A Top 50 All Timer Plus Two All Stars

[RunningTheFloor]

I was at a work event last week where Wyc spoke.  I was going to do a recap here, but I don't really post much, and I sort of forgot about it.  With the Anthony Davis news, I thought one piece of his speech was particularly telling.

When Wyc first bought the team, he hired a bunch of MIT kids to compare every team that has ever won an NBA championship.  They discovered that every team - outside of the '04 Pistons - included a Top 50 All Time player and two additional All-Star caliber players (meaning they were an all-star the year immediately before, during, or immediately after the year they won the Championship). 

So the Wyc-owned Celtics set out to replicate that formula.  They knew they had Pierce, but were missing the Top 50 All Time and another All-Star. 

Around 2004, they identified KG as someone who could be that Top 50 All Timer, because they had a hunch that if the Timberwolves couldn't get a Championship caliber team around him that they would look to trade him before his contract expired.  So they decided they would go into asset collection mode, so they would have the best assets to offer if/when Garnett became available without sacrificing Pierce, and with enough leftover ammunition to grab another all-star. 

When they hired Doc, he knew the plan was to build assets, and that he wouldn't be judged on whether he could get the team to win.  So when there was all the fire Doc/Danny talk the year before the trade, Wyc never considered it.  (Although I guess Doc's biggest fear was that they'd listen to public opinion and get rid of him before making their big move.)

Everyone knows the story from there, but the similarities between then and now are striking.  While the Warriors may have drastically changed the landscape to win a championship, my guess is that the Celtics team building philosophy is still relatively similar.  Which means, if Davis is still on the Pelicans after the trade deadline, assume Wyc/Danny trade whatever it takes to put Davis next to Irving with hopes that Hayward can return to form to become that second All Star.

[Big333223]

If that is, indeed, the formula. Davis would be the clear Top 50 guy, Kyrie another star and... Tatum seems like the best bet on the roster to make an all star game in the next two seasons. Maybe Hayward if he comes back strong next year but I still think Tatum is the more talented player.

Wouldn't surprise me if everything and everyone outside of Kyrie and Tatum was on the table to get AD in the summer with the thinking being that once those 3 are together, the rest will fall into place.

I'm speculating, obviously.

[footey]

If that is, indeed, the formula. Davis would be the clear Top 50 guy, Kyrie another star and... Tatum seems like the best bet on the roster to make an all star game in the next two seasons. Maybe Hayward if he comes back strong next year but I still think Tatum is the more talented player.

Wouldn't surprise me if everything and everyone outside of Kyrie and Tatum was on the table to get AD in the summer with the thinking being that once those 3 are together, the rest will fall into place.

I'm speculating, obviously.

I think we will have to include Tatum if we want to get Davis.

[CelticsPoetry]

In my opinion, the guy who is truly untouchable if we want to win a ring in the next 2/3 years is Big Al. He has played on winning teams his whole career, never missed the playoffs, won NCAA championships. That is not a coincidence. He simply makes everyone better, does all the fundamental things needed to win, even though most people will dismiss him because of his stats. I cannot say the same of Anthony Davis. Dont get me wrong, I would love to get the guy, but in my opinion he does not have KG  type of impact. Even though KG didnt go far while in Minny, they routinely at least made the playoffs, which cant he said about Davis. Sure he puts up big stats, but a lot of times, they are meaningless. That is why we NEED Horford to pair him with Davis. He would also do wonders as a mentor

[greg683x]

id be more concerned that it took paying for research from MIT for Wyc to understand that if you have two all stars and a hall of famer you have a chance at winning a title

[RunningTheFloor]

If that is, indeed, the formula. Davis would be the clear Top 50 guy, Kyrie another star and... Tatum seems like the best bet on the roster to make an all star game in the next two seasons. Maybe Hayward if he comes back strong next year but I still think Tatum is the more talented player.

Wouldn't surprise me if everything and everyone outside of Kyrie and Tatum was on the table to get AD in the summer with the thinking being that once those 3 are together, the rest will fall into place.

I'm speculating, obviously.

I think we will have to include Tatum if we want to get Davis.

I went with the assumption that they'd need to give up Tatum too, but also agree that if they can get him without giving up Tatum, that's a more comfortable position than hoping Hayward returns to his old self.

[Surferdad]

id be more concerned that it took paying for research from MIT for Wyc to understand that if you have two all stars and a hall of famer you have a chance at winning a title

He can spend his money as he wishes, but it's not like he learned much that couldn't be figured out by anyone really.  Makes me think Wyc became an NBA fan after acquiring the team...

