Were the 2007 Wolves the worst ever?

[drza]

Through the years, most discussions about Kevin Garnett at some point descend to a question about his supporting cast. His detractors will say things like "he only won 32 games at his peak, and his cast wasn't THAT bad". His supporters, like me, will say things like "the Wolves of 2006 and 2007 were an affront to society. They scared children. They caused grown men to cry. They were horrible. PLEASE BELIEVE ME!!!". Then, the majority of the more impartial observers reach a conclusion that is somewhere in the middle, that yes, those Wolves were bad but not to the epic extent that KG's supporters would suggest (after all, Ricky Davis could score 20 points/game!), and though it's hard to blame him when he had no help it still kind of tarnishes Garnett that he was missing the playoffs in his prime. And that's fine.

But a few minutes ago I was looking at an adjusted plus-minus list with five full years of data, taken over the years of 2005 - 2010. I was looking at the list for a different reason, but before I closed the file I noticed that old friend Ricky Davis' name was in front of me. And I happened to be looking at the bottom of the list, so that meant he measured out as among the worst players in that 5-year period. I was curious, so I checked out that whole Wolves roster. This is what the 5-year APM's looked like for the top-9 rotation players outside of KG on the 2007 Wolves:

Starters:
Ricky Davis: - 3.7 (818th out of the 826 players measured)
Trenton Hassell: -2.7 (798th out of 826)
Mark Blount: -2.3 (784th out of 826)
Mike James: -2.0 (765th out of 826)

Bench:
Randy Foye (rookie): -1.3 (688th out of 826)
Marko Jaric: -0.3 (493rd out of 826)
Craig Smith (rookie): 0.0 (392nd out of 826)
Troy Hudson: -2.65 (797th out of 826)

In summary, all of the starters besides KG measure out as among the worst 7% of players that played between 2005 - 1010. 7% = roughly 1 out of 14, so by this measure the other 4 starters should have been 14th men on the average NBA roster.

Repeat: by this measure the other 4 starters should have been 14th men on the average NBA roster.

Other things of note:

*Randy Wittman, who took over a .500 Wolves team after 40 games and led them to a 12 - 30 finish, has (I believe) one of the 5 worst win percentages among coaches in NBA history (for coaches with like 100 games coached...I can't find the stat, but I've heard it referenced several times)

*The office and coaching staff of the '07 Wolves actually needed to lose in order to keep their lottery draft pick, because they owed a top-10 protected draft pick to the Clippers from the Cassell/Jaric trade and would have lost it if their record slid above the 10th worst in the league.

*3 years later, none of the starters from that team are still in the NBA. In fact, of the 14-man 2007 Wolves roster, Smith and Foye are the only 2 still in the league. They were rookies in '07, and are currently the 10th and 11th man on the 5 - 20 Clippers.

So, question: do the 2007 non-KG Wolves have a reasonable argument as the worst team (including players, coach, and front office) in NBA history? If not, why don't they?

[An Unbiased Fan]

No, I would say they aren't. They were certainly craptacluar, but not even the worst that year. I would say the 07' Laker cast was worse that same year, especially when you factor in injuries.

Ricky Davis added 17 ppg on 57% TS shooting, which was actually 2% higher than KG's. He also was 39.7% from the 3pt arc, and led Minnesota in assists at 4.8 apg. That's not too shabby for a 2nd option. Compare this with 07' Odom who only played in 56 games. He added 16 ppg on 55% TS shooting, and led LA in rebounds. Considering the huge gap in games played, I would say Minny had the advantage.

Even more interesting is that Minny had all 5 starters play 65 games or more. Conversely, Only Kobe & Smush started more than 60 games for LA.

The main problem with the 2007 Wolves, was in fact......KG. His FG% dropped 5%, and his TS% dropped 4%. They weren't going to make any kind of playoff run, but they could have made the playoffs that year if KG had played better.

[WhateverBro]

No, I would say they aren't. They were certainly craptacluar, but not even the worst that year. I would say the 07' Laker cast was worse that same year, especially when you factor in injuries.

