Why the Rockets Can't Lose: The McGrady Trade and the Myth of Team Building

Sterling post, OP.

At this point, it looks like Morey believes in his ability to get that franchise player using intelligence instead of a simple brute-force-losing strategy. What remains to be seen is whether or not he's right. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Morey find a way to acquire a high pick if he thinks THAT GUY can be had in the draft. Time will tell. So far, we DO know he was smart enough to see that McGrady is NOT that guy and that Brandon Roy was going to BECOME that guy.

 

Really well thought out post, but I don't agree several points.

Your selection of franchised players is incredibly subjective.
If Brandon Roy and Kevin Durant are really players who can carry their team to the finals, then why is Chris Paul left off the list? If you left Paul off the list because he is a point guard, then why is Magic considered a franchise player? If you left Paul off the list because he isn't a great defender, then again how is Magic a franchise player? Paul also made the all NBA defensive team several times and led the league in steals. Allen Iverson had a similar career and led his team to the NBA finals yet he isn't considered a franchise player? I just don't agree (or maybe I just don't understand) how you define franchise players.

Brandon Roy and Kevin Durant
Although you mentioned it before, I don't see how you can consider Brandon Roy or Durant franchise players when they accomplished nothing thus far. Durant hasn't even made the playoffs yet. Although I agree with you in that franchise player needs to be drafted and not signed through free agency, it's difficult to predict how a career will be. It is possible that players like Durant and Roy never make it to the finals in their entire careers as the primary option, we won't know this till it happens. You mentioned yourself that in a couple of years, our perspective of these players may be entirely different. For these reasons, it would have probably been better if you don't include current players in your analysis.

Draft odds
This section is really great if defining franchise players is so easy, however, it is not. Your reasoning is very convincing if I could get past the fact that players like Kareem, Paul, and Barkley are not considered franchised players when they are legitimately considered in discussions of "Best player ever to play their positions" and obvious Hall-of-Fame players. One thing I do agree with is the fact that these players are extremely rare, and I also trust in Morey to draft them if available.

Furthermore, I don't think we can put all the blame on JVG's stubbornness. Although I hate how the NBA rewards losing, as you mentioned before, it does not guarantee that we will get a superstar and win a title. I rather have a winning organization than one that is stuck in lotteryville for 20 years. The Blazers weren't the ones tanking...it was the Wolves, and look where they're at. This year we may face a similar situation, and I don't think RA will fold either.

Although we disagree, I enjoyed your post. You should really look into being a sports writer. I should also probably mention that I DO think Roy and Durant are franchise players. My definition is just not as strictly defined as yours.

 

I know you said it's debatable, but I just have no idea how you can have guys like Roy and Durant up there already over sooo many more proven (or at least AS proven) players.

Steve Nash and Chris Paul both deserve to be up there more than Roy, just as recent examples off the top of my head. Many more.

Seems like a well thought out post otherwise, though. I'll finish reading it later.

 

First of all, I appreciate the effort you put into the op and I generally agree that you must be very lucky to even be in a position of getting a franchise player.

However, the percentages you are using are flawed big time:

Chance of drafting a franchise player =/ Chance of being in a position to draft said player

If the percentages you used were correct, there would be multiple franchise players in every draft. Assuming that I'm understanding your point correctly, the correct way to interpret those percentages is that you are xx% likely to be in a position to draft a franchise player assuming that he isn't drafted before you. Doesn't sound so good anymore, does it?

The percentages drop even further when you take into account that nobody can always identify the franchise-level players. It sure is easy to calculate the percentages afterwards but in reality that is the wrong approach. It's like playing poker with a fixed deck, of course you are going to win money from better players when you know what they have and what cards hits the flop.

As you said in your post, there are lots of teams that never hit the lottery hard enough and are "unlucky" besides being possibly "inept". A truly wise general manager/ analyst/ fan takes this into account too but the usual approach is to laugh and mock the "stupid" and "unlucky" while praising your own brilliance even if your fortune is made by sheer luck. In NBA, as in most life, a huge number of things that really impact you are terribly random. You tend to look good when the luck in your side and horrible when it isn't. But this isn't anything new in a world where short-time results are the main focus instead of the situations, strategy and analysis that led to them. Nobody remembers Rick Pitino's tenure in Boston any more. If he got the first pick, for what he IIRC was the favorite, his legacy might look a tad different.

So, in conclusion, to most sane organisations the steady but not spectacular winner is the better choice. You might never have a really big chance of winning it all, but it generally is better than the years of no chance followed by a POSSIBLY SLIGHTLY HIGHER CHANCE for a few years.

