True, but I had to start somewhere so I decided to start with the years covering the NBA lottery. It seems a little less arbitrary than starting with 1984.
My first reaction was the same as DD's, but then I realized what you were doing, and why you were doing it. Before the lottery, teams used a flip of the coin, and the Rockets won that toss two years in a row, as we all know. By limiting it to the lottery, you give essentially the same odds to all the teams you looked at. I don't have a problem with that. Durvasa, this is an excellent thread, and one you obviously put a lot of work into. You deserve kudos and are an example of what makes this board different, and better, that the rest of them. Thanks for that. -
Great start on some draft analysis. At the end of the day, the goal is to win a championship, and, short of that, at least be EXTREMELY competitive on a regular basis. So this start at a draft analysis should ultimately be tied into an overall analysis on how championship/winning teams have been built, etc., and then weighed against how you anticipate that might change going forward given changes to the system (CBA, rules, whatever). That sounds like an extremely complex, time consuming analysis that one should be paid to do... you know, like Morey is paid. So short of that, as a fan, all I can do is look a little more big picture. You need talent to win. A lot of it. That talent gets on your team either through draft, free agency or trade. The Rockets do not appear likely to land big name free agents anytime soon. Maybe a ton of cap space this offseason proves me wrong, but I doubt it. That leaves draft or trade. One, they've tried the trade route, and for whatever reason that didn't work. Two, while it's great to hold out hope that they can turn Marcus Morris into gold via trade, or something similar akin to the Lakers stealing Gasol, that seems pretty unlikely. You got to trade value to get value, and the Rocket's players value is what it is. Their best bet is to do what Morey tried to do, broker a deal, trade out multiple pieces for one hopefully all-star piece, use cap space to add another chip, and see where you are. But again... tried, failed. Moreover, I personally question how much better that would have made the team. Playoffs? Certainly. Home court advantage? Potentially, but tough. Championship contender? No. A Gasol/Nene/Lowry led team isn't championship caliber... sorry. So that leaves draft... which has its own holes, but pretty much every majorly successful team of the past 20 years has done so on the back of a dominant player chosen through the draft. Except the Pistons... and, if they do well, the current Knicks. I would love to see real complex, in depth, statistical analysis on how to build perennially great teams. Championship teams or win 50+ three or more years in a row, or 5 out of 6 or something like that. But that's a ton of work. I think this is great start... thanks
Honestly, I wasn't thinking about it quite that deeply, but maybe in the back of mind. Thanks for the compliment.
As a side note, as loved and admired, and at times hyped, as Yao was by some members of this board and the community at large. This humble chart shows that he was still grossly underrated. The fates were really cruel to him and this team in the last decade.
i don't think we need complicated analysis to prove that you need at least one very high draft pick (non-bust allstar) on your team to win a championship. When you look back at the last 20 years, you've got the Dream and Jordan era, then you've got Duncan winning a bunch in the late 90s-early 2000s, you've got the Shaq era (both with Kobe and with Wade), and sandwiched in there is the Pistons championship with Billups (#3 pick) and Hamilton (#7 pick). Looking at the more recent champions of Boston and Dallas, it's clear that Garnett and Ray Allen (both #5 picks) were major factors, and certaintly Dirk (#9), Terry (#10), and Tyson Chandler (#2) were all key. So it is basically a fact that you need a top 5 pick/ franchise player to win a championship. The only possible exception is Dallas and I challange anyone to argue with me that Chandler wasn't the major factor in finally getting them over the hump. If the highest draft pick on our roster is a #14 pick, we are a long way from being a contender, and it seems the obvious thing would be to do whatever we can to get into a top 5 draft position, especially if we think it's a deep draft. We need to forget about making a big splash with high-priced, veteran free agents (we don't even have a paul pierce to build around). Instead, we have to make this trade deadline about accumulating picks and assets that will net us more picks or better picks. Also, you are unlikely to net a player like Cousins through trade with veterans, but rather, draft picks might give you that chance. The draft holds salvation for bad organizations and GMs know it. This is the strategy IMHO we ought to be pursuing.
We all know this already. We knew that we have to have an elite talent to win a title. They need to be a two way player in some manner but elite on one side or the other. Why we struggle with Kevin Martin. Why we hope T-will blossoms. We need someone who can get to the rim, get a foul, or a get a shot for a good shooter in thier spot when we have to have it. Then get a stop and a on the other end, or a block, or a steal. The things you have to have to win a title. My opinion. 1.) You have to be able to rebound. You can not score if you do not have the ball, you can not have the ball if you can not rebound. 2.) You have to be able to create off the dribbble. A wing or point guard have to be able to break down thier defender and force help or score on your own. (You used to be able to substitute an elite post player for this but there are really no elite post players anymore.) 3.) You have to be able to keep other out of the paint. Not everyplay but most plays you have to be able to force and 18ft jumshot and get the rebound. Or deny at the rim, block, bad shot etc. 4.) You have to be able to play pick and roll and defend pick and roll. 5.) You have to have players that can make shots when the ball is delivered to them. The reason the number 1 pick is valuable is you have the highest odds of getting someone that is elite at these 5 things. You do not need a top five pick but you needat least one top five talent. Even then it does not mean you will get a title just a shot at one. This is why Bima idea of trading vetrans after the lottery makes more sense. Gm's do not want to give up the chance at a top three pick... but number 8... maybe. Fierguard Bleed Red Rockets Red.
And only San Antonio actually won a championship. And they had TWO #1 picks to boot. Good thread, BTW.
If we cannot trade for a superstar (obviously big man prefered), we will need a lottery pick. It is inevitable that the Rockets cannot compete with the elite teams. Superstars make the difference (as we all know), and so this is an awful situation we are in. A top 5 pick would do wonders for this team moving forward. We have the best role players in the league for a superstar. Now we need a superstar who can see that and join them. If we can't get an elite player by midseason, then develop the youngsters and snag a high lottery pick. There are no other options.