Ricky Davis added 17 ppg on 57% TS shooting, which was actually 2% higher than KG's. He also was 39.7% from the 3pt arc, and led Minnesota in assists at 4.8 apg. That's not too shabby for a 2nd option. Compare this with 07' Odom who only played in 56 games. He added 16 ppg on 55% TS shooting, and led LA in rebounds. Considering the huge gap in games played, I would say Minny had the advantage.

Even more interesting is that Minny had all 5 starters play 65 games or more. Conversely, Only Kobe & Smush started more than 60 games for LA.

The main problem with the 2007 Wolves, was in fact......KG. His FG% dropped 5%, and his TS% dropped 4%. They weren't going to make any kind of playoff run, but they could have made the playoffs that year if KG had played better.

I don't understand how you can look at that roster and expect ANY player drag them to the playoffs. Read Drzas post again, he makes great arguments to why those player were so bad.

Look, I watched all of Minnys game that year. (That was the first year I got nba league pass, trust me, I've never been more disappointed). The team was terrible. Wittmans coaching was beyond bad and their second best player that year was Foye. Ricky Davis was a black hole on offense, he couldn't dribble the ball and everytime he got it he pounded it for 15 seconds for no reason.

We can summarize Wolves season by one picture:

[An Unbiased Fan]

No, I would say they aren't. They were certainly craptacluar, but not even the worst that year. I would say the 07' Laker cast was worse that same year, especially when you factor in injuries.

Ricky Davis added 17 ppg on 57% TS shooting, which was actually 2% higher than KG's. He also was 39.7% from the 3pt arc, and led Minnesota in assists at 4.8 apg. That's not too shabby for a 2nd option. Compare this with 07' Odom who only played in 56 games. He added 16 ppg on 55% TS shooting, and led LA in rebounds. Considering the huge gap in games played, I would say Minny had the advantage.

Even more interesting is that Minny had all 5 starters play 65 games or more. Conversely, Only Kobe & Smush started more than 60 games for LA.

The main problem with the 2007 Wolves, was in fact......KG. His FG% dropped 5%, and his TS% dropped 4%. They weren't going to make any kind of playoff run, but they could have made the playoffs that year if KG had played better.

I don't understand how you can look at that roster and expect ANY player drag them to the playoffs. Read Drzas post again, he makes great arguments to why those player were so bad.

Look, I watched all of Minnys game that year. (That was the first year I got nba league pass, trust me, I've never been more disappointed). The team was terrible. Wittmans coaching was beyond bad and their second best player that year was Foye. Ricky Davis was a black hole on offense, he couldn't dribble the ball and everytime he got it he pounded it for 15 seconds for no reason.

We can summarize Wolves season by one picture:

Perhaps I'm giving KG too much credit then, when I say they could have made the playoffs. As I pointed out, Kobe led an equally bad cast to a #7 seed out West, that same year.

Say what you want about Ricky Davis, but he was Minny's most efficient scorer that year, their leading assist man, along with being a nearly 40% 3 point shooter.

Was that a bad supporting cast, yes. Was it the worst ever, or even that year, no.

[Point forward]

Statistically, the 9 win 1973 Sixers are worse, but then, they actually had good players (Tom Van Arsdale, Bill Bridges, old Hal Greer) who just did not mesh and played comical team defense.

Man, those Minny teams are REALLY bad.

[Collie]

Lamar Odom was a far far far better player than Ricky Davis has ever been.

[drza]

No, I would say they aren't. They were certainly craptacluar, but not even the worst that year. I would say the 07' Laker cast was worse that same year, especially when you factor in injuries.

Ricky Davis added 17 ppg on 57% TS shooting, which was actually 2% higher than KG's. He also was 39.7% from the 3pt arc, and led Minnesota in assists at 4.8 apg. That's not too shabby for a 2nd option. Compare this with 07' Odom who only played in 56 games. He added 16 ppg on 55% TS shooting, and led LA in rebounds. Considering the huge gap in games played, I would say Minny had the advantage.

