Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case study)

Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#61 » by Durins Baynes » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:07 pm

Indy's best player was a top 10 pick, and I discuss top 10 lotto talent as an essential component of 90% of all post-99 contenders. Normally it's talent much higher than top 10, but it fits for the purposes of this thread. I also don't think a 50 win team with non-notable SRS or differential is suddenly a contender because of one good playoffs against a team they match up well with, but who then gets serious and puts them away. It's not unlike saying the Hawks were contenders in 2008, because they took the Celtics to 7 games. They wouldn't get out of the 1st round in the West. But let's humour you and say they're a contender. That's still 2-3 exceptions post 99, and dozens of contenders who did need to be bad enough to get top 10 talent as a necessary (but not sufficient) component of becoming contenders.
MarkDeeks
Junior
Posts: 491
And1: 553
Joined: Sep 21, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#62 » by MarkDeeks » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:53 am

Indy's best player was a top 10 pick


:banghead:
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#63 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:06 am

Pau George was picked in the top 10.

They're not a contender at any rate, and even if we granted them that status that's still only 2-3 exceptions in 15 years. Pretty horrible odds.
MarkDeeks
Junior
Posts: 491
And1: 553
Joined: Sep 21, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#64 » by MarkDeeks » Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:36 am

Why teams today can't build without tanking


Paul George was picked in the top 10.


:banghead:

There's no real point saying what I've said before when it didn't make you yield any the first time. But there's a biiiiiiiiiig freaking difference between

a) picking top 3 and picking 10th, and
b) tanking, versus trying to be average and failing.
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#65 » by bondom34 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:23 am

OK, so I've been following this thread for what seems like forever, and it hasn't really yielded much, and hasn't changed my opinion. That being said, I just wanted to post a link to a thread on the APBR forum on a similar topic.
http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8338
The final result: In the last 33 years, 5 teams had 3 or more of their top picks in the top 7 w/in a 4 year span. None of those teams ever won a title w/ at least 2 of those players in some prominent role. They drew the conclusion that it doesn't work. That being said, its still a method. I will say that tanking does inherently seem to be what this situation shows, as if youre really tanking, you'll have top picks multiple years in a row. Don't really care to joint this endless debate, just wanted to post the link as I found it interesting.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
HartfordWhalers
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - 76ers and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 46,930
And1: 20,472
Joined: Apr 07, 2010
 

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#66 » by HartfordWhalers » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:38 am

bondom34 wrote:OK, so I've been following this thread for what seems like forever, and it hasn't really yielded much, and hasn't changed my opinion. That being said, I just wanted to post a link to a thread on the APBR forum on a similar topic.
http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8338
The final result: In the last 33 years, 5 teams had 3 or more of their top picks in the top 7 w/in a 4 year span. None of those teams ever won a title w/ at least 2 of those players in some prominent role. They drew the conclusion that it doesn't work. That being said, its still a method. I will say that tanking does inherently seem to be what this situation shows, as if youre really tanking, you'll have top picks multiple years in a row. Don't really care to joint this endless debate, just wanted to post the link as I found it interesting.


Not a fan of that methodology at all. It basically restricts the analysis to teams that were bottom 6 or so in standings for multiple years in a row. Most proponents of tanking don't suggest you bottom repeatedly, and stay horrific for extended periods of time. Either doing it surgically (a single year when a star is injured), or getting a stud and slowly improving so you shouldn't still be that bad for 3 years. To some extent it is looking at the teams that drafted high and didn't improve by definition, suggesting that the range of analysis is restricted mostly to where the picks weren't successful (although OKC hits into this window).
User avatar
bondom34
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 66,580
And1: 50,199
Joined: Mar 01, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#67 » by bondom34 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:20 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:
bondom34 wrote:OK, so I've been following this thread for what seems like forever, and it hasn't really yielded much, and hasn't changed my opinion. That being said, I just wanted to post a link to a thread on the APBR forum on a similar topic.
http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8338
The final result: In the last 33 years, 5 teams had 3 or more of their top picks in the top 7 w/in a 4 year span. None of those teams ever won a title w/ at least 2 of those players in some prominent role. They drew the conclusion that it doesn't work. That being said, its still a method. I will say that tanking does inherently seem to be what this situation shows, as if youre really tanking, you'll have top picks multiple years in a row. Don't really care to joint this endless debate, just wanted to post the link as I found it interesting.


