how teams that "earned" a top-5 pick then went on to perform in subsequent years.  My threshold was winning a title within 10 years.  A more forgiving threshold might be to make the Conference Finals within 8, or whatever.   I would also impose the requirement that the particular draft pick actually _contributed_. 

I must admit that I don't understand your insistence that we focus on how a team "earned" the pick, or how soon thereafter the team went on to win a lot of games.


I want to look at all the teams that have a plausible claim to a chance at a title in any given season.  I'm operating on the premise that almost every good team has 3-4 key players that it relies on for the bulk of its success.  I then want to inquire as to how those very good teams acquired those key players, because I'm hoping to see some patterns in the way that very good teams are constructed.

My hypothesis, based upon my limited investigation, is that the overwhelming majority of very good teams acquire at least one of their key players via a top 5-10 draft pick.  I don't particularly care whether the team reaches the pinnacle of success in that player's first 5 seasons in the league, or that player's last 5 seasons in the league, so long as the player is a key part of the team's success. 

Take Nowitzki as an example.  The Mavericks didn't win a title until he was already in his 30s and on what I believe was his third deal with the team.  By that time, could the Mavericks have perhaps acquired him by some other method than the draft?  Sure.  In my mind that doesn't render irrelevant the fact that they first acquired him via the draft. 

My implicit assumption is that having control of a player for his rookie contract and the first contract after that (through restricted free agency) gives a team a huge advantage in getting that player to stick around during his prime.



I also don't care whether a team got that top 10 pick by being bad or by some other method.  It's enough for me that the easiest way to get a top 10 pick is by being bad yourself.  I'm not interested in entertaining the idea that a player drafted onto a team that is already pretty good is more likely to be successful and realize his potential than a player drafted onto a team that has less established talent or veteran experience on the roster already.  Good players are good players, and well-run teams make the most of them, generally speaking.

[PhoSita]

So, I guess that while you are not technically saying anything untrue, you certainly haven't proven any correlation between getting a top ten pick and being a championship contender. 

 

Except I have.


What I'm saying is as simple as "generally when people make pizza, they use tomatoes," and then put together a list of popular pizza recipes as an example.

It's not some earth shattering revelation, but it runs contrary to this notion that getting a top pick via tanking would have no significant value long term in putting together a really good team. 

[LooseCannon]

The bottom line is that it takes a certain level of talent to be a contender.  There are mechanisms for acquiring that talent that don't involve drafting in the top five.  People who argue that Celtics have to draft that high tend to engage in the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.  That annoys me so much that I have decided to actively root against the Celtics getting a top five pick just so Ainge can show that it can be done.  That would have the two-fold benefit of bringing another banner to Boston and shutting up all the tanking talk about how you need that top pick, hopefully to the point that fans become less willing to accept losing, so that the overall NBA product becomes more watchable.

[LooseCannon]

What I'm saying is as simple as "generally when people make pizza, they use tomatoes," and then put together a list of popular pizza recipes as an example.

I like white pizza.

[Celtics18]

So, I guess that while you are not technically saying anything untrue, you certainly haven't proven any correlation between getting a top ten pick and being a championship contender. 

 

Except I have.


What I'm saying is as simple as "generally when people make pizza, they use tomatoes," and then put together a list of popular pizza recipes as an example.

It's not some earth shattering revelation, but it runs contrary to this notion that getting a top pick via tanking would have no significant value long term in putting together a really good team.

What you are saying is more like "when people make good pizza, they generally use tomatoes, and when people make bad pizza, they generally use tomatoes.  Therefore, the key to making good pizza is using tomatoes."

As LooseCannon points out, though, you can make a good pizza without using tomatoes. 

[D.o.s.]

This is a great thread to use as an example of why an English degree isn't a waste of time.

Reading comprehension. It's important.

[D.o.s.]

The bottom line is that it takes a certain level of talent to be a contender.  There are mechanisms for acquiring that talent that don't involve drafting in the top five.  People who argue that Celtics have to draft that high tend to engage in the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.  That annoys me so much that I have decided to actively root against the Celtics getting a top five pick just so Ainge can show that it can be done.  That would have the two-fold benefit of bringing another banner to Boston and shutting up all the tanking talk about how you need that top pick, hopefully to the point that fans become less willing to accept losing, so that the overall NBA product becomes more watchable.

You're also admitting to some intellectual dishonesty and bias.

Which, to your credit, you're owning. I wish more people did that on this blog.

