Going to the dark side

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Dieselputer 95 says Millsap>> Michael Jordan

Well the Super-puter says Horford >>>>>> MJ so ...

[KB21]

1 hour ago, Guard said:

If tread milling  was a viable strategy, you'd see more teams go that route. Owners would love the idea of making the playoffs and still having a decent chance at winning a championship. That would be the real justification of tread milling outside of the playoff revenue angle that owners don't  openly admit to wanting. 

Treadmill teams usually have reached their ceiling so it's impossible to get hot out of nowhere and ride that wave into a championship. Too many games are played in the playoffs for that to happen. 

Plus the league would have to be historically weak for something like that to occur.  I'm amazed this argument even popped up in this thread. Sheesh. 

Then explain to me why a higher percentage of 55+ win teams were "treadmill" teams (40-49 wins) four years prior than 20-29 win teams?  If "treadmilling" as you like to call it is the ceiling on those teams, why did more of them become 55+ win teams?

[KB21]

1 hour ago, Peoriabird said:

And just like you are doubting we can sign superstar talent in free agency to compete for a championship, I am doing the same thing with us drafting lottery picks because of our draft history.  In fact, if you took all of our lottery picks and formed a squad of the best, they would not be able to beat our free agent pick ups in one game if they played 10 so I think a lot of us need to re evaluate what this organization does best. Draft or sign free agents!

It's not just our lottery picks.  Look at the league as a whole.  When Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett are #1 picks in back to back drafts, then tanking to get those picks is a bad strategy.  You are more than likely going to end up with one of those two or a DeAngelo Russell rather than get an Anthony Davis............and even with Anthony Davis, New Orleans has shown that you still have to put a team around that player. 

The hardest thing to do in pro sports is hit a baseball.  The 2nd hardest thing to do is make a bad team great.

[Peoriabird]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

It's not just our lottery picks.  Look at the league as a whole.  When Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett are #1 picks in back to back drafts, then tanking to get those picks is a bad strategy.  You are more than likely going to end up with one of those two or a DeAngelo Russell rather than get an Anthony Davis............and even with Anthony Davis, New Orleans has shown that you still have to put a team around that player. 

The hardest thing to do in pro sports is hit a baseball.  The 2nd hardest thing to do is make a bad team great.

You know what the response will be...It was bad management that drafted those bad players or couldn't build a team around Anthony Davis...blah blah. But we should try it because somehow we will not be one of those teams.  We will get our Jordan/Lebron/Duncan when we get that #1 pick for the 1st time ever.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

You know what the response will be...It was bad management that drafted those bad players or couldn't build a team around Anthony Davis...blah blah. But we should try it because somehow we not be one of those teams.  We will get our Jordan/Lebron/Duncan when we get that #1 pick for the 1st time ever.

Yeah.  It's like believing you will be the one that doesn't get COPD after smoking for 20+ years.  It's the "That won't happen to us" attitude.  I'm sure Sacramento and Minnesota didn't intend on being in the lottery for 11 and 13 years respectively either.

[Guard]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Then explain to me why a higher percentage of 55+ win teams were "treadmill" teams (40-49 wins) four years prior than 20-29 win teams?  If "treadmilling" as you like to call it is the ceiling on those teams, why did more of them become 55+ win teams?

How did those teams eventually win  a championship?  Did those teams have any elite talents that  eventually elevated the team to an eventual Finals appearance?

At the end of the day, if an elite talent doesn't show up, it doesn't matter how much this team treadmills. This team has been competing for 10 years and there isn't a #1 option in sight. Why do you think things this will be any different for another 10 years? 

You might as well rebuild if you want to play those kind of odds. Your argument is an odd one to make considering the team at the root of this discussion. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by Guard

[AHF]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Bingo!  Chicago was a 40 win team four years prior to their first championship. 

After bottoming out and landing Michael Jordan they still had growing to do.  With a superstar, MVP level talent.  So let's get there.  I'm game to be a 40 win team with a superstar youngster.  And they did one better by doubling down the lottery to acquire the #5 pick in that year's draft where they landed Scottie Pippen.  Sign me up for that rebuild.

