Great points!
Tofubeque wrote:All those studies show is that most teams that are good were also good four years prior. No ****. When you land actual talent in the NBA, you tend to have sustained success.
It doesn't ask any useful questions, like when those teams first made the playoffs, what the age and make-up of their roster was at that point, etc. For instance, when the Pacers first made the playoffs under Vogel, Paul George and Lance Stephenson were both only 20 years old. Roy Hibbert was a 24 year old center in his third year. Darren Collison was their 23 year old starting PG. They were obviously going to get better. When the Thunder first made the playoffs in 2010, Durant was 21, Westbrook was 21, Harden was 20, and Ibaka was 20. In comparison, the Raptors have a 27 year old PG, and starting wings who will be 27 and 24 in a few weeks. They're all in their prime and either signed to or due for fat contracts, and we still might not even make the playoffs..
Can't argue with any of this logic.
Also, no one is saying you can't build a 50 win team without tanking. But do the 50 win teams built that way compete for championships? Do they have the flexibility to move into contention?
Of course a 50 win team would only be the greatest team this franchise has ever put on the floor, so...Sadly one of the studies noted that treadmilling (recording between 30 and 49 wins) would be an improvement for the Raptors. I just don't see the terror involved in being a 50 win team. By definition you have assets that can traded.
There are only a few teams every year that are truly contenders, and only 6 teams that have won since 1999, and when you focus on those you see a pretty obvious pattern. The Spurs were 20-62 when they drafted Duncan. The Mavericks were 20-62 when they drafted Dirk. The Heat were 25-57 when they drafted Wade. The Celtics tanked two straight years collecting assets for the Garnett and Allen trades. The Cavs were 17-65 when they drafted LeBron. The Magic were 21-61 when they drafted Howard. The Bulls were 33-49 when they drafted Rose. The Sonics were 31-51 when they drafted Durant, and then tanked harder for Westbrook and Harden. The Pacers, the anti-tank darlings, were 32-50 when they drafted George. None of these were playoff teams. The only exceptions are when Kobe forced himself to the Lakers, and the Pistons landed a 4-time DPOY as an undrafted trade throw-in.
Obviously most teams that tank don't quickly win 55 games. Most teams that DON'T tank don't win 55 games. Most teams in the lottery are there from bad management and not design, and just keep making bad decisions. But when you look at teams that actually accomplish something, they ALL had to be bad to become good
The studies generally classify bad and very bad teams as less than 30 and less than 20 winns respectively. Indiana drated George 10th which is much more treadmill than tank.
Again good points. The only thing I would add is that most of the teams that won and continued winning after their tank were teams with a history of winning or at least treadmilling in the recent past. Cleveland was down for a long time, popped up into contention and disappeared. Same for Orlando which might be the poster boy franchise for long term tanking followed by short term success followed by more long term tanking. On the other hand the Spurs were a winning team with one bad tank year and haven't been a losing team since. The trend holds for the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, and Pistons all marquee franchises and attractive destinations that spent more time on the treamill than the tank and all with a winning team within a few years of tanking. The Thunder could buck that trend as they moved locations, changed management and drafted high and well (and with some luck, imagine they ended up with Oden?). We'll have to see, but they definitely went through a change of culture at the start of their tank.
Of course for every OKC there is a Charlotte Bobcats, for every well built team moving up from the treadmill like Houston there is a Milwalkee Bucks. That's the point. You don't have to do it one way or in any particular order. You only have to accumulate talent using all the means at your disposal and the best way to do so is to be a good organization that is opportunistic. Not by following some recipe by wrote. If we are to become not just a good team but a true contender we'll have to get a hold of a highly drafted player, probably at least 2. How we do so, as Houston as just shown us, is completely open.
The question isn't whether we have to tank, but rather whether
now is the most opportune time to do so. I'd love to revisit this at the 35-45 game mark of the season, as tanking is very tempting this year. We have a great draft and new management. Still, it doesn't have to be done this way.
Edit: I just wanted to add, that what the studies do seem to show is that the "all out tank until we win" strategy seems to have the least chance of success of any. To stay at the very bottom (bottom 2 or 3 teams in the league) for multiple years (3 plus) seems to have a corrosive effect. Only OKC managed to pull this off and they did it under unique circumstances.
