Building a Championship Team Revisited

[mtron929]

So the more I think about what Hinkie tried to do in Philly, the more I agree with his plan and even the specifics. Obviously, when it comes to drafting players, then he could have done better, but that can be said about pretty much everyone. Moreover, the general plan itself can be analyzed separately from the draft results. So let me reinterpret the plan in my own way and perhaps people can try to poke holes at any of these points.

1. The goal is to win a championship.

This is an important starting point because not all the GMs have a championship or bust mentality. Some GMs are just told to make the playoffs. In that case, building a good team is important and once you sign a couple of ok players, you can make the 1st-2nd round of playoffs in the NBA. But setting that aside, the goal and the imperative was to win a championship, which makes the strategy different from just making the playoffs.

2a. To win a championship, you need a superstar (top 25 all time) player.

I will start off by saying that this is not always the case (which is the usual rebuttal): cases in point are the 2004 Pistons and the 2014 Spurs. However, with that out of the way, if you take away these two teams, in the last 20-30 years, the championship team always had a transcendent player. Going back in reverse order, we are talking about guys like Lebron, Curry, Dirk, Kobe, Garnett, Wade, Duncan, Shaq, MJ, Olajuwon, and so forth. In fact, these are all arguably top 25 players so even great players like Durant, CP3, Nash, Barkley, etc. are not sufficient enough. So if you draft the next John Wall and he is your best player, you are not winning a championship (as good as Wall is).

2b. Yes, but what about the 2004 Pistons and the 2014 Spurs?

Again, I will grant that one can win a championship without a top 25 player, but this is pretty rare. Thus, I would argue that winning a championship is difficult enough but winning a championship without a transcendent player is even more difficult as so many things have to go right. There is a reason why this rarely happens (I would say ~5% of the champions are molded in this manner). So the conclusion would be that this is not a best way to go about maximizing my chances to win a championship.

3. So if we agree that one needs a superstar (top 25 all time) player to win a championship, the question becomes how to get a player like this. There are three ways.

3a. Free agency: one can try to sign a guy via free agency, but save for few selective teams (e.g. Lakers, Heat), it is awfully difficult to sign a top 25 guy in their prime. The superstars just do not want to go to these teams. But I will grant that this is a chance that you can take. That is, just build a good team and hope that someone comes to you. But again, can a team like the Jazz or the Sixers really bank on this strategy? That is, a guy like Curry or Lebron will decide to move these teams because they have a solid core? Just seems out of the question.

3b. Trade: one can try to make a trade to sign a top 25 guy but this rarely happens and it seems even less likely nowadays where everyone is more smart about falling for this kind of mistake. Moreover, it just becomes pretty much impossible to get a MVP type player. The Celtics could not even get someone like Butler this offseason. They can offer their entire picks for the next 3 years and still won't be able to get KAT, who is not even a sure thing to become a top 25 player. So getting an all time top 25 player via trade is out of the question.

3c. Draft: this is the best way to get a top 25 player. Obviously, you still have to get very lucky but it beats the other two scenarios, so this is where one should put all of the concentration.

4a. The best chance to get a superstar player is via lottery picks.

It goes without saying but superstar players show signs early on from college: Shaq, Lebron, Durant, Olajuwon were seen as can't miss prospects early on. In fact, I can't think of a single guy who was the best player on a championship that wasn't a lottery pick in the past 30 years. So this entails that you need to obtain (a) a lot of lottery picks and (b) pick as high as you can to maximize your chances. This is not exactly insightful as it is obvious.

4b. Aggressively trade your young players if they don't seem to be a transcendent player.

This is where people can have differing opinion but I still maintain Hinkie was rational here and where his strategy diverged from other teams that have tanked or were in the rebuilding stages. Basically, you cannot fault teams for not picking Kobe Bryant #1 or Stephen Curry #1 in retrospect, because no one is that good at drafting. So we have to make an assumption that even with plethora of lottery picks, you are going to miss and miss badly on some of these. Moreover, it might just be that in certain drafts, there just isn't a transcendent player available. But what Hinkie realized earlier on is that once he picks a player and see them for even just one year, he can conclude whether they have the potential to be a transcendent player. And if not, the best thing might be to trade these players to another team for additional picks. One other way is to think about it like this.