In any case, I have a championship roster rule-of-thumb derived from watching the 1986 championship team: 1-3-8.

You need ONE superstar (call it a future HOFer if you like, Wyc)
You need THREE all-stars
You need EIGHT players who are starters on most NBA clubs.

It's essentially what Wyc is saying but also speaks to necessary depth.

[RunningTheFloor]

id be more concerned that it took paying for research from MIT for Wyc to understand that if you have two all stars and a hall of famer you have a chance at winning a title

I realize you're trying to poke fun at the result of the research, but he's a business guy, and information helps guide decisions.  Of course - every team that wins a title is good.

But how good?  And what makes them good?  I mean - everyone would probably assume if you could put five hall of famers in their prime on the same team, you'd also have a really good chance at winning a title.  But where's the line you need to get to?  Could a hall of famer and three other players who can put up 15+ PPG do it?  Perhaps every team needs a Center who can block 3+ shots per game and shoot 70%+ from the free throw line.

You go through the process looking for the similarities in a Championship team and see what comes out of it.  You then build based off the knowledge you've gained. 

I think it's nice to know some research goes into their plan vs. just saying "go get good players."

[Moranis]

The Sonics title didn't fit that method. The Pistons were actually closer given just how dominant Ben Wallace was.

The Rockets had the top 50 player but no all stars that first title though added Clyde for the second. 

The first Spurs title had Robinson and Duncan but no other all star. 

Only Jordan and Pippen were all stars from the Bulls runs.

Who was the other all star with Kobe and Shaq or Shaq and Wade?

I am really questioning MIT's prowess with this analysis.

[Fierce1]

If that is, indeed, the formula. Davis would be the clear Top 50 guy, Kyrie another star and... Tatum seems like the best bet on the roster to make an all star game in the next two seasons. Maybe Hayward if he comes back strong next year but I still think Tatum is the more talented player.

Wouldn't surprise me if everything and everyone outside of Kyrie and Tatum was on the table to get AD in the summer with the thinking being that once those 3 are together, the rest will fall into place.

I'm speculating, obviously.

I think we will have to include Tatum if we want to get Davis.

I went with the assumption that they'd need to give up Tatum too, but also agree that if they can get him without giving up Tatum, that's a more comfortable position than hoping Hayward returns to his old self.

That's the best case scenario, Celts end up keeping Tatum.
But as a big Tatum fan myself, it's Anthony Davis, even Tatum is worth sacrificing.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I think you could argue that a 27-year old Kyrie Irving has the potential to break into the top 50 players all-time conversation.

One of the questions I always have about this type of discussion is: does a great player make a championship team, or does a championship team make a great player?

In other words, what is the cause? Is it the player that causes the championship, or is it the championship that causes us to recognize the greatness of a player?

For example, I genuinely believe the Celtics have a punchers' shot against the Warriors this year. If they did win, would Irving's two championships, combined with his high efficiency and scoring, be enough to put him in that conversation? How would people view Al Horford? Jayson Tatum? Jaylon Brown, Etc.

It seems so results-driven. CBS is about the process. If you play the right way and do the right things, the results will take care of themselves.

[RunningTheFloor]

The Sonics title didn't fit that method. The Pistons were actually closer given just how dominant Ben Wallace was.

The Rockets had the top 50 player but no all stars that first title though added Clyde for the second. 

The first Spurs title had Robinson and Duncan but no other all star. 

Only Jordan and Pippen were all stars from the Bulls runs.

Who was the other all star with Kobe and Shaq or Shaq and Wade?

I am really questioning MIT's prowess with this analysis.

Great questions.  I didn't go back and check him on the analysis.  Jordan/Pippen was the only one that hit me during the speech, but I figured Rodman/Kukoc must have made an All-Star appearance.  My guess is he glossed over specifics (maybe it was a borderline all-star?) to get to his point.  Or it just made for a good story...

In any case, I think the point comes back to how they view team building.  So there's still something to take away from it.

[bdm860]

When Wyc first bought the team, he hired a bunch of MIT kids to compare every team that has ever won an NBA championship.  They discovered that every team - outside of the '04 Pistons - included a Top 50 All Time player and two additional All-Star caliber players (meaning they were an all-star the year immediately before, during, or immediately after the year they won the Championship). 

This doesn't sound right to me.

