The Atlanta Hawks and Tanking

[Celtics18]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

[chambers]

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Very, very few teams ever win a title with at least one big time contributor they drafted or acquired via a pick in the top 10, if not top 5. 

Mike

MBunge wants to win an NBA title: Ignores all championship winners that had the recipe for achieving the task, and instead analyzes the teams that didn't win a championship.

MBunge's flawed reverse logic at work.

[MBunge]

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Very, very few teams ever win a title with at least one big time contributor they drafted or acquired via a pick in the top 10, if not top 5. 

Mike

MBunge wants to win an NBA title: Ignores all championship winners that had the recipe for achieving the task, and instead analyzes the teams that didn't win a championship.

MBunge's flawed reverse logic at work.

There is no recipe.  If you think there is, you are a fool.

You know how you win championships?  You work hard, be smart and get lucky.  People who think there's a formula to winning titles are no different than the degenerate gamblers who think they've got a system for picking horse race winners.

It is tiresome to read comments from people, most of whom have probably never competed in anything more intense than a game of Musical Chairs, lauding some theory or strategy that's supposed to lead to championships when the numbers are crystal clear.  Most teams that do X, whether X is get a top 3 pick or trade for a superstar or whatever, FAIL to win titles.

So, while it is always fair to analyze and criticize decisions on legitimate grounds, having a snit fit because a GM isn't following some specific plan is just stupid.

Mike

[GratefulCs]

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Very, very few teams ever win a title with at least one big time contributor they drafted or acquired via a pick in the top 10, if not top 5. 

Mike

MBunge wants to win an NBA title: Ignores all championship winners that had the recipe for achieving the task, and instead analyzes the teams that didn't win a championship.

MBunge's flawed reverse logic at work.

There is no recipe.  If you think there is, you are a fool.

You know how you win championships?  You work hard, be smart and get lucky.  People who think there's a formula to winning titles are no different than the degenerate gamblers who think they've got a system for picking horse race winners.

It is tiresome to read comments from people, most of whom have probably never competed in anything more intense than a game of Musical Chairs, lauding some theory or strategy that's supposed to lead to championships when the numbers are crystal clear.  Most teams that do X, whether X is get a top 3 pick or trade for a superstar or whatever, FAIL to win titles.

So, while it is always fair to analyze and criticize decisions on legitimate grounds, having a snit fit because a GM isn't following some specific plan is just stupid.

Mike

Gotta say, you're input is generally my favorite, mbunge




TP

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

Andrew Bynum was a top 10 pick and Kobe was drafted out of HS which is not really an apples to apples comparison.

The Pistons are definitely an exception, but that's really hard to duplicate.

[PhoSita]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

What Randy with a bunch of A's said.

The Pistons are really the only recent exception.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

Very, very few teams ever win a title with at least one big time contributor they drafted or acquired via a pick in the top 10, if not top 5. 

Mike

Has there been a title winner outside the Pistons in the last decade to do it? Particularly when you factor in the inability to draft HS players now who tend to be the exceptions from the post Jordan era.

If KG, Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal, etc had to go to college there's definitely a possibility they'd have been top 5 picks.

[guava_wrench]

I'd like to know why Atlanta gets used as an example of how and why to build through the draft? they haven't won anything.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[guava_wrench]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

I'm not sure what "acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10" means in the previous post. If he is saying that star players on championship teams were acquired by those teams by trading away a top 10 pick, I have no idea who he is referring to. That's how we got KG, but I do not thing that is a common pattern that anyone should be mentioning as some major point.

But we should not forget who was actually on the teams that won:

Paul Gasol was drafted #3.

Chandler was #2. Kidd was #2.

Chauncey Billups was #3. Rasheed Wallace was #4.

[crimson_stallion]

You could also look at the Spurs and say they tanked for Timmy and have been the best franchise in the league for the past 15 years

There is one key factor with this scenario...

1) The Spurs already had a superstar and one of the greatest centers every to play when they drafted Duncan - most lottery teams do not have that luxury

2) Throughout this era the Spurs have had Poppovich - one of the greatest coaches of the era.  Again, a luxury most lottery teams don't get.

3) The A player like Duncan comes along once a decade, typically.  The Spurs were incredibly lucky that the season Duncan was coming in to the draft happened to also be a season they really sucked in.  When you know you have a Duncan / Lebron / Jordan / Anthony Davis caliber talent coming up in the draft, then tanking is worth the risk.

95% of teams who tank don't have a superstar player, a super coach or the certainty of a once-in-a-generation talent in the upcoming draft.  That changes everything - for the Spurs the stars aligned, so to speak.

The later drafts (Parker and Ginobilli) came down to great management and decision making, so you can credit them for that - but all of that would have meant nothing if they didn't get Duncan.