Let's say on average, you need to have about 20 lottery picks to hit on a transcendent player. Then, one thing that you can do is to be bad for 20 years and then you might get a transcendent player. The other thing you can do is to trade in your young promising players for future lottery picks such that you reduce the time needed to hit on a transcendent player. A team like the Lakers could have done the same thing this year: trade Russell for a top 5 pick and trade Randle for a top 10-15 pick. But it's understandable that they didn't do this since it has just been one year evaluation period for them. But I think after 2-3 years, you at least know if you have a potential Durant/Lebron/Kobe etc. and if you don't, you can aggressively trade them. So essentially, a 20 year project becomes condensed to a 10 year project. Still long and people will hate you for doing this, but effective.

4c. Fit does not matter and can actually hamper with tanking.

Many fans like their young team when there is a good fit. This is important if you want to get better each year, but it does not necessarily increase your chances of getting a transcendent player. Let's say that you have a young Shaq as well as a young Ezeli and young Kanter on your team. Would this logjam of centers lead to Shaq being a mediocre player? Of course not, it will be abundantly clear that Shaq is superior to Ezeli and Kanter as time progresses and then you can build around Shaq. But because these things are not obvious a priori, you just need to accumulate a lot young talents and not think too much in terms of fit. A transcendent player will become transcendent regardless of circumstances.

Moreover, once you go for fit, then naturally, the team will become better and this will mess up the tanking process as well. Basically, once you have a good fit (see the Timberwolves and the Lakers), then you will start to accumulate wins and then, you are out of the getting a transcedent game as your picks will be outside of the lottery from that point onward. So if you have a transcendent talent (e.g. KAT perhaps), then this is ok, but if you do not (e.g. perhaps the Lakers), then you start your road to treadmill, which is the worst place to be if you want to win a championship. But of course, a team like the Lakers are different in that it is possible that the superstars would like to play in LA so they have an advantage that other teams like the Sixers do not have.

So I think this is a breakdown and this is what Hinkie strived to accomplish for the Sixers. I suspect that he would have continued on with this path and probably would have traded someone like Noel (no chance he will be a transcendent top 25 player) for additional picks. Again, this type of strategy is not pretty and there is no guarantees. However, laying out the logic in a step by step manner, I cannot see how there is another strategy that has a greater chance of working out if the goal is to win a championship.

Thoughts?

[amcfad27]

Ya but even topping out at a first round exit team gives the fans something to cheer about. If the goal is ONLY to win a championship, that is win a championship or the season was a failure, then yes Hinkie's plan was legit. However, there are other motivations at play including just putting an enjoyable competitive product on the floor that the fans can watch. The NBA is an escape for normal people with crappy jobs. After a crap day of work do you want to go home and watch your crap team play like crap?

[mtron929]

Ya but even topping out at a first round exit team gives the fans something to cheer about. If the goal is ONLY to win a championship, that is win a championship or the season was a failure, then yes Hinkie's plan was legit. However, there are other motivations at play including just putting an enjoyable competitive product on the floor that the fans can watch. The NBA is an escape for normal people with crappy jobs. After a crap day of work do you want to go home and watch your crap team play like crap?

I understand. But let's assume for this conversation that the only goal was to win a championship as quickly as possible. Or else, we are arguing about something else altogether.

[Warriorfan]

Some additions.

Philadelphia by drafting so many Cs devalued their trading chips because they took playing time development etc from each other.

Other GM will low ball you since you have to offload someone.

Boston devalued their picks because they accumulated so many. GM'a would ask for exorbitant number knowing Celtics could only have so much youth stash in Europe etc

You have to be lucky that a transcendent player is available, and turn the non star into assets.

Min is young and talented did they do anything special. They got 1st pick when it was Towns. A star was traded for Wiggins

Bos did well because they jettisoned stars for a team that became bad

Philly'a best maneuver was it's deal with Sacramento.

[Bolivar]

There is not a whole lot of intelligent "strategy" work involved in just tanking year after year to get good percentages in the draft and hope you get really lucky. Besides, just having a great #1 pick with complimentary pieces doesn't mean that you're going to be a contender, it's not like the Pelicans are going to win anything with Davis. Okay you can hit the jackpot and get the next Hakeem or Duncan at #1 and get it done, but what are the odds?

I try to look at how many #1 picks ended up being the finals MVP for the team that drafted them (since 1980, I don't want to check further), and the list is Hakeem and Duncan and that's it, with honorable mentions to Iverson and Kyrie (edit: well let's include Shaq too since he was in the finals with Orlando). And I think Houston and San Antonio were well run franchises even back then. I'm not sure if I should count LeBron, I'd say that his home just happened to be the same place as the team that originally drafted him.