Quote

San Antonio was actually a 62 win team four years prior to their first championship. 

Yep.  After winning only 21 games they got their first #1 overall star in David Robinson and were a strong second tier team before again bottoming out and adding #1 overall Tim Duncan.  Sign me up for that action.

Quote

Dallas was a 67 win team four years prior to winning the championship. 

Yep.  Dallas went through a stretch where they won:

1996 - 26 game

1997 - 24 games

1998 - 20 games

1999 - 19 games

This led them to build up talent and assets most notably drafting franchise cornerstone and MVP Dirk Nowitzki.  They then built the team into second tier status until they final broke through winning between 50 and 67 games every year and even making the finals and winning the Western Conference.

Suck for a few years to get yourself a league MVP good enough to build a champion around?

Sign me  up!

Quote

Boston was a 36 win team four years prior to their championship. 

Not sure where you are going with that.  They won 33 and 24 games  in the two seasons prior to their championship.  Seems like this is 100% contrary to the article you are referencing.

 

Again, the data in the wages of wins article is fine.  The conclusions they draw from it are entirely unsupported for a couple reasons:

(1)  They make the claim that it relates to winning championships but use data that actually only ties out to winning games and not to winning rings.

(2)  They do not control for strategy or methodology in team building.

(3)  They ignore that quality of front office is key.  Give Billy King a playoff roster team and he can turn that thing into a dumpster fire. Give Sam Presti a lottery team and he can turn it into an NBA finals contender.

 

In short, there is no case for treadmilling to a championship without that superstar player.  Good luck to you if you are trying to win a ring building around a roster highlighted by Paul Millsap.  You are dead in the water before you begin.

You have to get your Jordan, LeBron, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, etc.  How do you get that player?

[AHF]

Want more proof the conclusions the article draws are total bollocks?  Here you go:

Here is a bat#*$& crazy quote from the article:

Quote

Well, only five players taken in the lottery have won a championship with the team that drafted them: the aforementioned Duncan and Milicic, as well as David Robinson, Sean Elliott, and Jason Kidd.

So who won the very last championship before this article was written?

Dirk Nowitzki.  

Not mentioned.  Maybe he considers draft day trades as someone meaningless.  Well that is stupid for purposes of evaluating how to win but let's assume that is correct.  It explains why he left out the two previous champions in the LA Lakers with Kobe Bryant.

Who is the next champ?  The Boston Celtics with Paul Pierce.

FAIL.

The next non-Duncan champ?

The Miami Heat with Dwyane Wade.

FAIL.

Go back and you get 10 straight years of titles won by teams led by #3 Jordan, #1 Hakeem and #2 Deke.

Going to factor those guys in?  No?  Really?  

Your credibility is total bunk if this is the level of analysis you are doing.

 

[Lurker]

Young players need time to learn how to win.

Again. Gimme an example of a team that had flatlined usually around 40-49 wins that would make a leap and maintain it. It has to be more than 4-5 years at that area. And it has to have come without a superstar or trade for one.

I'll sit here and wait. While you continue to wait for Dennis Schröder to turn into what he won't and continue to claim that glue guys matter more than the stars.

[NBASupes]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Young players need time to learn how to win.

Again. Gimme an example of a team that had flatlined usually around 40-49 wins that would make a leap and maintain it. It has to be more than 4-5 years at that area. And it has to have come without a superstar or trade for one.

I'll sit here and wait. While you continue to wait for Dennis Schröder to turn into what he won't and continue to claim that glue guys matter more than the stars.

Like I said in the other thread. Atlanta is the rule of the Detroit model, where Detroit is the exception. 

[AHF]

Just now, NBASupes said:

Like I said in the other thread. Atlanta is the rule of the Detroit model, where Detroit is the exception. 

There are tons of Memphis, Atlanta, etc. type teams without a superstar who make lots of playoff runs but never will contend.

