Part 2a: How did the best teams of the last 10 years get there?
The first step I took when researching this was to check if high-lottery teams were more likely to be better in five years than mid-lottery teams or borderline playoff teams. The answer was no; on average, every draft range regresses to the mean. From the 2001 – 2002 season through 2005 – 2006:
- The teams with the five worst records in each season (23 wins per season) averaged 39.8 wins in the 5th season after their ineptitude.
- The teams finishing with the 6th – 10th worst records (33 wins per season), improved to 41.2 wins 5 years later.
- The teams with the 11th – 15th worst records (40 wins per season), decreased to 38.4 wins per season.
All this really told me was that there’s nothing simple and draft related about building a winner. From there I started digging deeper, into what lead to the greatest success stories of the last 10 years. San Antonio, Dallas and the Lakers were the three teams that averaged 50 or more wins per season from 2001 – 2002 through 2010 – 2011. How did they get there?
San Antonio
The Spurs averaged 58 wins per season. That’s really amazing, but what’s even more astounding is the personnel they started the period with. In October 2001, Spurs fans probably thought re-building was imminent. Their under-30 core was basically one player. Fortunately, Tim Duncan was one of the best big men of all time, but there appeared to be very little around him. Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose and Charles Smith were already in their “primes” as average to below average NBA players. The newcomers were the 28th pick in the draft (19 year old Frenchman Tony Parker), Bruce Bowen (30 year old all-defense wing with 37% career field goal shooting and only 33% on threes), and Stephen Jackson (signed to 2 year, $1.2 million contract). David Robinson was 36 and Sean Elliot, Avery Johnson, and Vinny Del Negro were retired. With no lottery picks on the horizon, everyone must have been scouring the lists of upcoming free agents.
Except we know how this story ends; two seasons later the Spurs are again the NBA’s best. Parker averages 16 a game with Jackson tallying 12. Bruce Bowen continues a streak towards 8 straight all-defensive teams, while becoming a 3-pt marksman (41% during his Spurs career). The player they drafted 57th in the 1999 draft comes to the US and embarks on a hall-of-fame career. A series of well-considered free agents (Robert Horry, Brent Barry, Michael Finley, Fabricio Oberto), trades (Nazr Mohammed), and late draft picks (George Hill, Dejuan Blair) leads to two more championships and the nearly 60 wins-per-season decade.
Dallas
The Mavericks won 57 games per season over the last ten years. Their early decade success required the use of one top 8 draft pick. And that was an indirect use, as they traded Jason Kidd (2nd pick in the 1994 draft) for Michael Finley. Another player responsible for a lot of wins, before leaving as a free agent is Steve Nash, who was acquired by trading a Mavs 9th pick (Shawn Marion). Also contributing to a lot of wins from 2003 to 2009 was Josh Howard, who was drafted 29th.
The construction of their champions is convoluted, but it never required higher than a 9th pick (Dirk Nowitzki). I’ll again note that when referring to not requiring better than a 9th pick, I mean Dallas’ picks; several players were drafted by other teams at better spots in the draft, but the Mavs acquired them through other means. Basically, Dallas’ success was built on always being willing to take on longer term salary, while upgrading to the right mix of players. It started when they traded Tim Hardaway and Juwan Howard for Raef Lafrentz and Nick Van Exel. LaFrentz eventually became Antoine Walker, who became Jason Terry. Van Exel became Antawn Jamison, whose value returned Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse. Harris and two late 1st rounders brought back Jason Kidd, while Stackhouse’s expiring contract (plus cash) was eventually used towards acquiring Shawn Marion. Finally Tyson Chandler was acquired for Erick Dampier’s expiring contract (who was acquired via trade, essentially for two late 1st round draft picks and cash) and JJ Barea was an undrafted free agent.
In summary, Dallas’ 10 years of success was built by indirectly using one high-lottery draft pick from seven years prior, two other top-ten draft slots, a video-game like series of trades, and cash.
Los Angeles Lakers
The Shaq and Pau acquisitions could basically only happen to the Lakers, so they’ll be addressed briefly. Still though, they were built while never using a pick higher than 10th.
Aside from Shaq landing in Hollywood as a free agent, Kobe was scored with the 13th pick in the draft, when NBA teams still weren’t sure about drafting high-school kids. The rest of the core of their three-peat team consisted of Derek Fisher who was picked 24th in the draft, Rick Fox a free agent, and Robert Horry gained through trading Cedric Ceballos. The 2009 & 2010 champs relied on Andrew Bynum being snagged 10th. Pau Gasol came aboard through what appeared to be a heavily lopsided trade; Kwame Brown, Pau’s brother Marc (48th pick in previous year’s draft, had not come to NBA yet) and two future, surely end-of-first-round draft picks. Shaq was then eventually traded for Lamar Odom, which rounded out this squad.