Of course, if you expand it to "lottery picks" like in the OP you'll find a lot more. I just don't think the 5-10 year tanking strategy is very likely to be successful.

[marcush]

Tanking is a viable option. It depends on a few things though;
- must get lucky with the lottery gods
- must choose years with strong draft class
- must nail picks

Hinkie assumed the billionaire owners wouldn't buckle to external pressures which was really a case study in how not to run a basketball franchise.

[mtron929]

Some additions.

Philadelphia by drafting so many Cs devalued their trading chips because they took playing time development etc from each other.

Other GM will low ball you since you have to offload someone.

Boston devalued their picks because they accumulated so many. GM'a would ask for exorbitant number knowing Celtics could only have so much youth stash in Europe etc

You have to be lucky that a transcendent player is available, and turn the non star into assets.

Min is young and talented did they do anything special. They got 1st pick when it was Towns. A star was traded for Wiggins

Bos did well because they jettisoned stars for a team that became bad

Philly'a best maneuver was it's deal with Sacramento.

Couple of points.

1. The Sixers got unlucky because they kept on going for the BPA and that happened to be in the center position. I think this is an ok strategy but obviously with everything else being equal, you might want to avoid this. But the upside again is that it does help prolong the tank if that is needed to get a superstar.

2. The Celtics are not a good example as I think they are doing this weird compete now and procure lottery picks while competing, which is (a) not an option that is readily available and (b) probably not the optimal strategy either. That is, the Celtics should be doubling down on procuring picks right now, not making the playoffs with average to above average talents.

[mtron929]

There is not a whole lot of intelligent "strategy" work involved in just tanking year after year to get good percentages in the draft and hope you get really lucky. Besides, just having a great #1 pick with complimentary pieces doesn't mean that you're going to be a contender, it's not like the Pelicans are going to win anything with Davis. Okay you can hit the jackpot and get the next Hakeem or Duncan at #1 and get it done, but what are the odds?

I try to look at how many #1 picks ended up being the finals MVP for the team that drafted them (since 1980, I don't want to check further), and the list is Hakeem and Duncan and that's it, with honorable mentions to Iverson and Kyrie (edit: well let's include Shaq too since he was in the finals with Orlando). And I think Houston and San Antonio were well run franchises even back then. I'm not sure if I should count LeBron, I'd say that his home just happened to be the same place as the team that originally drafted him.

Of course, if you expand it to "lottery picks" like in the OP you'll find a lot more. I just don't think the 5-10 year tanking strategy is very likely to be successful.

Well, the best strategy do not have to be an intelligent one. I think the unconventional wrinkle brought by Hinkie was that he kept on recycling the young players for future assets. Although some people might think that this smells like a scam to hold onto his position for a long time, I just viewed it as a smart way to enhance your chances of hitting big in the future.

Also, I think it is narrow-minded to just focus on the #1 overall pick as you are never guaranteed the #1 pick. Again, the point is to accumulate as many lottery picks in a short amount of time through (a) being bad and (b) trading away promising young (but not transcendent) players for future picks.

Finally, you state that the 5-10 year tanking strategy is very likely to be successful. I agree that it is not high percentage but I claim that it is still the best option. What do you think is the better option then?

[mtron929]

Tanking is a viable option. It depends on a few things though;
- must get lucky with the lottery gods
- must choose years with strong draft class
- must nail picks

Hinkie assumed the billionaire owners wouldn't buckle to external pressures which was really a case study in how not to run a basketball franchise.

Well, if we take that variable into account, then this strategy might never get off the feet. For this argument, perhaps we should assume that an owner would be willing to let it ride for 10-15 years.

Also, I would like to add that if Hinkie was still with the Sixers right now, the owner would have been happy with the direction that the Sixers were in at the moment. They still have future picks, have potential transcendent players, as well as option of being really bad next year for additional cracks at a superstar. I would say that overall, Hinkie's plan has been a success even with all the bad luck that he has encountered along the way.

[marcush]

Tanking is a viable option. It depends on a few things though;
- must get lucky with the lottery gods
- must choose years with strong draft class
- must nail picks

Hinkie assumed the billionaire owners wouldn't buckle to external pressures which was really a case study in how not to run a basketball franchise.