[Moranis]

These are the 17 active players with a HOF probability above .5.  The ones in bold won a title with the team that drafted them (or were draft day trades).  The ones in red won a title with a different team.

1.    Kobe Bryant    1.0000
2.    Tim Duncan    0.9999
3.    LeBron James    0.9997
4.    Dwyane Wade    0.9994
5.    Kevin Garnett    0.9987
6.    Dirk Nowitzki    0.9919
7.    Paul Pierce    0.9791
8.    Chris Bosh    0.9647
9.    Ray Allen    0.9589
10.    Chris Paul    0.9370
11.    Carmelo Anthony    0.9012
12.    Tony Parker    0.8964
13.    Dwight Howard    0.8799
14.    Kevin Durant    0.8658
15.    Vince Carter    0.7236
16.    Pau Gasol    0.6127
17.    Steve Nash    0.5543

Of the 11 title winners, only Bryant and Parker were not top ten picks. 

Of the 5 guys that won titles with their non-drafting team: James and Bosh were free agent acquisitions, Garnett and Pau were acquired via trade, and Allen was both (trade for Boston, F.A. in Miami).

Of the 6 guys on the list that have yet to win a title only Nash was not a top ten pick and only Durant is still on the team that drafted him.  Paul and Anthony were acquired via trade.  Howard, Carter, and Nash were acquired via free agency (or sign and trades)

[mmmmm]

You need to, as IndeedProceed also stated, look at how teams that "earned" a top-5 pick then went on to perform in subsequent years.  My threshold was winning a title within 10 years.  A more forgiving threshold might be to make the Conference Finals within 8, or whatever.   I would also impose the requirement that the particular draft pick actually _contributed_. 

I must admit that I don't understand your insistence that we focus on how a team "earned" the pick, or how soon thereafter the team went on to win a lot of games.

I would think both those points are pretty obvious. 

If a team is already a strong roster and gets a top-5 pick because of it was the result of a trade, then they didn't have to 'be bad in order to be good'.   Detroit won 50 games and was the 1st seed in the East in 2003.  They then got the #2 pick because of an earlier trade.   They didn't get bad and then win the title in 2004 because of adding Darko.

That's really the preferred position to be in.  Get great talent because OTHER teams suck.  Hopefully, if we don't trade it, we'll get a great pick with the 2016 Nets pick because, unless something dramatic changes, they look destined to be pretty sucky then.   Of course, Detroit in hindsight blew it by picking Darko.   

The question that is being tested here is how valuable and necessary being one of the top 5 picks is for rebuilding a team back to title contender status.  A team like Detroit wasn't rebuilding.

As for the time threshold, that also should be obvious.  The Celtics had the #2 pick in 1986.  They won a title in 2008.  Does it make sense to associate those events causally?   How about Dallas picking #2 in 1994?  Did that contribute directly to their title in 2010?  Well, the player (Kidd) did.  But he spent a long time on other teams in between.  What they got back in trade for him (Cassell, Finley, A.C. Green and a future 2nd) sure didn't.

At some point, you have to draw the line and disconnect the pick from the future events.  Too many steps in between.  Changing GMs, coaches, etc.

If we get a #3 pick this year and get to the ECF within 4 years due to having that player or whatever we traded him for, then that's probably pretty obviously causally connected.  If we don't get back to the ECF for 20 years, I don't care how tightly you can couple the links in the chain between now and then, I'm not going to give any credence to the connection.

So a reasonable threshold is probably somewhere in between.   Given the length of contracts, 8 years to reach the ECF seems reasonable.  And 10 years for a title.

My hypothesis, based upon my limited investigation, is that the overwhelming majority of very good teams acquire at least one of their key players via a top 5-10 draft pick.  I don't particularly care whether the team reaches the pinnacle of success in that player's first 5 seasons in the league, or that player's last 5 seasons in the league, so long as the player is a key part of the team's success. 

See above for the discussion on why SOME sort of time limit matters.

I also don't care whether a team got that top 10 pick by being bad or by some other method.  It's enough for me that the easiest way to get a top 10 pick is by being bad yourself.  I'm not interested in entertaining the idea that a player drafted onto a team that is already pretty good is more likely to be successful and realize his potential than a player drafted onto a team that has less established talent or veteran experience on the roster already.  Good players are good players, and well-run teams make the most of them, generally speaking.

I don't know how to respond to that last paragraph.  I don't see how you can dismiss the difference between the two situations.   They are completely and fundamentally different situations for a team to be in.