Even more interesting is that Minny had all 5 starters play 65 games or more. Conversely, Only Kobe & Smush started more than 60 games for LA.

The main problem with the 2007 Wolves, was in fact......KG. His FG% dropped 5%, and his TS% dropped 4%. They weren't going to make any kind of playoff run, but they could have made the playoffs that year if KG had played better.

Perhaps it was naive of me, but I was/am hoping that this wouldn't degenerate into a KG vs Kobe thread. Wasn't the point, here. So, to that end, I am going to not address either KG or Kobe directly in this response, nor will I discuss the ultimate record of either team since, again, I am trying to look at the cast without KG in it. Also, I should mention, that as far as I know PER, Win Shares, Wins Produced, and the family of +/- stats are the only stats that are publicly available that attempt to measure a player's whole contribution to the game (if I'm wrong and someone has access to others they'd like to use to characterize those 2007 teams, they are welcome). Three of those are primarily box score-based stats (all calculated differently, with win shares also having some non-boxscore components), so I'll use 2 +/- stats (the 5-year APM I mentioned in the OP, and the net on-court/off-court "raw" numbers from 2007) to balance them out. That gives 5 different stats, encompassing the entirety of the available objective stats that I have access to. So, let's look at how the 2 teams compare without their stars:

'07 Wolves:
21.7 win shares (team)
starters win shares: 13.9 in 9858 minutes (.068 WS/48)
starters PER: 12.9 (avg)
wins produced: 10.8
07 Net +/- starters: Summed to get -7.3 total (+/- not actually linear, but gives idea)
2005 - 10 APM: covered in OP (worst that I currently know of)

'07 Lakers:
28.5 win shares (team)
starters win shares: 15 in 8434 minutes (.085 WS/48)
starters PER: 14.5 (avg)
wins produced: 25.9
07 Net +/- starters: Summed to get -4.5 (not linear, but gives general idea)
05-10 APM:

Code: Select all

Odom   2.9      
Bynum   -0.9      
Walton   1      
Turiaf   1.05      
Mo Evans   -1.6      
Smush Parker   -1.15      
Kwame Brown   -2.2      
Vlad Radmanovic   -0.45      
Brian Cook   -0.7   

So, across those 5 stats, the 2007 Lakers supporting cast measured better than the 2007 Wolves in literally all 5. Again, as far as I can tell this is an exhaustive list of available stat-types, all calculated in different ways, and all of them conclude that the 2007 Lakers supporting cast was clearly better than the 2007 Timberwolves. And that is just among the players.

Then, you add that the 2007 Lakers were coached into a cohesive unit with logical structure and playing style by Phil Jackson. The 2007 Timberwolves were coached for half of a season of a 2nd year head coach who had a publicly reported tiff with Ricky Davis just before he was fired, and then for half a season by Randy Wittman (again, one of the worst coaches ever, by record).

Then, you add that the 2007 Lakers were put together by at least a reasonable front office that had a track record of reasonable success, while the 2007 Wolves were put together by a front office of well-documented ineptitude, highlighted by the Cassell-Jaric trade that GAVE THEM AN IMPETUS TO LOSE. Garnett was literally sat down with "injuries" the final 6 games of both 2006 and 2007 after not missing a single game before the injury in either year, during a stretch that included Mark Madsen taking (I swear this is true) 7 3-pointers in an overtime game because they were too close to accidentally winning.

I see, literally, zero argument that the cast of the 2007 Lakers was worse.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Lamar Odom was a far far far better player than Ricky Davis has ever been.

In what way? Odom was less efficient, and only played 56 games in 2007.

[mysticbb]

Also, I should mention, that as far as I know PER, Win Shares, Wins Produced, and the family of +/- stats are the only stats that are publicly available that attempt to measure a player's whole contribution to the game (if I'm wrong and someone has access to others they'd like to use to characterize those 2007 teams, they are welcome).