What this means for the Cavs
None of these teams are easily duplicated (Shaq’s not walking through the door), but that’s not the point.
The top 3 teams of the last ten years relied on two total draft selections inside the top 8 to build their cores: Tim Duncan and Michael Finley (We can debate about including David Robinson. He was the #1 pick fourteen years earlier and played only the first two seasons of these ten, while averaging 10 & 8). Compared to the less capable teams that drafted early in the lottery repeatedly, either immediately proceeding or early in these ten years (Memphis, Clippers, Toronto), that’s a pretty sharp contrast. The teams were built by signing free agents at a good value, making great talent evaluations later in the draft, and always getting the better end of a trade.
Besides LA, I can’t say market size was a huge influence either. San Antonio was the original small market model team in the NBA. Dallas was an atrocity before Nowitzki and Mark Cuban came around, averaging 20 wins per season through the 1990’s. Their “big three” top 5 draft picks of Jason Kidd, Jamal Mashburn and Jim Jackson brought them to a summit of 36 wins before needing to be dismantled. Cuban’s willingness to spend was immensely important in building their championship team, but they never had to lure a free agent through “big city, bright lights!” Assembling the original Nowitzki, Nash, Finley, Howard core occurred very organically. Through trades; Tim Hardaway and Juwan Howard eventually became Jason Terry, Shawn Marion, and Jason Kidd. Basically they made a lot more good decisions than bad decisions for a long time, with wheels greased by Cuban’s money.
The Cavs have one blue-chip talent, tons of draft picks, and plenty of cap space; they should be able to reasonably duplicate the Spurs. Probably not to the tune of three championships, but at least a 55 win contender.
Perhaps based on the Dallas model of “never let a good expiring contract go to waste”, the Cavs can flip Jamison’s expiring contract to a floundering team for a longer, non-horrible contract that could also eventually be traded as an expiring contract for another upgrade. Maybe this was even a reason to keep Baron Davis around. It is interesting that neither the Spurs nor Mavericks assembled their cores with a big free agent signing; Dallas in particular always chose to trade expirings instead of waiting & gaining the cap space.
I don’t want these posts to be misconstrued that the high lottery is inherently worthless. If the Cavs fail this year and end up with a top 3 pick, my reaction will not be “what a disaster!” At the same time, the likelihood has to be acknowledged that the losing may not result in the asset everyone hopes for. This recent-NBA history lesson leads to the conclusion that there’s no reason to hope for losses. The assets and cap flexibility the Cavs have accumulated are sufficient, without needing further failure. Tomorrow we’ll look at the next best teams of the last ten years: Detroit, Phoenix, and Boston, and continue to build on the themes of “good management / decision making = winner, high lottery = crap shoot”.
I can only repeat how important it is to have organizational continuity. You have to look no further than San Antonio to be reminded of the value of this factor. Or Kupchak/Jackson in LA, or the Nelson lineage in Dallas.
Knowing how to handle/maximize expiring contracts(and having an owner willing to absorb long-term financial commitments) is as critical as straight player trades and the draft. It is a mix of all these things predicated on the above point and, most of all, being outstanding evaluators of talent and character..
I like the research you did and you bring up interesting points, but like with part I, I think this is extremely flawed.
First, lets look at the Spurs. Number one, they got extremely lucky to bottom out due to a Robinson injury and were able to pair two historically good 7 footers. The Cavs zero chance of this happening. Second, even if you take out the Robinson part of the equation, every Spurs championship was centered on a historically great, top ten all time player, anchoring the team. Sure, excellent scouting with the Parker and Ginoboli drafts and a few strategic free agents and trades helped, but if Tim Duncan is merely great and not all-time great, they most likely don’t win a title and almost certainly don’t win one after Robinson. So if you are convinced Kyrie Irving or TT are going to become all time great players, then fine, I’ll buy this model as possible for the Cavs. But I have my doubts either of those players become Tim Duncan.
Next up, the Lakers. Not only did they rely on two all time greats to get where they got, they also relied completely on their market to sign Shaq (which you acknowledged). And while Kobe may have been a late lottery pick, it was in a time when players could come right out of high school and were often undervalued. So the Lakers scenerio is 1,000 percent impossible to ever happen to the Cavs.