Not a fan of that methodology at all. It basically restricts the analysis to teams that were bottom 6 or so in standings for multiple years in a row. Most proponents of tanking don't suggest you bottom repeatedly, and stay horrific for extended periods of time. Either doing it surgically (a single year when a star is injured), or getting a stud and slowly improving so you shouldn't still be that bad for 3 years. To some extent it is looking at the teams that drafted high and didn't improve by definition, suggesting that the range of analysis is restricted mostly to where the picks weren't successful (although OKC hits into this window).

Agreed, which is why I just posted it as an FYI type deal. That being said, a lot of teams get stuck in a rut w/ tanking and end up stuck there for longer than expected.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
DBoys
Starter
Posts: 2,094
And1: 220
Joined: Aug 22, 2010

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#68 » by DBoys » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:25 am

A "contender" is still undefined in this thesis, although it supposedly is the promised result of tanking. No way to examine whether that's true when we don't even know what it is.

But however it's defined, the thesis is a miserable failure.

If there are about a half dozen contenders each year, and there are about 2 dozen non-contenders each year, that means having a top 10 draftee gives you a 20% chance of being a contender and an 80% chance of being a non-contender. A success rate like that is not desirable. How do we know those numbers are true? Because pretty much every team has a top 10 draftee! The idea that a team should take drastic measures to do something that offers no guarantee of success - and in which the chance for failure far exceeds success - is simply wrong.
giberish
RealGM
Posts: 15,824
And1: 5,809
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#69 » by giberish » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:28 am

Durins Baynes wrote:My contention was top 10 picks (and usually much higher than 10) were an essential component to building a contender in a post 99 CBA environment 9 times out of 10, analysing the post 99 contenders


By your standards, 90% of NBA teams have a top-10 pick on their roster (either drafted by them, or a player acquired in a trade for a top-10 pick of theirs). As far as I can tell, only the Lakers, Rockets, and Celtics don't - the other 27 teams do.

So something that 90% of teams have in common, 90% of contenders have in common.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#70 » by mysticbb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:11 am

HartfordWhalers wrote:Most proponents of tanking don't suggest you bottom repeatedly, and stay horrific for extended periods of time.


But that is the result! Teams, which are trying to be bad by choice will very likely be bad again the next season. Just look at the likelihood of getting good players in the draft with higher picks and you realise that being bad for 3+ years will be the most likely scenario. A team really needs to hit the jackpot of getting incredible talents with those pick as well as somehow signing really good FA in the process to avoid that.

HartfordWhalers wrote:To some extent it is looking at the teams that drafted high and didn't improve by definition, suggesting that the range of analysis is restricted mostly to where the picks weren't successful (although OKC hits into this window).


Indeed, the Thunder drafted incredible well and still fall into that window. That should tell you enough about the success rate of such a strategy.
And then we have to add the fact that the Thunder had incredible luck with staying healthy until the last playoffs as well. That helps players especially young players to develop and getting better. Just imagine the Thunder are picking Bayless instead of Westbrook, both were rated about equal at the time of the draft. How do you think that will turn out? And that the Thunder picked the good players had also a component called luck included, because when we look at their other choices besides Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka, they are not looking that good at all (picking Green instead of Noah? BJ Mullens over Taj Gibson? Cole Aldrich instead of Ed Davis or Larry Sanders? Trading Carl Landry for a 2nd rounder and getting Sasha Kaun?)

The result isn't surprising at all, because given the odds such strategy is anything but reliable.
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#71 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:16 am

Like Hartford says, this is about surgically tanking sometimes, not "suck as much as you can every single year". It is about being willing to lose more than you have to. Sometimes you'll only need top 10 picks, most times picks much higher will work a lot better. But the odds of getting to contention status without top 10 lotto talent (and usually it's much higher) are horrible. It almost never happens.