I don't think this is entirely correct. Specifically, (1) You do need a top player on the team-- whether they are "top 5" or not isn't the question, you need one of these guys who would be underpaid even on a max contract. (2) Most of the top stars were high draft picks(#1 or top 3) picks, but a significant number of them are not. (3) Also, many of these superstars on championship teams, whether or not they were drafted top 3, were not necessarily acquired as a result of tanking (i.e. the team gets the draft rights after having a horrible season). In particular, the list of "top stars" on title teams in the last 3 decades include the following 12: Magic Bird Moses Isiah Jordan Hakeem Duncan Shaq Kobe Wade Garnett Dirk There were others on the title teams (McHale, for example), but let's just limit it to the #1 guy on the title teams for now. 6 of the 12 were top 3 picks: Magic Isiah Jordan Hakeem Duncan Shaq Among the above 6, 4 of them were drafted by teams that were tanking (i.e. the team got the high pick because they had a bad season), they were: Isiah (2nd) Jordan (3rd) Hakeem (1st) Duncan (1st) As for the other two: Magic's draft pick was acquired as part of a trade for Gail Goodrich (teams were stupid about future draft picks back then, apparently-- but then again, the Clippers just traded a #1 pick to save some money, so not everyone learned the lesson, it seems). The Lakers won 47 games the year before. Shaq was acquired by the Lakers in free agency, and then by the Heat in a trade (for Caron Butler, a late lotto pick and Lamar Odom, free agent signing). The 6 non-top 3 picks were Bird (6th) Moses (5th in the ABA draft) Garnett (5th) Kobe (13th) Dirk (9th) Wade (5th) Among these 6, those that got drafted by teams that "tanked" (or at least semi-tanked) to get into the draft position and won titles with them were: Bird Wade As for the others: Moses was acquired by Philly in a trade with the Rockets. Kobe was acquired in exchange for Vlade Divac. Garnett was acquired by the Celtics in exchange for Al Jefferson (a former 15th pick), Boston's 2009 1st rounder, and Minny's 2009 first rounder (previously traded to Boston in 2006 in the Ricky Davis for Szczerbiak trade). Dirk was acquired in a draft day swap of picks (Robert Traylor). Now, Garnett's and Dirk's acquisitions arguably had something to do with tanking. Specifically, the Mavs team that got Dirk won only 20 games the year before and ended up with the 6th pick, which it swapped for the 9th pick, which is Dirk. However, they did not need to be a 20-win team in order to land Dirk's pick-- the Bucks, which had the 9th pick, won 36 games. As for the Celtics-- they did tank the year before and ended up with the 5th pick, but that pick was traded as part of the Ray Allen deal (which, I think, is arguably a precondition for the Garnett deal). In sum, out of these 12 "championship superstars": 4 of them were top 3 picks drafted by teams that tanked. 2 of them were 5th and 6th picks drafted by teams that tanked. 5 of them were acquired by trades (including draft-day trades) 1 of them (Shaq for the Lakers) was acquired by free agency (Miami got him by a trade). The lesson, I think, is that, yes, you do generally need a top star to win a title. However, there's more than one way to skin the cat as to how you acquire that star.
Capable GMs won't pick number 1-3 in a lottery. That only happens on freak occurrences, like when the Spurs beat out the Celtics for the number 1, and the Sonics transferred to OKC under new mgt, or when MJ is the owner but then wisens up and hires Rich Cho.
Superstar Talent wins championships. The only exception that I can remember is the "One and Done" Pistons. Besides that every championship team as far back as I can remember has had the following caliber of players: Dirk, Kobe, Wade, Duncan, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq You need SUPERSTAR talent. Right now we barely have all star talent. Yes, we have assets, but these assets are only enough to grab us (if lucky) an allstar player NOT the superstars such as Durant, Wade, Lebron, Dwight, etc. The only way for us to get superstar talent is through the draft...and a little bit of luck. I am not saying we should "tank" but having these borderline allstars on the team, and still not playing good..makes NO sense
Nice breakdown - props to OP! A couple comments I would add... how many instances did teams get the #1 pick, continue to suck, and continue to layer on MORE lottery picks until ultimately climbing above 50 wins (ie chicago after drafting Brand had #16 that yr -artest, #4 and #7 the next yr, #4 the year after - curry, #2 in 02 - j williams...) .... tanking isnt a 1 bad year fix - its 2-4 year of being a bottom dweller... Secondly, for everyone that says "other GMs arent as good as Morey..." Look folks, early picks are soooooooo scrutinized by everyone, it isnt like finding a jewel in the second round... as I previously posted, if we had the 5th pick in '09 and Thabeet fell to us - everyone woulda thought Xmas came early... Bottom line, rebuilding through the draft is a crapshoot... so I wish people would stop acting like tanking for a pick is the answer to future prosperity...
Bird is a unique case however, he was drafted before his senior year in college as Red Aurebach pulled a fast one on the league, I think most were not aware he was even eligible to be drafted... Different era DD
True. I think the "modern" era probably starts around 1994, when the NBA made the latest significant adjustment to the lottery odds to be more favorable to the bad teams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery#1990.E2.80.93present:_Weighted_lottery_system This is when the value of a bad record and the incentive for tanking is set at about what is is now. Even in the "modern era," however, there is still more than one way to skin the cat when it comes to acquiring superstar players.
You think that was a coincidence If the Rockets had tried that, the then commissioner would've stopped it.
This is true, now extrapolate that acquiring superstar player out across the league and see if all the teams that acquired said superstar where in desirable locations like NY, and LA etc... DD