[KB21]

I'd rather be Memphis and Atlanta than Sacramento and Minnesota.  I'm at least on the green if I'm in Memphis and Atlanta.

[KB21]

36 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Young players need time to learn how to win.

Again. Gimme an example of a team that had flatlined usually around 40-49 wins that would make a leap and maintain it. It has to be more than 4-5 years at that area. And it has to have come without a superstar or trade for one.

I'll sit here and wait. While you continue to wait for Dennis Schröder to turn into what he won't and continue to claim that glue guys matter more than the stars.

OK.  

And I'll wait till one of these lottery picks actually becomes the type of generational talent you think is apparently available in every lottery.

I'd much rather focus on putting together a team full of Paul Millsaps than focus on getting a unicorn player.

[Guest]

[AHF]

So we've now gone from the argument of treadmilling is the best way to win a ring to acknowledging that there is no evidence supporting the idea of treadmilling to a ring but signing up anyway because it also doesn't carry the big downside of the 20-29 win seasons nearly every champion has before landing their foundational talent.

At least that is more honest so I can respect that view.  We now can admit that by embracing treadmilling we won't win a ring but on the upside our odds of being terrible also decline dramatically.

I think this is exactly where ownership is at so you should be all good KB.

[KB21]

24 minutes ago, AHF said:

So we've now gone from the argument of treadmilling is the best way to win a ring to acknowledging that there is no evidence supporting the idea of treadmilling to a ring but signing up anyway because it also doesn't carry the big downside of the 20-29 win seasons nearly every champion has before landing their foundational talent.

At least that is more honest so I can respect that view.  We now can admit that by embracing treadmilling we won't win a ring but on the upside our odds of being terrible also decline dramatically.

I think this is exactly where ownership is at so you should be all good KB.

That's not what is being said at all, because nothing has changed.  We have a much better chance of winning a ring by not bottoming out than we do if we bottom out.  

That's like me telling my patients that I'm going to take them off their medications and let them bottom out so they will be better in the long run.  

[DBac]

29 minutes ago, AHF said:

So we've now gone from the argument of treadmilling is the best way to win a ring to acknowledging that there is no evidence supporting the idea of treadmilling to a ring but signing up anyway because it also doesn't carry the big downside of the 20-29 win seasons nearly every champion has before landing their foundational talent.

At least that is more honest so I can respect that view.  We now can admit that by embracing treadmilling we won't win a ring but on the upside our odds of being terrible also decline dramatically.

I think this is exactly where ownership is at so you should be all good KB.

It's funny because this team won 43 damn games and they are about to recommit to a declining Millsap and Dwight. Dennis playing the best ball we could hope for couldn't even save them in the first round. They might not make the playoffs this year* 

 

*Charles Barkley voice

[AHF]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

That's not what is being said at all, because nothing has changed.  We have a much better chance of winning a ring by not bottoming out than we do if we bottom out.  

That's like me telling my patients that I'm going to take them off their medications and let them bottom out so they will be better in the long run.  

Name me the champions not named the Lakers who didn't win fewer than 30 games in a season before acquiring a cornerstone player in the draft.  Then we can compare that against the list that did.  I'll wait.

[Peoriabird]

9 hours ago, AHF said:

Name me the champions not named the Lakers who didn't win fewer than 30 games in a season before acquiring a cornerstone player in the draft.  Then we can compare that against the list that did.  I'll wait.

San Antonio with Leonard.

[Watchman]

16 hours ago, Peoriabird said:

You know what the response will be...It was bad management that drafted those bad players or couldn't build a team around Anthony Davis...blah blah. But we should try it because somehow we will not be one of those teams.  We will get our Jordan/Lebron/Duncan when we get that #1 pick for the 1st time ever.

And with our #1 pick, we'll draft Andrew Bogut instead of Kevin Durant.  Bogut was considered a "can't miss" player.  However, he was at best a decent role player.  You could build some pretty crappy teams from all the #1 picks that didn't pan out.