Well, if we take that variable into account, then this strategy might never get off the feet. For this argument, perhaps we should assume that an owner would be willing to let it ride for 10-15 years.

Also, I would like to add that if Hinkie was still with the Sixers right now, the owner would have been happy with the direction that the Sixers were in at the moment. They still have future picks, have potential transcendent players, as well as option of being really bad next year for additional cracks at a superstar. I would say that overall, Hinkie's plan has been a success even with all the bad luck that he has encountered along the way.

Ownership really is the key though, there is no escaping that fact. They bank roll the operation.

Hinkies adoring fans are all savage on ownership for bailing on him. Yet it's completely unrealistic to expect people, let alone billionaires to act any differently. I mean, the team was on target for a total disaster until old man Colangelo brought in Ish and resuscitated Okafor and Noel's year.

[Bolivar]

Finally, you state that the 5-10 year tanking strategy isn't very likely to be successful. I agree that it is not high percentage but I claim that it is still the best option. What do you think is the better option then?

I like what Spurs have been doing since their #1 pick has been a bench player, and what Denver is doing. I think running a quality franchise and doing work will pay off.

[mtron929]

Finally, you state that the 5-10 year tanking strategy isn't very likely to be successful. I agree that it is not high percentage but I claim that it is still the best option. What do you think is the better option then?

I like what Spurs have been doing since their #1 pick has been a bench player, and what Denver is doing. I think running a quality franchise and doing work will pay off.

Well, the Spurs cannot be a model case for bottom teams because the Spurs already had such a good starting hand (Duncan + Pop) for the past few years. We are talking about what a team like the Sixers/Nets (or now like the Grizzlies and pretty soon the Mavs) can do to become a championship team.

And I think the Nuggets look promising but they do not have anyone who is rated to be one of the top players in the game.

[mtron929]

I ran a small simulation of what would happen if the team tanked for 10 years from 2001 to 2010. And by tanking, I am assuming that they are always in the top 5 for these years and have 20% chance at having each of the 1-5 picks. This is not realistic as if you pick some good players, then you will not be one of the worst teams in the league. So this is the most optimistic scenario but a scenario that can occur if you keep on trading players. So then, your best players end up being

Westbrook: 30%
Wade: 30%
Lebron: 20%
Durant: 10%
CP3: 10%

So this indicates that 10 years of tanking will yield a top 3 superstar 20% of the times and pretty much 100% on a top 30 player (or 90% if you want to dismiss Westbrook). And although we talked about tanking for a 10 year period, the average number of years, that you need to wait to get these players is not too bad at 4.4 years. Thus, what this analysis is saying that if you do 4 years of hardcore tanking, then you will get a player of these calibers on your roster, which also ends your tanking period and you go to the rebuilding stages.

[mtron929]

On the other hand, let's say that you were a middling team from 2001-2010 that occasionally made the playoffs. And your team did not have a superstar but you were a solid team, picking from 11 through 20 on every draft. Let's see what a typical addition to your team would be. These numbers were all produced from a random number generator.

2001: #12 = Vlad Radmanovic
2002: #17 = Juan Dixon
2003: #13 = Marcus Banks
2004: #14 = Kris Humphries
2005: #13 = Sean May
2006: #19 = Quincy Douby
2007: #16 = Nick Young
2008: #11 = Jerryd Bayless
2009: #14 = Earl Clark
2010: #14 = Patrick Patterson

So who is the best player from the 10 years of 1st round picks here? Hard to say. But we all know that this does not move the needle. So this is what happens to a treadmilling team. They are good but none of their picks amount to anything. And because the superstars won't sign with the team, the mediocrity continues.

[CBS7]

Really mostly boils down to luck.

[pelifan]

you're right, but I wish this post had actual stats.

[Takingbaconback]

As a wolves fan, I know tanking is the only option for some teams that can't get any great players through FA. However, it's not what Hinkie invented or revolutionized, he's the only one who publicly announced the tank attempting to buy more time for himself.

[pelifan]

On the other hand, let's say that you were a middling team from 2001-2010 that occasionally made the playoffs. And your team did not have a superstar but you were a solid team, picking from 11 through 20 on every draft. Let's see what a typical addition to your team would be. These numbers were all produced from a random number generator.