Well, you are not wrong in terms of "publicly available", but I can tell you that according to my player rating the Timberwolves had an average of 7.8 without Garnett while the Lakers had 8.5 without Bryant. The league average is 10. Both supporting cast played well below the league average, but the Timberwolves were indeed worse.

But overall I'm quite sure that you can find similar numbers for different teams in the history of the NBA. The 93 Mavericks for example had a -15.2 scoring margin. That is awful. I bet they had a lot of players with negative APM.

[An Unbiased Fan]

No, I would say they aren't. They were certainly craptacluar, but not even the worst that year. I would say the 07' Laker cast was worse that same year, especially when you factor in injuries.

Ricky Davis added 17 ppg on 57% TS shooting, which was actually 2% higher than KG's. He also was 39.7% from the 3pt arc, and led Minnesota in assists at 4.8 apg. That's not too shabby for a 2nd option. Compare this with 07' Odom who only played in 56 games. He added 16 ppg on 55% TS shooting, and led LA in rebounds. Considering the huge gap in games played, I would say Minny had the advantage.

Even more interesting is that Minny had all 5 starters play 65 games or more. Conversely, Only Kobe & Smush started more than 60 games for LA.

The main problem with the 2007 Wolves, was in fact......KG. His FG% dropped 5%, and his TS% dropped 4%. They weren't going to make any kind of playoff run, but they could have made the playoffs that year if KG had played better.

Perhaps it was naive of me, but I was/am hoping that this wouldn't degenerate into a KG vs Kobe thread. Wasn't the point, here. So, to that end, I am going to not address either KG or Kobe directly in this response, nor will I discuss the ultimate record of either team since, again, I am trying to look at the cast without KG in it. Also, I should mention, that as far as I know PER, Win Shares, Wins Produced, and the family of +/- stats are the only stats that are publicly available that attempt to measure a player's whole contribution to the game (if I'm wrong and someone has access to others they'd like to use to characterize those 2007 teams, they are welcome). Three of those are primarily box score-based stats (all calculated differently, with win shares also having some non-boxscore components), so I'll use 2 +/- stats (the 5-year APM I mentioned in the OP, and the net on-court/off-court "raw" numbers from 2007) to balance them out. That gives 5 different stats, encompassing the entirety of the available objective stats that I have access to. So, let's look at how the 2 teams compare without their stars:

'07 Wolves:
21.7 win shares (team)
starters win shares: 13.9 in 9858 minutes (.068 WS/48)
starters PER: 12.9 (avg)
wins produced: 10.8
07 Net +/- starters: Summed to get -7.3 total (+/- not actually linear, but gives idea)
2005 - 10 APM: covered in OP (worst that I currently know of)

'07 Lakers:
28.5 win shares (team)
starters win shares: 15 in 8434 minutes (.085 WS/48)
starters PER: 14.5 (avg)
wins produced: 25.9
07 Net +/- starters: Summed to get -4.5 (not linear, but gives general idea)
05-10 APM:

Code: Select all

Odom   2.9      
Bynum   -0.9      
Walton   1      
Turiaf   1.05      
Mo Evans   -1.6      
Smush Parker   -1.15      
Kwame Brown   -2.2      
Vlad Radmanovic   -0.45      
Brian Cook   -0.7   

So, across those 5 stats, the 2007 Lakers supporting cast measured better than the 2007 Wolves in literally all 5. Again, as far as I can tell this is an exhaustive list of available stat-types, all calculated in different ways, and all of them conclude that the 2007 Lakers supporting cast was clearly better than the 2007 Timberwolves. And that is just among the players.

Then, you add that the 2007 Lakers were coached into a cohesive unit with logical structure and playing style by Phil Jackson. The 2007 Timberwolves were coached for half of a season of a 2nd year head coach who had a publicly reported tiff with Ricky Davis just before he was fired, and then for half a season by Randy Wittman (again, one of the worst coaches ever, by record).