Pointing to badly run teams and saying "tanking fails" is not an argument. Bad teams will fail with any model. But if you look at contenders constructed in the modern (post 99) CBA, over 90% of them needed teams to be at least bad enough to get a top 10 pick (and usually much worse). The asset/s they acquired composed a necessary (though not sufficient) step for contention to happen.

I'd call a contender "a team who only needs to get lucky once" to win a title in any given year, that's probably the best definition I've seen before. So if a team is one (realistic) upset away from winning a title (though if the whole conference they were in sucked, I'd cross them off as real contenders, like the Eastern finalists from 00-03). I'm happy to hear who people think contenders were over the 15 years since the 99 CBA, and that can be debated back and forth. But I've identified the teams I feel qualify, and there's been little dispute except to complain that the Pacers are shortchanged a little (which I've responded to in depth).

Giberish, it's not true to say that 90% of teams since 99 have had a top 10 pick they drafted themselves (or traded another top 10 pick for), so that obvservation doesn't hold. You've also got to read carefully here. I'm saying that the pick has to be a necessary (though not sufficient) reason for them being a contender. So while lots of teams have top 10 picks, a lot of those picks have no meaningful role on that team.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#72 » by mysticbb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:18 am

giberish wrote:So something that 90% of teams have in common, 90% of contenders have in common.


Well, if you break down his whole "thesis" you are reaching the conclusion that a contender needs talented players. He doesn't show that it is more likely to become a contender, when a team is deliberately bad. His only argument that building a contender otherwise can't work is that a Harden-type player isn't often available in a trade. That we just recently saw that Howard was available in FA, James and Bosh leaving their teams in FA, Anthony and Deron Williams were traded, etc. pp. is completely ignored. Why? Because the op doesn't define anything at all in order to just arbritarily assign players to be good or bad, teams to be contenders or not based on his agenda.

Heck, the whole premise that a team can't build without tanking was debunked already, and he still hasn't acknowledged that.
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#73 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:23 am

mysticbb wrote:Well, if you break down his whole "thesis" you are reaching the conclusion that a contender needs talented players. He doesn't show that it is more likely to become a contender, when a team is deliberately bad. His only argument that building a contender otherwise is that a Harden-type player isn't often available in a trade. That we just recently saw that Howard was available in FA, James and Bosh leaving their teams in FA, Anthony and Deron Williams were traded, etc. pp. is completely ignored. Why? Because the op doesn't define anything at all in order to just arbritarily assign players to be good or bad, teams to be contenders or not based on his agenda.

I respond to Giberish's point above. But as to yours, it is ridiculously dishonest. Those guys were not "available", they knew where they were headed to and nothing teams could have done (except the bizarre series of unpredictable events involving Howard and the Rockets) would have allowed them to get those guys. In retrospect it's obvious Lebron and Bosh conspired to team up with Wade in advance, and the only reason they were going to Miami was because of Wade (who the Heat tanked to get). How does a non big market team (who didn't tank) get Wade in the first place (or attract free agents with their small market?). Deron and Melo both forced their way to NY (what Dwight was originally doing before a brain fart that made no sense, and which has served as a lesson to all other FA's to never do something so crazy again). Harden like players are not "often available". There's been exactly one Harden like guy on the trade market ever since 99, and I cover this in some depth. If you want to name a 2nd, by all means do.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#74 » by mysticbb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:34 am

Durins Baynes wrote:
mysticbb wrote:Well, if you break down his whole "thesis" you are reaching the conclusion that a contender needs talented players. He doesn't show that it is more likely to become a contender, when a team is deliberately bad. His only argument that building a contender otherwise is that a Harden-type player isn't often available in a trade. That we just recently saw that Howard was available in FA, James and Bosh leaving their teams in FA, Anthony and Deron Williams were traded, etc. pp. is completely ignored. Why? Because the op doesn't define anything at all in order to just arbritarily assign players to be good or bad, teams to be contenders or not based on his agenda.

