MC: Elite talent >>> Detroit model

[Wretch]

New MC Blog

There have been 62 NBA championship teams since 1950, and 57 those teams placed at least one player on one of the top two All-NBA teams in the season they won it. In fact, only 15 of those champions failed to have at least one player voted first team All-NBA (a third five-man All-NBA team was added starting with the 1988-89 season).

Furthermore, only 10 of 62 finals runner-up teams failed to have at least one player considered among the top 10 in the league. That means just 15 of 124 teams to make the finals — 12 percent — did so without a player voted to be among the league’s 10 best.

I've been trying to tell people this since the late 90's. It's not so much having an enormous personality or a guy that everyone likes, who makes movies and does talk shows (which certainly doesn't hurt draw), so much as it is having a REALLY good player or two. Basketball is a team sport, YES, and when the big dogs are slugging it out - coaching, defense, hustle, rebounding...all that comes into play. But you don't get there without the right engine. That is the priority in building the core of a team and NOTHING else.

Even if we were to field a blue-collar team like the Pistons, we'd have to win it all...not just make the ECF's...probably not even just make the finals. Why? Because they'd attract a few more fans, but it would mostly be the die hard like us supporting the team. Tell me you couldn't hear people that you know rooting for Miami against us in the ECF's or OKC/LA in the finals.

Regardless of how you build a team, it's still going to be a tough road. I'd rather go down that road with a team led by a closer (or two).

[Jody23]

As usual, great job by MC. Telling it like it is.

[MaceCase]

Negative Atlanta media.

[Jody23]

My thought is, what is there to gain by keeping this same team together for another year? I mean, if you're totally honest, you know they're not going to win a title. They may not even be a top three team in the east. To make matters worse, this is the last year of Josh Smith's contract and you know he's not going to re-sign for more of this. Even if the Hawks tried to grossly over pay him (which would be a bad idea), he's not going to re-sign. It seems to me, the Hawks have nothing to gain, but ALOT to lose by bringing this same team back again next year.

[Sothron]

The only problem with insisting on a superstar(s) to build around is the toughest question of them all: how the hell do we get them? No one is trading you a superstar unless they are on dying legs. Our ownership is considered the most toxic situation in the NBA so no one wants to come here. Unless we literally luck into some superstar late in the draft we're not finding one.

[MaceCase]

The only problem with insisting on a superstar(s) to build around is the toughest question of them all: how the hell do we get them? No one is trading you a superstar unless they are on dying legs. Our ownership is considered the most toxic situation in the NBA so no one wants to come here. Unless we literally luck into some superstar late in the draft we're not finding one.

You draft them. The team is in a position to do so if they can just take off their fangirl glasses and grab one of these lotto picks that are available. Look at this year's 1st and 2nd All NBA teams, they got guys from all over the lottery plus a few late 1st rounders, the team just has to increase it's chances at getting these guys rather than selling picks or trading back with the intention of saving money rather than identifying prospects.

[Jody23]

You draft them. The team is in a position to do so if they can just take off their fangirl glasses and grab one of these lotto picks that are available. Look at this year's 1st and 2nd All NBA teams, they got guys from all over the lottery plus a few late 1st rounders, the team just has to increase it's chances at getting these guys rather than selling picks or trading back with the intention of saving money rather than identifying prospects.

I agree. No risk, no reward. They definitely need to get rid of the "fangirl glasses".

[yungsta]

we can draft a superstar we can do a better job of scouting instead of going on espn.com an draft express lol

[Joker]

They just need to know their personnel. Woody said it best, Atlanta could be what OKC is but their stupid as hell. They have a Robin as a #1 option, a PnR PF with a combo guard with no PG skills who isn't great like Westbrook, a SF who is a movement and spot up specialist in an offense with no movement, and a uber talented tweener forward who makes the team much better and much worse with his lack of fit as well. Atlanta really has no identity but that's on management stupidity.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Joker

[Wretch]

The only problem with insisting on a superstar(s) to build around is the toughest question of them all: how the hell do we get them? No one is trading you a superstar unless they are on dying legs. Our ownership is considered the most toxic situation in the NBA so no one wants to come here. Unless we literally luck into some superstar late in the draft we're not finding one.