Then, you add that the 2007 Lakers were put together by at least a reasonable front office that had a track record of reasonable success, while the 2007 Wolves were put together by a front office of well-documented ineptitude, highlighted by the Cassell-Jaric trade that GAVE THEM AN IMPETUS TO LOSE. Garnett was literally sat down with "injuries" the final 6 games of both 2006 and 2007 after not missing a single game before the injury in either year, during a stretch that included Mark Madsen taking (I swear this is true) 7 3-pointers in an overtime game because they were too close to accidentally winning.

I see, literally, zero argument that the cast of the 2007 Lakers was worse.

Well, by default, this was going to turn into a Kobe vs KG thread, because it's a common debate as to who had the worst cast during this very period.

1) How can you even compare team winshares, when LA's starting lineup was so eradic due to the huge amount of injuries they had? What numbers are you using?

Because when I look at WS, I see Kobe at 13 WS, and then next guy is Odom way down at 4.7 WS. Conversely, KG had 10.7 WS and Davis had 5.7 WS.

Kobe was 8.3+ WS compared to his 2nd best player
KG was 5.0+ WS comapred to his 2nd best player

After that, we're prety much grasping at straws. I see no significant advantage for LA in supporting cast production. Nevermind the fact that the team had no consistency at all that year due to injuries.

2) You are SERIOUSLY, misusing APM stats. You're extrapolating a 5 year period for these players, disregarding the fact that they weren't in Minny all those years, or the various rotations, injuries, etc., that shape those numbers.

Why even do this when we have 2007 numbers to evaluate?

3) You call LA a cohesive unit, but again, they weren't. Half the team was hurt that year, and they had serious problems getting anykind of flow playing with each other.

4) Not sure what team front offices have to do with this debate...

But it should be noted that Kobe called out the FO after the 2007 playoffs, because they weren't doing a great job at the time. I could point out the Butler for Kwame trade for example, which only looks could because his expiring contract eventually helped to land Gasol. Or the fact that Smush freakin Parker was the starting PG. A guy who hasn't been heard of before or since.

5) When you factor in injuries, LA's supporting cast is worse, or at the very least on par with Minny's.

[drza]

Well, by default, this was going to turn into a Kobe vs KG thread, because it's a common debate as to who had the worst cast during this very period.

It's not always about Kobe. Kobe, in fact, had nothing to do with it. I was looking at an adjusted plus minus list for a thread about Nash, when I noticed Davis at the bottom of the list and got curious about the other Wolves. Everything isn't always about Kobe.

1) How can you even compare team winshares, when LA's starting lineup was so eradic due to the huge amount of injuries they had? What numbers are you using?

Because when I look at WS, I see Kobe at 13 WS, and then next guy is Odom way down at 4.7 WS. Conversely, KG had 10.7 WS and Davis had 5.7 WS.

Kobe was 8.3+ WS compared to his 2nd best player
KG was 5.0+ WS comapred to his 2nd best player

After that, we're prety much grasping at straws. I see no significant advantage for LA in supporting cast production. Nevermind the fact that the team had no consistency at all that year due to injuries.

I notice a common theme. In the OP I described 13 Timberwolves, 2 coaches, and an inept front office. You responded with a post about the 2nd best player. In my rebuttal, I again describe 9 Timberwolves, 2 coaches, and an inept front office. You responded with another post about the 2nd best player. This thread is about the worst cast from top-to-bottom, including coach and GM, in NBA history. It's not about just the 2nd best player on the team (of which Odom was clearly better, by the way, even in 56 games). If you want to argue just about Odom vs Davis, create your own thread.

2) You are SERIOUSLY, misusing APM stats. You're extrapolating a 5 year period for these players, disregarding the fact that they weren't in Minny all those years, or the various rotations, injuries, etc., that shape those numbers.

Why even do this when we have 2007 numbers to evaluate?