Wyc bought the team in '02, (so not sure how the '04 Pistons could be included in the conversation or in the analysis, but whatever), so looking at champions starting in '02:

2002: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 =

2001: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 =

2000: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 = (You can squeeze Glen Rice in if you want, but last an All-Star in '98, not really an All-Star caliber player in '00).

1999: Spurs:  Top 50 = Duncan.  All-Star #1 = Robinson.  All Star #2 = (Sean Elliot last an All-Star in '96, far from All-Star after kidney transplant).

1998: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (you can probably place Rodman here as All-Star "caliber", but not an All-Star, though was rebounding leader.  Last time All-D was '96).

1997: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (Rodman, same argument as above).

1996: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (Rodman, same argument as above).

1995: Rockets: Top 50 = Hakeem.  All-Star #1 = Drexler.  All-Star #2 =

1994: Rockets:  Top 50 = Hakeem.  All-Star #1 = .  (Otis Thorpe was a one time All-Star in '92, loosely considered All-Star caliber, but definitely no All-Star #2).

1993:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = Grant.  (Bonus All-Star #3 with Armstrong voted a started in '94, but he's definitely not considered All-Star caliber in my book).

1992:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = .    (Is 1x All-Star in '94 Horace Grant really considered All-Star caliber here?)

1991:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = .    (Grant again?  Or are we talking about ''80 All-Star Bill Cartwright?  C'mon).

Pre-90, mostly before expansion, Lakers/Piston/Celtics/Sixers I think usually had 3 All-Stars, so it was more true then.


Edit - I see Moranis beat me to the skepticism.  Though I think it's more of a case of Wyc being a big BS-er than anything.  Like when he said he was the one who told Danny to ask for the picks from the Nets.

[RunningTheFloor]

When Wyc first bought the team, he hired a bunch of MIT kids to compare every team that has ever won an NBA championship.  They discovered that every team - outside of the '04 Pistons - included a Top 50 All Time player and two additional All-Star caliber players (meaning they were an all-star the year immediately before, during, or immediately after the year they won the Championship). 

This doesn't sound right to me.

Wyc bought the team in '02, (so not sure how the '04 Pistons could be included in the conversation or in the analysis, but whatever), so looking at champions starting in '02:

2002: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 =

2001: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 =

2000: Lakers:  Top 50 = Shaq.  All-Star #1 = Kobe. All-Star #2 = (You can squeeze Glen Rice in if you want, but last an All-Star in '98, not really an All-Star caliber player in '00).

1999: Spurs:  Top 50 = Duncan.  All-Star #1 = Robinson.  All Star #2 = (Sean Elliot last an All-Star in '96, far from All-Star after kidney transplant).

1998: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (you can probably place Rodman here as All-Star "caliber", but not an All-Star, though was rebounding leader.  Last time All-D was '96).

1997: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (Rodman, same argument as above).

1996: Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = (Rodman, same argument as above).

1995: Rockets: Top 50 = Hakeem.  All-Star #1 = Drexler.  All-Star #2 =

1994: Rockets:  Top 50 = Hakeem.  All-Star #1 = .  (Otis Thorpe was a one time All-Star in '92, loosely considered All-Star caliber, but definitely no All-Star #2).

1993:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = Grant.  (Bonus All-Star #3 with Armstrong voted a started in '94, but he's definitely not considered All-Star caliber in my book).

1992:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = .    (Is 1x All-Star in '94 Horace Grant really considered All-Star caliber here?)

1991:  Bulls:  Top 50 = Jordan.  All-Star #1 = Pippen.  All-Star #2 = .    (Grant again?  Or are we talking about ''80 All-Star Bill Cartwright?  C'mon).

Pre-90, mostly before expansion, Lakers/Piston/Celtics/Sixers I think usually had 3 All-Stars, so it was more true then.


Edit - I see Moranis beat me to the skepticism.  Though I think it's more of a case of Wyc being a big BS-er than anything.  Like when he said he said he was the one who told Danny to ask for the picks from the Nets.

Yeah - sounds like a kind of true, but makes for a good story and makes me sound good, so let's roll with it situation.  Oh well, it was still fun to spend an hour of my work day listening to him talk Celtics.

[PhoSita]

The best recipe for a title is to have a top 5 defense, a top 5 offense, and a formula for achieving both that can carry over to playoff basketball.

There are plenty of ways you can configure the talent on your roster to achieve that, but probably the most straightforward way is to have a player who is among the elite tier of the league plus one or two others in the next tier below that.


Obviously the odds of winning at least one title by this method increase greatly if you can extend this level of excellence over several seasons.