I think this more than anything is the wall that has kept us in the perpetual middle. Most people don't want to play the "luck of the draw" game...but that's basketball.

There was a sequence during that game 5 where Pietrus grabbed two key rebounds, where there were two loose balls that bounced the right way...and the C's held on to win. That's really a metaphor for the game itself because that's just the way it goes. You can't plan for it, but that doesn't mean you can't put yourself in a position to take advantage of it.

And that's the part that I think our management has missed over the years. It's not so much about lucking up and finding yourself with a loose ball and a chance to win. It's about having a scrappy PG that will dive for loose balls, that same PG with great court vision, who finds that specialist free agent you picked up, who can knock down the three. It's about positioning yourself to take advantage of a situation. Miami caught a break when they landed Wade at #5. OKC caught a break when they landed the #2 pick instead of the #1. Chicago caught a break when they landed the #1. But they were all in a position to do so.

More importantly though, not a single one of those teams is focused on the luck of the draw that got them there. Now, they're all about finding the right compliments - coaches, role players, etc. - to push for the ultimate prize. They don't care how everyone else struggles to find stars or that they can't lure top talent. They've just moved on.

In a few years, it'll be teams like New Orleans, Charlotte, Washington, and Sacramento moving on. The Clippers are on the verge of it. If we stay the course yet again....where will we be in 2 years?

[Buzzard]

Negative Atlanta media.

Not really, but the truth hurts. We don't have anyone close to a top ten player right now. Not even a top 20!

[Joker]

Joe was a top 15 player a couple of years ago. I still think he is that ability wise maybe not ranking wise. Smith and Horford are top 25. I think we are undervaluing our talent. You don't get top 3 and 4 seeds as flawed as we are without very good to great talent. We don't have a starting center or PG as well as depth and look at our team success.

[Diesel]

I think that MC has done a credible job in his reporting... BUT...If you go into a cave, looking for dirt, you will find it. I would say 5 of the teams that have won without an all nba player is higher than expected and 15 to be runner up is higher than expected also.BUT...Here's another test... how many teams with an all nba player failed to make it to the playoffs?, out of the first round?The point is that as you start to limit the focus you can make any statistic fit.More interesting is this. Since 1950, what does the geography of these all NBA guys look like?Is it mostly: NY, Boston, and LAL?Doesn't it lose credibility because it is voted on by sportswriters?Moreover, doesn't it make sense that if your team is good enough to win a championship, then somebody on that team should be an ALL NBA team person?

[Buzzard]

I think that MC has done a credible job in his reporting... BUT...If you go into a cave, looking for dirt, you will find it. I would say 5 of the teams that have won without an all nba player is higher than expected and 15 to be runner up is higher than expected also.BUT...Here's another test... how many teams with an all nba player failed to make it to the playoffs?, out of the first round?The point is that as you start to limit the focus you can make any statistic fit.More interesting is this. Since 1950, what does the geography of these all NBA guys look like?Is it mostly: NY, Boston, and LAL?Doesn't it lose credibility because it is voted on by sportswriters?Moreover, doesn't it make sense that if your team is good enough to win a championship, then somebody on that team should be an ALL NBA team person?

I don't think the last Pistons group had a all NBA player. Billups would have been closest in my mind but do you think he was ahead of players like JKidd and Steve Nash to name two back then?

[Wretch]

I think that MC has done a credible job in his reporting... BUT...

If you go into a cave, looking for dirt, you will find it. I would say 5 of the teams that have won without an all nba player is higher than expected and 15 to be runner up is higher than expected also.

BUT...

Here's another test... how many teams with an all nba player failed to make it to the playoffs?, out of the first round?

The point is that as you start to limit the focus you can make any statistic fit.