Actually, I'm not. I'm not extrapolating anything, this was from a 5-year APM calculation. The APM stat is noisy, even over a full year. It's more accurate over multi--year periods, to give a larger sample size and account for how a player performs in different situations (you know, like being on different teams). One of the original points was that the other players on the 2007 Wolves were just bad basketball players. Not that they just had a bad season, but that over a 5-year period all of them were among the worst players in the NBA. When you argued against that, I then responded with many more stats that all show that the '07 Wolves line-up was solidly worse than the '07 Lakers in that specific season as well. Even if you just used the 2007 APM measure, it's the same story. The Lakers cast measured out better from top-to-bottom in 2007 APM than the Wolves cast.

In other words, the Wolves players were just worst in general. Then, specifically, they were also worse in 2007.

3) You call LA a cohesive unit, but again, they weren't. Half the team was hurt that year, and they had serious problems getting anykind of flow playing with each other.

Your taking that line out of context. My point was that Phil Jackson gave them a system and plan that were logical, good, and with a proven track record of success. It was a coaching bullet point, and again, there can't be any possible disagreement that the Lakers were MUCH better coached than the Wolves.

4) Not sure what team front offices have to do with this debate...

But it should be noted that Kobe called out the FO after the 2007 playoffs, because they weren't doing a great job at the time. I could point out the Butler for Kwame trade for example, which only looks could because his expiring contract eventually helped to land Gasol. Or the fact that Smush freakin Parker was the starting PG. A guy who hasn't been heard of before or since.

Well, in the OP, I specifically said: "So, question: do the 2007 non-KG Wolves have a reasonable argument as the worst team (including players, coach, and front office) in NBA history?" That was, essentially, the main point/question in the whole post to be used as a blue-print for this thread. As such, the front offices clearly are part of this debate.

I'll see your Butler for Kwame trade, and raise you Cassell for Jaric AND a #1 draft pick that wasn't fully lottery protected. Which, as I've pointed out, led to Mark Madsen shooting seven 3-pointers in an overtime game because the TEAM COULDN'T AFFORD TO ACCIDENTALLY WIN. That is a front office that is not only inept, but inept in a way that directly affects the way the team played on a game-to-game basis.

And again, you are using isolated examples. Yes, Smush Parker is out of the NBA. As I pointed out before, 11 of the 13 players on the 2007 Wolves are no longer in the NBA (including all 4 of the non-KG starters). And the 2 that are left are deep bench players on one of the worst teams in the league. And it's not even like they had to leave the NBA due to age...most of the '07 Wolves players even now are at oldest in their early-mid 30s, many still in their 20s. No, they're out of the NBA because they were gawd-awful players.

5) When you factor in injuries, LA's supporting cast is worse, or at the very least on par with Minny's.

No, in fact, they weren't. The Wolves' players were worse in general, they played worse that year, they were much poorer coached, and they were put into worse positions by a worse front office. I've offered about as much objective evidence as exists in the basketball world to support my point. When you factor everything in, I don't think it's particularly close.

[drza]

Well, you are not wrong in terms of "publicly available", but I can tell you that according to my player rating the Timberwolves had an average of 7.8 without Garnett while the Lakers had 8.5 without Bryant. The league average is 10. Both supporting cast played well below the league average, but the Timberwolves were indeed worse.

But overall I'm quite sure that you can find similar numbers for different teams in the history of the NBA. The 93 Mavericks for example had a -15.2 scoring margin. That is awful. I bet they had a lot of players with negative APM.

That's fair. In the end, I don't think there's any way to objectively prove who the worst cast ever really was. But I think the '07 Wolves without KG have a legitimate "worst ever" case, and should be mentioned in the same breath with the '93 Mavs and the 1973 Sixers (as Point Forward referenced). If those are the type of counter-arguments people have to post to find worst squads, that fits into the point I was making.

[Tirion]

don't mess with drza when it comes to stats (or KG).

[Quincy]

We can summarize Wolves season by one picture:

What happened?

[mysticbb]

That's fair. In the end, I don't think there's any way to objectively prove who the worst cast ever really was. But I think the '07 Wolves without KG have a legitimate "worst ever" case, and should be mentioned in the same breath with the '93 Mavs and the 1973 Sixers (as Point Forward referenced). If those are the type of counter-arguments people have to post to find worst squads, that fits into the point I was making.