At any rate, what we've established here is that you are NOT interested in answering the question that IndeedProceed and I were proposing.  You are interested in testing some other hypothesis.   Which is fine.

[Celtics18]

This is a great thread to use as an example of why an English degree isn't a waste of time.

Reading comprehension. It's important.

Do you ever add anything that isn't a back-handed, cowardly aside aimed at mocking other posters?

If you do, I must have missed it due to my lack of reading comprehension.

Oh, and, by the way, I do have an English degree.  It obviously didn't help me any. 

[PhoSita]

So, I guess that while you are not technically saying anything untrue, you certainly haven't proven any correlation between getting a top ten pick and being a championship contender. 

 

Except I have.


What I'm saying is as simple as "generally when people make pizza, they use tomatoes," and then put together a list of popular pizza recipes as an example.

It's not some earth shattering revelation, but it runs contrary to this notion that getting a top pick via tanking would have no significant value long term in putting together a really good team.

What you are saying is more like "when people make good pizza, they generally use tomatoes, and when people make bad pizza, they generally use tomatoes.  Therefore, the key to making good pizza is using tomatoes."

As LooseCannon points out, though, you can make a good pizza without using tomatoes.

So C18, let's be clear.  We both agree that having a good team requires having very talented players, right?

To the extent that we can agree on that, we should both be keenly interested in how teams acquire very talented players.

My point all along is that one of the primary ways that teams acquire and develop very talented players is the draft.  It's not the only way.  Not every team that acquires a very talented player succeeds in building a team that is competitive for even a single season.


I don't understand your insistence that where a team picks in the draft, and how the team uses those picks, has no correlation with team success.  Pardon me if that's not what you're insisting.  It just seems to me that that is what you're driving at here.

[PhoSita]

The bottom line is that it takes a certain level of talent to be a contender.  There are mechanisms for acquiring that talent that don't involve drafting in the top five.  People who argue that Celtics have to draft that high tend to engage in the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.  That annoys me so much that I have decided to actively root against the Celtics getting a top five pick just so Ainge can show that it can be done.  That would have the two-fold benefit of bringing another banner to Boston and shutting up all the tanking talk about how you need that top pick, hopefully to the point that fans become less willing to accept losing, so that the overall NBA product becomes more watchable.

What's ironic is that the thing that annoys you so much is a straw man argument of your own creation that you won't see many people around here actually making, at least not with the kind of obstinance that you're demonstrating here.

This is a great thread to use as an example of why an English degree isn't a waste of time.

Reading comprehension. It's important.

I support this.  English B.A.s for the win!

[Celtics18]

So, I guess that while you are not technically saying anything untrue, you certainly haven't proven any correlation between getting a top ten pick and being a championship contender. 

 

Except I have.


What I'm saying is as simple as "generally when people make pizza, they use tomatoes," and then put together a list of popular pizza recipes as an example.

It's not some earth shattering revelation, but it runs contrary to this notion that getting a top pick via tanking would have no significant value long term in putting together a really good team.

What you are saying is more like "when people make good pizza, they generally use tomatoes, and when people make bad pizza, they generally use tomatoes.  Therefore, the key to making good pizza is using tomatoes."

As LooseCannon points out, though, you can make a good pizza without using tomatoes.

So C18, let's be clear.  We both agree that having a good team requires having very talented players, right?

To the extent that we can agree on that, we should both be keenly interested in how teams acquire very talented players.

My point all along is that one of the primary ways that teams acquire and develop very talented players is the draft.  It's not the only way.  Not every team that acquires a very talented player succeeds in building a team that is competitive for even a single season.


I don't understand your insistence that where a team picks in the draft, and how the team uses those picks, has no correlation with team success.  Pardon me if that's not what you're insisting.  It just seems to me that that is what you're driving at here.

I'm certainly not insisting that how teams use their picks has no correlation with team success.  I'm not even meaning to insist that having high draft picks can't be valuable to team success. 

However, what I was initially arguing against was the idea that a top draft pick is essential to rebuilding.  I know you aren't saying this, but others are.

I am also arguing that--at least I was until I got side tracked--finishing the season on a strong note has a shot of having as much, if not more, value to the future success of this team as tanking for the highest pick possible.

I don't have any statistics or data to prove my last point, unfortunately.  But, I do believe that having good players who are capable of winning basketball games together can be a good thing for building a team.