The Atlanta Hawks and Tanking

[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.

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.

And also isn't a hypothesis that I've advanced here.

[GetLucky]

The thing with the Hawks is that they were always a bunch of incoherent underachievers with an average to bad coach. I remember everyone saying: "If Josh Smith could get brain surgery, he'd be a superstar!" or "If Iso Joe ever learned the new word in the dictionary (pass), he'd be a fantastic piece!" or "If Horford didn't have glass bones, he'd be a huge factor!" or even "If Teague puts it together he'd be pretty good!"

The difference now is the consensus that the team is overachieving due to great coaching and players that fit together. However, they don't fit the typical overachieving-underdog narrative because they weren't terrible to start; they were mediocre. So instead of being an expected lottery team that is fighting for the 8 seed (like the Celtics), they were an expected 6-8 seed that has the 2nd best record in the league.

Now, the argument here is whether or not the Celtics can maintain this scrappy, fluid style of play with the many roster changes to come. Teams like the Spurs have been doing it for seemingly forever, but they had a pretty darn good start with Timmy Duncan and The Admiral. The Hawks are a story because, as the OP said, they had great roster upheaval and achieved success relatively quickly. 

From what I can gather, the main disagreement stems from the fact that most rebuilds seem to have two steps: allocation of talent and putting it all together. For both, you have to get lucky. Teams like the Thunder had amazingly good fortune in amassing talent, but they haven't had a coach or the health to "put it together." Same goes for other teams like the Rockets. The Spurs have both, which is why they're champions. The old Heat had so much talent that there were so many ways to "get it together" so quickly. The 2008 Celtics are an anomaly because they got a huge influx of talent and "put it together" almost immediately. Some people are arguing that we are "putting it together" now, and we will naturally get assets through good management and free agency. Others argue that we don't have enough talent and talent allocation has to come first, so we should tank.

I, for one, believe the Celtics can do it (meaning the former) because of their foundation. It took the Hawks years to amass talent (via tanking), and it took them even longer to find a coach to put it all together. I think with Stevens already here and Danny as the GM, the Celtics will find ways to slowly (or quickly) get better while not taking steps back like other teams. Not to be discounted is the ownership group's resources; the Celtics won't lose a talent like Harden to avoid the luxury tax.

[D.o.s.]

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?

I don't think anyone is suffering any illusions about the uncertainty around winning an NBA title.

That said, the Thunder have been much more likely to win an NBA title than the Hawks for the majority of the 2010's, and that's with the disadvantage of playing in the West.

[Celtics18]

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.

O.K., so you are not advancing any theories.  You are simply stating a fact.  I get that.

The problem is that this fact on its own is a virtually meaningless one.  It's meaningless because it's not only NBA champions who have at some point drafted or acquired a top contributor who falls in the top ten.  Every single team of the thirty teams in the NBA fall into that category.

Given that fact, I don't see using that aspect of title winners as one of the major factors that separates them from non-title winners.  It doesn't separate them.

If you want to use history to look at what championship teams have done in order to game plan for how to build a contender, it would make more sense to look at what those teams have done that other less successful teams haven't been able to do. 

[PhoSita]

If you want to use history to look at what championship teams have done in order to game plan for how to build a contender, it would make more sense to look at what those teams have done that other less successful teams haven't been able to do.

Very good point.  Well stated.

The fact stated, like you said, does not prove much.  There is so much more to building a contender than just that small piece.  Lots of teams have drafted players in the top 5-10 spots.  Lots of teams have even gotten a star in that spot.  The vast majority of those teams never get beyond the 1st round with that player. 

I think I understand your peevishness with respect to the purported importance of drafting high.  Too often it is used to try to prove too much, to stand as a primary cause rather than one ingredient in a recipe that requires many.

[Moranis]

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.

O.K., so you are not advancing any theories.  You are simply stating a fact.  I get that.

The problem is that this fact on its own is a virtually meaningless one.  It's meaningless because it's not only NBA champions who have at some point drafted or acquired a top contributor who falls in the top ten.  Every single team of the thirty teams in the NBA fall into that category.

Given that fact, I don't see using that aspect of title winners as one of the major factors that separates them from non-title winners.  It doesn't separate them.

If you want to use history to look at what championship teams have done in order to game plan for how to build a contender, it would make more sense to look at what those teams have done that other less successful teams haven't been able to do.

the thing is though if you look at title teams over the entire history of the NBA the vast majority of them are led by top 5 picks.  Certainly not always the team that drafted them, but title teams are littered at the top with the very best players in history and the vast majority of the very best players in history were top 5 picks. 