I respond to Giberish's point above. But as to yours, it is ridiculously dishonest. Those guys were not "available", they knew where they were headed to and nothing teams could have done (except the bizarre series of unpredictable events involving Howard and the Rockets) would have allowed them to get those guys. In retrospect it's obvious Lebron and Bosh conspired to team up with Wade in advance, and the only reason they were going to Miami was because of Wade (who the Heat tanked to get). How does a non big market team (who didn't tank) get Wade in the first place (or attract free agents with their small market?). Deron and Melo both forced their way to NY (what Dwight was originally doing before a brain fart that made no sense, and which has served as a lesson to all other FA's to never do something so crazy again). Harden like players are not "often available". There's been exactly one Harden like guy on the trade market ever since 99, and I cover this in some depth. If you want to name a 2nd, by all means do.


Q.E.D.

:)

Btw, Pau Gasol was available for the right price, Iguodala was traded, Kevin Garnett was traded, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Shaquille O'Neal, Elton Brand, Chris Paul, all players eiter traded or signed via FA (or sign-and-trade), 5 of the 9 MVPs from 2000 to 2013 were either traded or signed in FA, 7 of the 15 players from last seasons All-NBA teams were either signed in FA or traded for. There are really more players available that way than you imagine. And no matter how you want to twist it, those players WERE AVAILABLE!
giberish
RealGM
Posts: 15,824
And1: 5,809
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#75 » by giberish » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:01 am

Durins Baynes wrote:
Giberish, it's not true to say that 90% of teams since 99 have had a top 10 pick they drafted themselves (or traded another top 10 pick for), so that obvservation doesn't hold. You've also got to read carefully here. I'm saying that the pick has to be a necessary (though not sufficient) reason for them being a contender. So while lots of teams have top 10 picks, a lot of those picks have no meaningful role on that team.


I'm not going to run through 15 years of rosters, but this year, 90% of teams qualify. I don't see anything unusual about that (going back to last year, the Celtics - Pierce and Lakers - Howard, acquired by trading Bynum, would qualify, but probably a couple of other teams Phoenix? wouldn't). You don't seem to realize how common top-10 picks are (1/3 of the league adds one each draft). Much like stating that 90% of contenders have a trait that 90% of all teams do, the other arguments in this thread don't really amount to much as they are either really, really obvious or have been true since the early days of the league.

Having one of the top-10 (preferably top-5 or better) players in the league has always been true of all but a very few contenders. Given how much impact the top players have in basketball this is just obvious.

The most likely way to get a top-5 player is to draft them. Again this has always been true, with a few marquee markets having a non-trivial ability to add elite players without drafting them.

The best way to draft elite players is to draft high. Again, this is so obvious is doesn't need stating, and has always been true (at least since the territorial draft ended).

With all 30 teams trying (to some degree, with some time frame in mind) it's extremely hard to stay good forever, so unless teams trade away all their picks before they can use them, they'll end up with a top-10 pick (at least) relatively often - with the extended stretches without one caused by an elite player or two with impressive longevity.
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#76 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:13 am

When I say a player like Harden being available, I identify the attributes of Harden that make him so awesome an asset to acquire (this is all in my earlier post on the Rockets on page 1):
1) He was young
2) He was an obvious up and coming star
3) There was nothing wrong with him, the team wanted to keep him but couldn't (due to cap implications), and most importantly of all
4) He was on a new rookie deal. A new rookie deal means any team in the NBA can acquire this guy and he will be stuck with them for another 6 years. It didn't matter if you were the Bobcats or the Bucks- you trade for Harden, you're keeping him.

Your examples all fail, either because they aren't analogous to the above circumstances (especially #4), or because the team in question used a top 10 (usually much higher) lotto asset (of good value, not a washed up former #10 pick) to get the guy in the first place. Your argument is "you don't need to be bad to get Harden type players". That argument doesn't work if a) you got the player by trading a top 10 pick you were bad in order to get (my whole point), or b) the player can just run off in free agency in a few years at most. It also doesn't work if the guy is in his 30's and will only agree to go to a contender. What good does that do teams who are not already contenders?

Iggy was being traded because the 76ers didn't think he was the best or 2nd best player on a contender, and they were right. To this day Iggy has made one (dubious) all-star team, so to compare him to Harden is ridiculous.

