RealGM

So this post is motivated by all of the talk about Hammond making the Bucks the next Pistons. Can this happen? Can a team shed its identity rapidly, gradually, or at all?

I say this because numerous teams have had the same style of play or team identity for years. You will always hear, "Piston's play tough defense," with people referencing back to the 80s teams. The Kings have always been a good offensive team with little defense, etc. I think you see this in other sports as well (football primarily).

I realize that different players should produce different play, but what other factors would hinder this? My line of argument is also brought up by recent posts on this board with people saying "A team can only be as good as their best player." These type of statements assume that something above or leading the team will influence the team roster down.

I'm thinking that despite whichever coach, player, or GM is brought in, that teams will always be influenced by their team's past history, and past styles of play. This doesn't sound like a very controversial statement, but I think it is interesting when looking at the Bucks, because I think part of the reason we are bad is that I don't think we have a solid tradition or identity to emulate.

Can you come up with a good, overarching description of Bucks basketball for the last 10 years or for the franchise's history? I realize you can't do this with every NBA team, but you could with a lot of them (the successful ones).

Also what does this say about building our team? Even if we bring in a coach who stresses defense or a GM who wants to build a certain team, are the players (both current and new players) simply going to revert back to trying to be an offensive team (we have been primarily an offensive, jumpshooting team for a while now I would argue, maximized with the big three).

Can you simply import X style, even if you bring in the proper players to execute that system?

We have to stop the mindset that we are going to turn into the Pistons. If Hammond tries to copy what happened in Detroit we will never be contenders.

I think one of the biggest keys to Hammond's strategy is simply to build a successful franchise. That means getting better, building a better team through whatever means are available. Once you get to that point, multiple doors open for you. Suddenly you're on FAs list of desirable teams. If a player like Garnett is on the trading block, he doesn't balk at the thought of landing with you. Success begets success in many different ways.

It would be great if we could do it exactly like the Pistons did (signed a MLE castoff PG that turns into an all-star, get a great PF for nothing, get a great center as a throw in with a trade, fantastic SF late in the first round, have virtually no injuries, etc...).

I simply put the pistons here, but you could insert any team name. Can a GM create x team with different players? For example, Houston fired JVG and hired Adelman to try to up their offensive output. Granted its only one year, but I can see the Rockets playing the same low scoring, defensive game in spite of anything Adelman does in the next coming years (partly because of Yao slowing them down). But I think one could still take this type of argument and find examples in other teams.

I'm asking because we all post threads saying get this player, or play this style, but I'm not convinced that it is as easy as one says based on habits of teams and their histories in the NBA that seem to be influential (when I don't think they should be)