Finally, we have the Mavericks, who I think are the most possible for the Cavs to replicate. However, since the Bulls lottery style was thrown out in your last article because of how long it took to materialize, I’m not sure why the Mavericks are such a great comparison? And again, they are relying on a historically great player to carry their team.
So while there may in theory be other ways to build a team than through top picks, the OKC model is CLEARLY the Cavs best chance for success. Especially since they are already partly there assuming Kyrie and TT become what they seem like they can. While there may be luck involved with top eight picks, it takes FAR, FAR more luck to find a Tony Parker in the bottom of the first or a Manu in the second round than it does to find a Russell Westbrook or James Harden with a top five pick.
Despite your well meaning and thoughtout posts, I still think not having and hitting on a top eight pick this year is a disastor for the Cavs. I am absolutely rooting for them to lose (while still playing as well as possible obviously). It’s the quickest path to contention and offers by far the highest probability of success.
Josh – I agree with some of what you are saying here, however there are a few other aspects no one is talking about, The question is – would Manu and Tony, Fisher and Ariza, Marion and Old Man Kidd be as good on any other teams as they were when they were pieces on championship contenders?
EVERY player who sticks around in the NBA does so because they have NBA skills, or potential to have NBA skills. The trick is getting these players NBA skills to fit, and buy into an NBA system. Now you combine that with a Star player whose abilities fit that system and you have a championship. You see this all the time when pieces leave championship contenders, get over paid and then don’t produce outside of that system. Ben Wallace and Trevor Ariza come to mind in particular.
Building an NBA team is about installing a system (Byron’s Princeton Offense and Man rotations), getting a Star who buys into the system (Kyrie Irving) then surrounding him with pieces whose NBA skills contribute to that system (Andy V and maybe TT). What we need now is maybe one more allstar/Luao Deng level player (who fits the system) and then the rest of the pieces to make that system operate, And those pieces can be found with clever scouting, trading and most of all, your GM and coach being on the same page with that system. That’s the Spurs in a nut shell.
Plus – while this may be heresy to suggest – if the Spurs don’t find Tony Parker (instead they find, say, Tone Parquouir from France) and Ginobili (instead, the promising Minu Gizzopoli) – aren’t they more likely to be a 45-win team, with no post-Robinson championships? Is Tim Duncan still an all-time great?
Then, discouraged with his early taste of success now followed by terrible 10-turnover nights from Parquouir and 22% 3-pt shooting (6 attempts per night) from Gizzopoli… Duncan’s traning slips a bit… and he sustains a few injuries that shorten seasons – and doesn’t quite come back the same. What’s he training so hard to come back for? Another first-round playoff exit? Everyone considers him the great talent that rode Robinson to some early championships… then disappointed. Vince Carter with rings.
I don’t know if any of you guys have ESPN insider but John Hollinger wrote a great piece on the success of the Spurs. basically, the Spurs develop their players better than anyone else. Guys come to the Spurs, and either play better than was ever expected, or develop a few skills that work perfectly and allow them to thrive. I remember thinking the Richard Jefferson move was so ridiculous and anti-Spur, giving that kind of money to a no defense volume shooter. And now he’s playing hard and one of the best spot up corner 3 shooters in the league. Sounds exactly like what they did with Bruce Bowen. If the Cavs want to be the next Spurs, they need an organization that can develop talent like the Spurs – so far, they seem to be the best at that, although Houston is very good as well.
As for the Mavericks – well, the 2005-2010 Cavs WERE the Dallas Mavericks. 1 star, loud owner willing to spend anything, and they did the video game trades and took on salary. Only, Dirk never left Dallas and became completely unstoppable in the playoffs in 2011. And LeBron left. So that’s how that story ends. Revisionist history will never look kindly on the 2008-2010 Cavs rosters – but those teams were just as talented if not more so than the Dallas team that is the defending champions.
I love these kinds of posts, but I think that there are 2 ways to win a championship. The first is to have such a talent/matchup disparity that your margin for error is very high. The Lakers immediately come to mind. The second is to have extremely high chemistry and flukey good shooting, and sustained periods of dominance at least at one end of the floor (Dallas on offense, Spurs on defense). The third way is to have both the talent and the chemistry (the post baseball Jordan teams, 2007 Celtics). The Cavs are never going to have an overwhelming talent disparity, so they are going to have to build the Dallas model. They were very very close, we’ll see if the KI reboot can ever get them back to the precipice.
Josh,
We may end up still disagreeing after these five days, but I am convinced that not getting a top eight pick is not a distaster. I’m obviously not opposed to picking #1 if the season goes sour and that’s what happens, but I can’t imagine resigning myself to essentially rooting against the Cavs. To some extent, proving that basic premise is why I wrote 7000 words on (I need to reconsider my priorities in life).