KG was traded... at age 32, after the team who drafted him top 5 was able to hang on to him for 12 years. And even then, he was in a position to control his destiny. He originally refused to go to Boston, then they used the top 5 pick they had tanked for to get Ray Allen (to go along side Pierce, who was a top 10 pick they got while recovering from another huge tank job in 97), and KG then consented to be traded to the Celtics, one of the oldest and most storied franchises in the NBA. I don't see how teams who haven't been bad enough to get good top 10 picks like the Celtics are in a position to get KG, he wouldn't have gone to a treadmill team- that was what he was escaping. His situation was also partly a product of the old CBA, in terms of his contract, etc.

Ray Allen was 33 years old when the Celtics got him, and to do it? They needed a top 5 pick. Another fail of an example.

T-Mac forced his way out from Orlando, to a team of his choosing, and the team trading for him needed said top lotto assets to get him (which they'd bottomed out for). The reason he was able to leave Toronto was precisely because he was on a contract from the old CBA, which didn't bind him to them for 7-9 years like the current CBA does. Another fail.

Grant Hill likewise had an old CBA contract that let him escape after only 6 years, and the Magic also gave up Ben Wallace to get him. Nor did it work, the Magic never became a contender via their cap space plan, and since they tried it rules were tightened up a lot to stop them wining and dining players as much, getting them private jets, etc.

Jason Kidd's Nets weren't a contender. He was of course on the market, and he is a player of comparable quality to Harden. But he was acquired for a similarly talented player who had been drafted top 5 recently himself(acquired by the Nets for a #6 pick and an upcoming future all-star point guard), and only after he was arrested for domestic violence and the Suns felt they had to move him because of the community backlash. Hard to plan for that, and it fails as a counter example for the aforementioned reasons. It's not an example of how you can trade for a comparable player, if in order to get the player you had to get a top 10 pick to move in the first place. Kidd was also a free agent 2 seasons after being traded, so could have bailed had he liked. That he didn't was in no small part thanks to the presence on his team of other good players (who were top 10 picks, including #1 Martin who was an all-star at the time).

Shaq always controlled his destiny in terms of teams he went to, and also went for high value assets as part of trades. Only a handful of teams can trade for Shaq, and they have to already have the pieces to contend or he wouldn't do it, so that is an obvious fail. The guy even had a list when he forced his way off the Lakers, and threatened to have surgery and sit out the year if the wrong team traded for him (or gave up too much).

Iverson was available because of all the problems he caused as a player. He doesn't help you become a contender, as teams soon learnt. He was also old by the time he was on the market.

Brand was never on the market as a healthy star, so I have no idea why you invoke him as an example. Assumedly you mean when the Bulls traded him for a top pick, but that hardly works as an example. Another fail.

Chris Paul was moved for top lotto assets. Another fail. He also was moved to LA, because teams knew he'd sign with a big market in his upcoming free agency (that was the only reason he was available on the trade market in the first place- also of no help to teams not already contenders, or not in LA/NY).

Pau Gasol was 28 when he was traded to LA, and his contract was coming up. A team trading for him would have had no security to prevent him leaving. Not much help to bad teams.

The only example that is kind of close is Vince Carter, and it's still not a very good one. He was 28 years old, a lot of the shine had come off him since the early Vinsanity days and he wasn't seen as being a star anymore. He hasn't made an all-nba team in 3 years, he'd had some down years, his flaws as a player were talked about a lot, and even then he basically forced his way off the Raptors and demanded a trade. If a bad team had traded for him you'd have to think he'd have left them. His contract had 3 years to go, so it's not all bad, but a lot of people at the time didn't think he was even worth the money NJ had to pay him to hang on to him. Here's a blog I googled for eg, which captures the sentiment of some fans at the time:
http://basketbawful.blogspot.com.au/200 ... arter.html
If it had been possible to acquire a young, healthy and full of promise Vince Carter on a rookie contract I think this would be an example. Acquiring 28 year old Vince is a different story.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#77 » by mysticbb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:55 am

Well, the Celtics were able to get Garnett not on a rookie deal and still went on to win a title and made the finals another time. Steve Nash went on winning two MVPs after signing with the Suns as FA, and the making the Suns a contender in the process. The Nets made the finals twice after getting Kidd via trade (and yeah, according to your "definition" the Nets were a contender, because just one upset would have been necessary in order for them to win the title. ;)). No idea, but it doesn't sound like it would be a necessity to get such player on a rookie deal in order to become a contender. And that is the whole issue with your "heuristic reasoning", it leads you to flawed conclusions. :)

Btw, the rookie contract does not contain any kind of guarantee to keep a player for at least 6 years after he was traded. No idea how you come up with that idea, but if a player wants, he can leave earlier. Just play one season for the qualifying offer and the player is an unrestricted free agent.