More interesting is this. Since 1950, what does the geography of these all NBA guys look like?

Is it mostly: NY, Boston, and LAL?

Doesn't it lose credibility because it is voted on by sportswriters?

Moreover, doesn't it make sense that if your team is good enough to win a championship, then somebody on that team should be an ALL NBA team person?

So, here's a better question: Is it the sports writers that determine what these players are by voting or are these players simply that good that they get the attention? They're not voting for Marvin Willams and Stephen Jackson. I think a lot of people are thinking that we could have made the finals and that could could change the perception of the team. But two things...

1) It's PERCEPTION. That means nothing. A team is what it is. Which is my 2nd point: we haven't made the finals or even the CONFERENCE finals in over 40 years.

Sure you can spin it and say, well this team made it 5 times, this organization made it 20 times, etc. Guess what? It's still that team with great talent - not good. GREAT. Lastly, look at our 2012 teams:

All NBA 1st

Forward LeBron James, Miami (118) 596

Forward Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City (117) 591

Center Dwight Howard, Orlando (75) 476

Guard Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers (104) 568

Guard Chris Paul, L.A. Clippers (74) 484

All NBA 2nd

Forward Kevin Love, Minnesota (16) 365

Forward Blake Griffin, L.A. Clippers 170

Center Andrew Bynum, L.A. Lakers (33) 400

Guard Tony Parker, San Antonio (41) 367

Guard Russell Westbrook, Oklahoma City (5) 239

All NBA 3rd

Forward Carmelo Anthony, New York (1) 154

Forward Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 136

Center Tyson Chandler, New York (4) 60

Guard Dwyane Wade, Miami (1) 235

Guard Rajon Rondo, Boston (4) 142

This is our competition, mind you. There's a lot of closers on this list. Could we make an argument for any of our guys for even the THIRD list? Yes. Maybe an ARGUMENT. But that guy we put there is our #1 option. I'm sorry man, but that's just not a winning strategy. I'll show you what that is:

[Diesel]

So, here's a better question: Is it the sports writers that determine what these players are by voting or are these players simply that good that they get the attention? They're not voting for Marvin Willams and Stephen Jackson. I think a lot of people are thinking that we could have made the finals and that could could change the perception of the team. But two things...

1) It's PERCEPTION. That means nothing. A team is what it is. Which is my 2nd point: we haven't made the finals or even the CONFERENCE finals in over 40 years.

Sure you can spin it and say, well this team made it 5 times, this organization made it 20 times, etc. Guess what? It's still that team with great talent - not good. GREAT. Lastly, look at our 2012 teams:

All NBA 1st

Forward LeBron James, Miami (118) 596

Forward Kevin Durant, Oklahoma City (117) 591

Center Dwight Howard, Orlando (75) 476

Guard Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers (104) 568

Guard Chris Paul, L.A. Clippers (74) 484

All NBA 2nd

Forward Kevin Love, Minnesota (16) 365

Forward Blake Griffin, L.A. Clippers 170

Center Andrew Bynum, L.A. Lakers (33) 400

Guard Tony Parker, San Antonio (41) 367

Guard Russell Westbrook, Oklahoma City (5) 239

All NBA 3rd

Forward Carmelo Anthony, New York (1) 154

Forward Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas 136

Center Tyson Chandler, New York (4) 60

Guard Dwyane Wade, Miami (1) 235

Guard Rajon Rondo, Boston (4) 142

This is our competition, mind you. There's a lot of closers on this list. Could we make an argument for any of our guys for even the THIRD list? Yes. Maybe an ARGUMENT. But that guy we put there is our #1 option. I'm sorry man, but that's just not a winning strategy. I'll show you what that is:

The argument isn't weather we can get a man on the All NBA team to validate us going to the finals. The real question is how do we matchup with some of these players' teams?

Off the top.. in a 7 game series, I like us against LAC, Dallas, LAL, NY and Minnesota. Speaking of Minnesota, they didn't even make it to the playoffs.