2001: #12 = Vlad Radmanovic
2002: #17 = Juan Dixon
2003: #13 = Marcus Banks
2004: #14 = Kris Humphries
2005: #13 = Sean May
2006: #19 = Quincy Douby
2007: #16 = Nick Young
2008: #11 = Jerryd Bayless
2009: #14 = Earl Clark
2010: #14 = Patrick Patterson

So who is the best player from the 10 years of 1st round picks here? Hard to say. But we all know that this does not move the needle. So this is what happens to a treadmilling team. They are good but none of their picks amount to anything. And because the superstars won't sign with the team, the mediocrity continues.

just did the same thing 1-10

2001 #3 Pau Gasol
2002 #6 Dajuan Wagner
2003 #4 Chris Bosh
2004 #10 Luke Jackson
2005 #6 Martel Webster
2006 #4 Tyrus Thomas
2007 #1 Greg Oden
2008 #1 Derrick Rose
2009 #3 James Harden
2010 #4 Wesley Johnson

moral of the story, you are likely screwed anyway. Although there are at least some actual stars here.

[Takingbaconback]

On the other hand, let's say that you were a middling team from 2001-2010 that occasionally made the playoffs. And your team did not have a superstar but you were a solid team, picking from 11 through 20 on every draft. Let's see what a typical addition to your team would be. These numbers were all produced from a random number generator.

2001: #12 = Vlad Radmanovic
2002: #17 = Juan Dixon
2003: #13 = Marcus Banks
2004: #14 = Kris Humphries
2005: #13 = Sean May
2006: #19 = Quincy Douby
2007: #16 = Nick Young
2008: #11 = Jerryd Bayless
2009: #14 = Earl Clark
2010: #14 = Patrick Patterson

So who is the best player from the 10 years of 1st round picks here? Hard to say. But we all know that this does not move the needle. So this is what happens to a treadmilling team. They are good but none of their picks amount to anything. And because the superstars won't sign with the team, the mediocrity continues.

just did the same thing 1-10

2001 #3 Pau Gasol
2002 #6 Dajuan Wagner
2003 #4 Chris Bosh
2004 #10 Luke Jackson
2005 #6 Martel Webster
2006 #4 Tyrus Thomas
2007 #1 Greg Oden
2008 #1 Derrick Rose
2009 #3 James Harden
2010 #4 Wesley Johnson

moral of the story, you are likely screwed anyway. Although there are at least some actual stars here.

If you did the tank from 2001- 2003, that's pretty dam good with Gasol and Bosh. If you did it from 08-10, you end up with a three headed monster in Rose/Harden/Johnson lul. Yeah this is a lot better than the middling draft. To be honest that Rose + Harden would get you a long way toward a championship.

[mtron929]

On the other hand, let's say that you were a middling team from 2001-2010 that occasionally made the playoffs. And your team did not have a superstar but you were a solid team, picking from 11 through 20 on every draft. Let's see what a typical addition to your team would be. These numbers were all produced from a random number generator.

2001: #12 = Vlad Radmanovic
2002: #17 = Juan Dixon
2003: #13 = Marcus Banks
2004: #14 = Kris Humphries
2005: #13 = Sean May
2006: #19 = Quincy Douby
2007: #16 = Nick Young
2008: #11 = Jerryd Bayless
2009: #14 = Earl Clark
2010: #14 = Patrick Patterson

So who is the best player from the 10 years of 1st round picks here? Hard to say. But we all know that this does not move the needle. So this is what happens to a treadmilling team. They are good but none of their picks amount to anything. And because the superstars won't sign with the team, the mediocrity continues.

just did the same thing 1-10

2001 #3 Pau Gasol
2002 #6 Dajuan Wagner
2003 #4 Chris Bosh
2004 #10 Luke Jackson
2005 #6 Martel Webster
2006 #4 Tyrus Thomas
2007 #1 Greg Oden
2008 #1 Derrick Rose
2009 #3 James Harden
2010 #4 Wesley Johnson

moral of the story, you are likely screwed anyway. Although there are at least some actual stars here.

If you did the tank from 2001- 2003, that's pretty dam good with Gasol and Bosh. If you did it from 08-10, you end up with a three headed monster in Rose/Harden/Johnson lul. Yeah this is a lot better than the middling draft. To be honest that Rose + Harden would get you a long way toward a championship.

Pretty much. If you are a solid team without a superstar and you pick 11-20 for a decade, you will likely not add any talent to your mix. Forget about landing a superstar.. you probably are not landing even an all star. So the treadmill go on.