[D.o.s.]

but title teams are littered at the top with the very best players in history and the vast majority of the very best players in history were top 5 picks. 

well, obviously? Or, alternatively: cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

[beantownboy171]

We are going to need to get back into the lottery in some manner. We have ways to do that, whether it is with our own first next year, 1 or more of the brooklyn picks, or the mavericks missing the playoffs next year (top 7 protected). 

If we don't get top 10 selections from a few of those selections id be a little concerned.

But the impact of making the playoffs this year and not getting a top 10 pick is only moderate. We can negate the losses suffered from not tanking by making a good selection at #16 and with the development of our current players.

I think Smart, Bradley, Olynyk and Zeller stand to gain the most from this playoff experience. Jae Crowder is another guy who will really benefit from the exposure, but there is no guarantee he will be back with the celtics next year.

If this playoff experience can propel Smart to reach his superstar potential, then it was worth it. The fact that Smart has emerged as a leader and pushed his team into the playoffs his rookie year is significant. It is a good indicator that he can be an impact player in this league, and it will be interesting to see how he plays on the big stage. I'm cautiously optimistic, because he has played his best ball this year in the 4th quarter.

I also think Bradley will establish himself as an NBA starter for a team hoping to make the playoffs. I think this experience has the potential to really boost Olynyk and zeller's trade stock around the league.

We also may find a trade market for Evan Turner down the line if he rattles of a triple-double and plays like he has all season.

I don't think any player will be more driven in the offseason than James Young by the way. He has to be disappointed he hasn't played well enough to earn a spot in the playoff rotation.

I think it's doubtful the Sullinger will see his stock increase in these playoffs unless he really shakes off the rust in the next week.

Objectively, i think that's the best that we can hope from this playoff exposure. But those are some of the benefits which can impact the future of this team.

[Celtics18]

If you want to use history to look at what championship teams have done in order to game plan for how to build a contender, it would make more sense to look at what those teams have done that other less successful teams haven't been able to do.

Very good point.  Well stated.

The fact stated, like you said, does not prove much.  There is so much more to building a contender than just that small piece.  Lots of teams have drafted players in the top 5-10 spots.  Lots of teams have even gotten a star in that spot.  The vast majority of those teams never get beyond the 1st round with that player. 

I think I understand your peevishness with respect to the purported importance of drafting high.  Too often it is used to try to prove too much, to stand as a primary cause rather than one ingredient in a recipe that requires many.

TP.  I'm glad I finally got my point across. 

[Moranis]

but title teams are littered at the top with the very best players in history and the vast majority of the very best players in history were top 5 picks. 

well, obviously? Or, alternatively: cum hoc ergo propter hoc?

But that is sort of the point of this discussion is it not?  And the reality is of those greatest players in history very very few came via free agency.  I mean in the last 30 years or so just Shaq and James fall into that category.  Most teams either draft or trade for their stars, and in order to trade you need assets, which quite often are high draft picks or players recently drafted with a high draft pick. 

[D.o.s.]

Agreed, my point was more that it'd be hard to be considered one of the best players ever if you don't win a title.

[Moranis]

Agreed, my point was more that it'd be hard to be considered one of the best players ever if you don't win a title.

that is because if you are that good is is hard not to win a title.  It happens like Malone (and nearly happened with KG), but it is rare because those guys are quite honestly just that good. 

[D.o.s.]

Agreed, my point was more that it'd be hard to be considered one of the best players ever if you don't win a title.

that is because if you are that good is is hard not to win a title.  It happens like Malone (and nearly happened with KG), but it is rare because those guys are quite honestly just that good.

Barkley is another good example, but I still think there's a bit of a fallacy going on here: you're using a player's inherent greatness as a reason for why they won a title, when I'm fairly certain there's some hindsight bias going on because they won a title.

The truth, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle.

[Celtics4ever]

I, for one, believe the Celtics can do it (meaning the former) because of their foundation.

I trust DA, but I think a lot of this foundation will be moved for assets.   Some of the guys may be here later but my money is on the huge turnaround.

[Eja117]

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

Or you could look at the Celtics that had a way better chance at Tim that year and missed out and realize tanking doesn't work. Getting lucky can. I don't like luck as my strategy