Anyway, talented players are always on a short-supply, there will always be more teams than real franchise-changing players, no matter what. Getting such player in a draft is indeed more likely than getting him in another way, just that the time needed in order to get such player is not just one year being bad. As I pointed out a before, in order to get such player, a team needs to have the worst record in the league for 4 years in a row; and everytime a team gets such player in a shorter amount of time that is not based on skill but rather on luck.

To illustrate that further:
Before the Cavs got LeBron James, they missed the playoffs 5 times with a combined win% of 34%. And even after getting him, they missed the playoffs twice again.
The Thunder missed the playoffs 4 times in a row with a combined win% of 33%. And then the Thunder had the "luck" to actually miss out on the first pick in 2007, because they would have also taken Greg Oden instead of Durant otherwise.

The issue at hand is that a team, which wants to build through the draft, needs several years of being bad enough to get higher draft picks. That was the same before the 99er CBA. And no, it was not more likely to build a contender otherwise than it is today in reality.

And everything else is not related to tanking at all. Managing the assets well, draft better than average, sign the right FA and be lucky with health is also important to become a contender for all teams, which didn't choose to tank. It is so obvious, that a team needs those things besides the luck on the court in order to win a title or at least make it to the CF, that it shouldn't be needed to be spelled out. Well, if we put all things together, you should change the title of the thread to: a teams needs talented players in order to build a contender, which are usually top10 picks. Guess what? Everyone with a brain should agree to that. And as I showed such players can also end up on your team via trade or FA signing, the same as it was before 1999.

Sure, it sounds optimal, if a team is just bad for one season, traded for a couple of picks which turned out to get them above average players while their own pick got them THE difference maker Ć” la James, O'Neal, etc. pp who stays on the team forever. And while the capspace is there, a bunch of really good players line up to want to sign with that team. But the unfortunate truth is that in reality there are 29 other teams wanting to sign those players, that not every desired player is available in that FA period, that a couple of other bad teams will have a similar chance to get that 1st pick, and those first round picks are in average just ending up being average or even below average players (especially those later). Which means, in reality the team will be bad next season as well, and again needs to get lucky to get those desired players in the draft while at the same time the window to use the capspace will get shorter ...
Well, and there is still a big difference between "tanking" and being not good enough to make the playoffs while getting lucky in the lottery or in the draft itself. Does "tanking" really give a team better odds to become a contender than just being in the draft lottery, because of bad luck with injuries or not having good enough players in the end? That's what you need to show here and you failed to do.

So, and at the end of the day, the question for a GM is not just the future income, but also the current bills. And unless the owner is willing to sacrifice a couple of years with a loosing effort (with all the implication of that losing mentality) and lost money, the GM better build the best team possible in order to pay those bills and keep his job.
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#78 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:14 am

mysticbb wrote:Well, the Celtics were able to get Garnett not on a rookie deal and still went on to win a title and made the finals another time.

And as I've covered about half a dozen times on this thread, to get him they needed two great players on the team already, both a product of losing on purpose (intentionally in the Celtics case).

Steve Nash went on winning two MVPs after signing with the Suns as FA, and the making the Suns a contender in the process.

Nash is a player I have stood up for in numerous threads. He was a great player, borderline top 20 for sure, and peaked above Kobe. However, that said, his contending teams were dependant on 2 other top 10 lotto picks. In 2005 and 2007, the Suns 2 best years under Nash, he had Amare and Marion. In 2006 they were a dark horse contender with Marion and no Amare, but not really plausible title winners. With today's seeding system I don't think they'd have made the WCF's either. That isn't to take away from how good that season was, given what he had to work with, but those other 2 guys were a necessary (though not sufficient) component of the Suns contending. At the very least one of them was.