The Denver Nuggets are another example of a team that tried to build around glorified role players. After several 50 win seasons, they are now 29-50.

Only after the Melo and then Melo/AI versions of Denver failed to get out of the first round.

FYI,
They actually made the Western Conference finals and lost to the Lakers (it was the year KG was injured for us).
The Lakers beat them 4-2 and then went on to embarrass the Magic 4-1.

But I get what you're saying.
Ultimately to win an NBA championship you've got to get lucky in the draft, or you've got to get lucky in free agency.

Both require insane luck.

The difference is, in trades and free agency it's not all luck.  You do have SOME control. You have the ability to at least put your best foot forward.  You can talk to free agents, try to convince them that your team is where they want to be.  You can talk to teams, try to tell them that your package is what they need in return for their star player.  In the draft lottery your team has zero control over those ping pong balls.  How many times has Cleveland taken the #1 pick despite not having the worst record?   In some cases they didn't even have CLOSE to the worst record.  How many teams have tanked to the point of utter disgrace yet still missed out on the top couple of picks?

Tanking and building through the draft is, for the most part, like betting on Bingo or playing the lottery.  You can control how many lottery tickets you buy or how many numbers / lines you play in order to increase your chances of winning...but at the end of the day it's out of your hands, and you're more likely to NOT get the #1 pick then you are to get it.  Plus every moment of tanking hurts your reputation as an organisation and hurts the attitude of your team.  Trying to get players through trades an free agency, and being beaten to the deal, doesn't have that affect - at least you are seen as trying to make an effort to get better.

[LooseCannon]

I'd like to know why Atlanta gets used as an example of how and why to build through the draft? they haven't won anything.

Did you mean to say OKC instead of Atlanta?

[Moranis]

I'd like to know why Atlanta gets used as an example of how and why to build through the draft? they haven't won anything.

Did you mean to say OKC instead of Atlanta?

Yeah but OKC has at least made the finals by winning 3 series.  The Hawks haven't even won more than 1 playoff series in any season since the 1957-58 season when they were in St. Louis and won the title after winning just 2 playoff series.

[slamtheking]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

I'm not sure what "acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10" means in the previous post. If he is saying that star players on championship teams were acquired by those teams by trading away a top 10 pick, I have no idea who he is referring to. That's how we got KG, but I do not thing that is a common pattern that anyone should be mentioning as some major point.

But we should not forget who was actually on the teams that won:

Paul Gasol was drafted #3.

Chandler was #2. Kidd was #2.

Chauncey Billups was #3. Rasheed Wallace was #4.

and none of those players won on the team that drafted them except Kidd but on the backside of his career and having his best days on the Nets in between his tours in Dallas.  None of those guys were acquired by their championship teams using a top 5 draft pick.  the only player I can think of off the top of my head that fits that criteria is Ray Allen when we traded Wally, West and the #5 (Green) for him.

[The_Truth]

The only thing we can take for granted is what's real.

What's real now is that we have a good coach, and we play with heart.

Rookies can be good or bad, #1 picks can be good or bad, you never know.

So all that tanking stuff for me is just for daydreamers.


Let's enjoy the ride, we have a good team! And we have 17 championships!

#GOCELTS

[Celtics18]

This has been beaten to death on here, but this discussion really boils down to the following:

Winning in the NBA invariably requires elite players.  We can argue about whether it requires superstars or just plain stars, but it requires your team to have top end talent.

There are a number of ways of getting that top end talent.  You can't plan, as a franchise, to acquire top end talent via any one of those methods and be assured of it happening.  It's a bit of a crap shoot any way you do it.

With that said, very, very few teams ever win a title without having at least one big time contributor that they drafted or acquired via a pick that falls in the top 10, if not the top 5.

The Lakers and the Mavs and the Pistons have all won recent titles without a big time player drafted in the top five or acquired via a top five pick.  I'll give you that Dirk was drafted right at the outside edge of the top ten. 

At the least, I think you ought to remove one "very."

What Randy with a bunch of A's said.

The Pistons are really the only recent exception.

Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, Marc Gasol, Paul Millsap, Rajon Rondo, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kyle Lowry, Jeff Teague, Deandre Jordan, Klay Thompson. 

The above players are all high impact (or potential high impact) players who have been drafted outside the top ten since the nineteen year old age limit was put in effect.

At least one of them has already won a title as a high impact player for his team.  Most of the rest of them have been high impact players for contenders. 

How do you get high impact players?  Sometimes you draft them outside the top ten. 

The hypothesis that finding a top notch player outside the top ten in the draft isn't likely to happen again since the age limit was changed has been proven to be bunk.