I wasn't trying to make a counter argument, just wanted to point out that "worst ever" is a bit prematured due to the fact that we are lacking the necessary informations. But let's do something for fun. The current Dallas Mavericks without Nowitzki have an average APM of -4.0. They are at 92.9 to 111.5 without him on the court. Nowitzki has a +32.7 and a +30.4 APM. Are those current Mavericks the worst supporting cast ever?

[pancakes3]

What happened?

well, he doesn't play for the Minnesota Jarics, does he?

[drza]

That's fair. In the end, I don't think there's any way to objectively prove who the worst cast ever really was. But I think the '07 Wolves without KG have a legitimate "worst ever" case, and should be mentioned in the same breath with the '93 Mavs and the 1973 Sixers (as Point Forward referenced). If those are the type of counter-arguments people have to post to find worst squads, that fits into the point I was making.

I wasn't trying to make a counter argument, just wanted to point out that "worst ever" is a bit prematured due to the fact that we are lacking the necessary informations. But let's do something for fun. The current Dallas Mavericks without Nowitzki have an average APM of -4.0. They are at 92.9 to 111.5 without him on the court. Nowitzki has a +32.7 and a +30.4 APM. Are those current Mavericks the worst supporting cast ever?

Well, one obvious difference is that the 2007 season is completely over, and we have five years of APM data from the years immediately before and after they played for the Wolves with which to make an estimate. In other words, in the past I've made ground-up arguments on the order of "the 2007 Wolves were terrible. Look how they performed that year", where their performance specifically in Minnesota was their main indictment. This thread, though, was the opposite. I was starting from the top-down, using the long-term +/- data to suggest that the team was just full of awful basketball players that were awful whether they were in Minnesota or not. And then, based on that, it is less surprising that they were so terrible that specific year as well.

With respect to the current Mavs, I suspect that by the time the season ends their +/- numbers will have evened out a bit and that their numbers won't look quite so stark. Also, I fully suspect that a similar 5-year window around the current Mavs won't suggest that they were just full of bad players. Also, I doubt that they measure out as poorly in the other advanced stats for this season. Finally, they are both well-coached and don't have a front office that have put them into unwinnable situations.

I know you weren't seriously putting the current Mavs forward as an option, but were instead (I think) making the point that you can't make a case based purely on a single stat. And I'd agree with that. But here, I'm making a case based on every advanced stat I have access to, with the largest sample sizes I have reasonable access to, corroborated by clear, directly measurable ineptitude at every level of the organization. I'm not really sure how to build a stronger case outside of a laboratory where you could control all of the variables.

[tclg]

I would definitely say that the mavs cast being terrible just doesnt pass the eye test at all. The wolves though all the players on that team were terrible. Not just on that team but on every team they ere on

[ElGee]

I still don't understand why no one mentions the loss of 5 first round draft picks because of the Joe Smith sanctions.

Go through any NBA roster and remove 5 consecutive first round picks and see if that team has a shot at winning anything. Then consider that the early 2000s Wolves essentially "replaced" Szczerbiak, Smith, Cassell, Sprewell, Peeler, Olowokandi and Ervin Johnson with

Ricky Davis
Mark Blount
Mike James
Marko Jaric

and draft picks of Foye, Craig Smith and McCants.

I'd also like to add that Ricky Davis was absolutely horrid and a cancer. I can't overstate this enough. His MO as a player:

(1) Hold the ball or dribble for little reason
(2) Jack it up
(3) Don't defend
(4) Make horrible decisions
(5) Corrupt teammates to care less about basketball

The best case situation for Davis is to be humbled and used off the bench as a spurt-scoring specialist. Anything different is usually a sign of colossal doom and allows Davis to spread his magic-dust.

But hey, if people have never seen him play and think he's good, they can start a team of Marbury, Davis, JR Rider, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Brooke Lopez and watch the championships come in!