 

If I could rep I would. Great post.

 

Didn't David Robinson win a championship with Duncan in 1999?

 

Sorry for the double post, but yes he did. And he did again in 2003. Wow, no wonder Tim Duncan is so great. He had a great mentor coming up.

 

I think the OP's definition of a franchise player is dead on, even if his own list is subjective. (For example - Dwight Howard is definitely not a franchise player in my eyes - he has no post moves to speak of) But his main points are spot on, so cut him some slack.

 

Uhm, I'm being picky, but Bird, Isiah, Hakeem, or Duncan never led the league in scoring.

 

Isn't this the basic argument of every tank-proponent back in the offseason? This was discussed so much I pretty much got sick of reading the "tank gets you championships" vs "tank makes you a loser" debate.

A couple of articles with more detailed facts.

http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm

 

Thank you for posting them. Hopefully everybody reads those articles before starting yet another thread glamouring lottery.

 

I think your math is way off. By your estimation, 60%+(2x36%)+(7x26%)= 314%, there will be at least 3 fanchise players in each draft year. Just think logically, if there were 10 draft years, by your math,

1st pick would get 6 fanchise player
2&3 pick would get 3.6 fanchise player each
4-10pick would get 2.6 fanchise player each

that means, there would have been 31.4 fanchise players in the last ten years.

 

Your math makes no sense at all..ironic. It's 36% chance to land a franchise player with a top 3 pick (picks 1 AND 2 AND 3), not 36% chance to land a franchise player with the 2nd or 3rd pick given the first pick is already taken.

And, even if you intepreted it correctly, adding up all the percentages is not the way you get the 'average' amount of franchise players drafted per year. Probability or stats course - take one today!

 

What are you saying exactly? I don't understand, but here are my guesses:
A 36% to land a franchise player if you either the 1st pick, 2nd pick, or 3rd pick:
Then it goes back to what I just said, 3x36%=108%. So, multiple franchise player each year.

A 36% to land a franchise player if you have the 1st pick, 2nd pick, and 3rd pick
It makes no sense either, because he already said that 1st has 60% of landing a franchise player. How could having 2 more picks be lower.

I don't see any other way of interpreting it.

 

Wow, clearly someone math. You are making yourself look bad.

I will dumb it down for you.
The NBA is handing out one apple each year. Jimmy has 30% of getting it, Tommy has 70% of getting it. In ten years, 10 apples were given out, Tommy would have gotten 7, Jimmy would have gotten 3. That adds up to 10 apples. In other words, 30%+70%=100%, so 1 apple is given out each time.

 

fixed

 

you are treating percentages like actual numbers by adding up all the percentages. PERCENTAGES DO NOT GO OVER 100. How do you not understand this basic concept? There is no 108% or 314% unless we are talking about growth of some kind.

In your original post, you are basically saying the NBA gives out 10 franchise players, but somehow, the teams receive 31.4 franchise players (or whatever ridiculous percentage you summed up to).

You should reconsider your math before jumping on others so fast, but it's typical, usually the most ignorant think they know it all.

 

wow, clearly you read it wrong. What I was trying to show is that by the guy's math, there would be way too many franchise player per year. And YES, the percentage do go over 100% if you have multiple franchise players. I guess you need to take some upper level Math courses.(not trying to brag, but a honor math minor here with 3.8 GPA) I guess you are still stuck in grade 11 math.

 

Alright, your lack of math knowledge worries me so much that I feel the need to give you a lesson. Clearly the American education system has failed you.

LESSON:
Lets say you flip two coins. Lets say 'heads' means you get a franchise player, 'tails' mean you get a scrub. So the chance of landing a franchise player is 50%.

So, what are the chances of landing at least ONE franchise player with the two coin flips (or draft picks)?

"HURR DUR DUR it's obviously 50% + 50% = 100% since each coin gives u 50% for heads."

WRONG!

The chance at least one of the coins landing on heads and getting a franchise player is not 100%, it is 75%. Why?
Here are the four possibilities of the two coin flips:
Heads Heads
Heads Tails
Tails Heads
Tails Tails

So 1/4 times, both coin flips yield a scrub. 3/4 times, at least one superstar is obtained.

The mistake of adding all the percentages together makes a math oriented guy like me RAGE.

EDIT: 3.8 GPA and in math honors? Holy crap, I fear to know what an average 3.0 GPA student in regular math is like nowadays...