My bottom line is this. You can't use All NBA team as a crystal ball on who will win the championship. My contention is that the ALL NBA team is made up the way it is based on the speculation of who can win the championship. Here's my example....You can call it a knife if you like.

Why didn't Deron Williams or Mike Conley get consideration? Let's help. Deron's team wasn't a top team.

[Wretch]

The argument isn't weather we can get a man on the All NBA team to validate us going to the finals. The real question is how do we matchup with some of these players' teams?

Off the top.. in a 7 game series, I like us against LAC, Dallas, LAL, NY and Minnesota. Speaking of Minnesota, they didn't even make it to the playoffs.

My bottom line is this. You can't use All NBA team as a crystal ball on who will win the championship. My contention is that the ALL NBA team is made up the way it is based on the speculation of who can win the championship. Here's my example....You can call it a knife if you like.

Why didn't Deron Williams or Mike Conley get consideration? Let's help. Deron's team wasn't a top team.

Looking at the All NBA talent and predicting who will win the NBA championship is like looking at offensive/defensive efficiency and picking a winner. It's just a stat. It doesn't tell you what's going to happen, but it WILL tell you the story of the game in hindsight. That's my point and that's where MC is going with this.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Are you saying that it is merely coincidence that the majority, the great majority mind you, of championship teams and runners up had unquestionable All NBA talent? It's not dude and you know it. No matter what you put up on the board, you know the reason why we haven't been. We all do. The agenda though is where we differ. I know you'd rather field a competitive team by tweaking this core (that doesn't have a player on that elite level). I would rather scrap this design, take a step back, and prepare for the future.

Regarding great teams: LAL & Dallas

We're not going to beat these teams in a series. Sure anything is possible, but here's the problem. The game is like a martial arts match. It's not about the first punch, the punches and kicks in between, or the final punch. It's not about the conditioning of the fighters or their records. It's not about strategy. It's a combination of all of these things, but most importantly HOW GOOD THE FIGHTER IS.

The Lakers and Mavericks are VERY GOOD, we are PRETTY good. You put these guys in a tight game with us, we'll have to trade baskets with Kobe & Dirk. You say, well these guys aren't what they used to be. Well, neither was Pierce in game 5, but he delivered a dagger when it counted. That's what the greats do. In a game of scoring and stops, you'll have to contend with players that can and will hit you in ways that you cannot counter because you're not good enough. I DON'T like our chances against the best in the league or the 2nd best.

About the almost Elite:

This is a simple counter argument. We won't see these teams. Why? Because Miami and Chicago will put them out or they will put us out in the 1st or 2nd round - the latter being the actual results of our 40 year playoff history.

So that leaves the one shots and the teams with an All-NBA guy...

So NY has Carmelo Anthony? So NJ has Deron Williams? We don't fear either of these teams. This guy (and all the guys like him) wants to play with Elite talent:

Ruh-roh Raggy.... Now you've got Deron to Dwight to contend with. Suddenly, Brooklyn is getting all the headlines, all the ESPN games, snatching up all the quality free agents (the ones that take less than what we can offer, that we covet, and have no chance of signing). Do you like us against Deron now?

And it's not going to stop. This is how the NBA works....except us. The Clippers, who you'd like our chances against have 2 All NBA talents. They're nothing special right now - and I believe they would beat us in a 7 game series (probably in 6). But let them sign another impact player. Not an All NBA talent, just a guy like Horford or JJ.

I don't like this team. Nothing personal against any of the players. I just am not impressed by our overall talent level and we need to get better. Significantly better. Personally, I don't care what we have to do to do it.

[AHF]

I have been on board with this notion for years as well. Having an All-NBA guy doesn't guarantee you big-time success, but going without one is as close to a guarantee that you won't have big-time success as anything in sports.

[Joker]

New York is a bad fit team, that's why we don't fear them and Amare regressed. But Lin is good and can be very good so my belief on the Knicks has changed.