The circumstances in which Nash was obtained are also extremely rare. He's maybe the only guy who has been misused for his whole career, then turns around and plays like an MVP in his 30's by being made the focal point. A lot of stuff had to come together for that to happen:
a) He had to be misused most of his career,
b) a rich owner suddenly (and inexplicably) decides not to pay fair value to his all-star guard, and
c) Phoenix was helped by their previous association with Nash, who had lived there and loved the place.
They still only got him in his 30's though, and again this isn't helpful for teams without those core top 10 lotto guys (who turned into all-nba players) in place, because Nash will be too old by the time you get better (even if he's willing to sign with you).

The Nets made the finals twice after getting Kidd via trade (and yeah, according to your "definition" the Nets were a contender, because just one upset would have been necessary in order for them to win the title. ;)). No idea, but it doesn't sound like it would be a necessity to get such player on a rookie deal in order to become a contender. And that is the whole issue with your "heuristic reasoning", it leads you to flawed conclusions. :)

I specifically excluded the circumstance in which the whole conference sucked, such as from 00-03. The Nets were never a realistic chance to win either, no Eastern team those years was. Look at some of the win records v.s the West from the "contenders" in the East those years. It's utterly embarrassing. Most of the Eastern contenders from 00-03 would have been out in the first round in the West. Some wouldn't even have made the Western playoffs. Nothing about those Nets suggests they were really a top 5 team in the NBA those years, they just played in a time of horrible imbalance. All the other reasons Kidd doesn't work as an analogy also still hold true.

Btw, the rookie contract does not contain any kind of guarantee to keep a player for at least 6 years after he was traded. No idea how you come up with that idea, but if a player wants, he can leave earlier. Just play one season for the qualifying offer and the player is an unrestricted free agent.

Because no max players (or close to max player) has ever, ever done this. Because nobody does this. The guys who do this are people who guys won't overpay, and it never works out well for them (Jennings, Kandi, etc, all got less than they were originally offered).

Anyway, talented players are always on a short-supply, there will always be more teams than real franchise-changing players, no matter what. Getting such player in a draft is indeed more likely than getting him in another way, just that the time needed in order to get such player is not just one year being bad. As I pointed out a before, in order to get such player, a team needs to have the worst record in the league for 4 years in a row; and everytime a team gets such player in a shorter amount of time that is not based on skill but rather on luck.

At least now I know why you have been ducking my core argument. Because you actually agree with me, but don't want to admit as much.

So, and at the end of the day, the question for a GM is not just the future income, but also the current bills. And unless the owner is willing to sacrifice a couple of years with a loosing effort (with all the implication of that losing mentality) and lost money, the GM better build the best team possible in order to pay those bills and keep his job.

Bad owners being bad is not a rebuttal to the question at hand, namely which method is better for building a contender. You agree it's mine. Good.
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 713
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#79 » by mysticbb » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:30 am

It is really incredible. I wanted to see how far you can go with that, but I guess you can do that forever, finding a way to arbitrarily changing the story in such fashion in order to make it seem, as if it always would agree to your agenda. You can't even stay with your own definitions. If something disagrees, you just simply add another qualifier. That's like those people picking arbitrary boxscore values in order to show that player xy done something unique and by that trying to make that player look better.

To come back to the topic of this thread:

Is it necessary to tank in order to build a contender? A simple yes or no is sufficient. ;)
Durins Baynes
Banned User
Posts: 2,434
And1: 187
Joined: Aug 04, 2013

Re: Why teams today can't build without tanking(Suns case st 

Post#80 » by Durins Baynes » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:42 am

My narrative is consistent all the way through. Had you read the first page more closely, you'd see multiple references to virtually all of those examples you kept citing over and over (The Celtics I must have covered 5 times by now, or more, and James Harden and Dwight I explain over, and over, in multiple threads). To claim I'm changing my narrative is absurd, the criteria and narrative has been consistent.

In the post 99 CBA environment it is necessary in 90% of cases to be bad enough to get a top 10 pick (usually much worse than top 10, but top 10 bad is a bare minimum standard). There are a few cases where wacky stuff happened and it wasn't necessary, but it almost always is in today's CBA.

Return to CBA & Business