The Spurs years that I covered today were almost completely non-reliant on Robinson. And I agree that Irving will likely not be a top ten all-time player. In my post, when comparing the Cavs to the Spurs, I suggest that 55 win contenders is more likely than 3 champinships. The basic point with the Spurs is that all they ever do is make the right decision (good management = winner). If the Cavs build around Irving, Thompson and alot more right decisions than wrong decisions…they are going to be really good regardless of draft position.
I also acknowledged that the Lakers scenario barely applies to the Cavs and that Kobe was drafted at a time when drafting high school players was still uncommon. Are you offering a rebuttal or just summarizing my post?
About the Mavericks, I actually offer a passing critique of their inability to build a winner through the high lottery in the 1990′s (similar to the Bulls from 1999 – 2008). Also I’m not really comparing anyone to the Cavs…this is just a historical record of what worked over the last 10 years and how it may apply to the Cavs. The historical record of those 10 years shows that the successful teams did not rely on needing elite lottery picks…that’s my conclusion. Not that the Cavs are like any of these teams, just that recent winners are routinely built without a bunch of high lottery picks.
And that curtails into your final point. If after 5 days of posts about
- one successful team that built around three top 8 picks (and still doesn’t have a championship)
- 10+ examples of teams that had gluts of top 8 picks and didn’t build a contender, AND
- the 10 most successful teams of the last twenty years, that were all built using two or fewer top 8 picks,
you still feel like “the OKC model is CLEARLY the Cavs best chance” and not “hitting on a top eight pick this year is a disaster”…well, I’m a really poor communicator. It’s a model, not a make-or-break, jump-out-a-window-if-it doesn’t-happen model.
Here is an excerpt – it’s definitely worth the read. “Go back and look at the histories of these Spurs players. With the exception of Neal, none went gangbusters immediately upon arrival. Ginobili came off the bench his first season despite having starred in Europe, and Splitter had a similar history overseas but hardly played at all in his first season. Green had been cut by San Antonio once; Hill saw limited duty as a rookie; and Jefferson’s first season in San Antonio was a major disappointment.
What they all have in common is steady improvement, not just in their stats but in figuring out their roles and how they fit into the larger picture. This franchise doesn’t just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks; there’s a plan here, and the success in player development is the most outstanding example of it.”
OKC has done a great job, but drafting well doesn’t always ensure anything. Look no further than the OKC Supersonics Northwestern rival. The blazers got rid of the inmates, hired a great coach, drafted an excellent cast of young talent, signed some proven veterans – and…..
their franchise player retires because of injury, and their future franchise center, and potential top 10 center of all team (Oden EASILY had this much potential) can’t stop getting injured. Sometimes you can make good moves and still not win.
I’m with GOCAVS on this: I think we are dramatically understating the value of the organisation’s ability to develop talent, keep players interested, run a system effectively, and maintain continuity.
Reading Kevin’s posts has, for me, just made it clear that there is no one way to win a championship. And the routes there are convoluted and full of moves that only make sense in hindsight. Which probably means that they could have gone another way – as someone said in part 1′s thread, only 1 team in 30 wins each year. And this isn’t the NFL, so that one team will likely stay good for a while. Winning a championship is borderline impossible, becoming a dynasty even more so. For that reason I think Kevin H. is undervaluing high draft picks – the small sample size of championship winners makes it impossible to draw many conclusions from their methods, but having the choice of the entire draft over the choice of the draft minus the top ten has to be better. Not a disaster if it doesn’t happen, but it’s simply inarguable that it is not a worthwhile thing to have, SO LONG AS it’s combined with organizational competency.
Good points to James, GoCAVS, Tom, and Isaac about player development, continuity, finding the right players for a system.
Ultimately I have lumped all of that into a huge heading of “good management / decision making”, as my posts are primarily about how personnel were acquired. A totally separate series could be written on what “good management / decision making” entails. Obviously Tom pinpoints a John Hollinger article that discusses exactly that.
Isaac,
I am not arguing that a high lottery pick is not better than the 20th pick or that it’s not worthwhile to have. I’m mainly arguing that there is no reason to hope that the Cavs lose for the benefit or acquiring that pick, based on the historical record of recent NBA success & failure, I don’t see enough reason to think that I should.
I think Tom hit the nail on the head too here, with Jefferson being a perfect example. RJ was an inefficient, ball in his hands, volume scorer. These players are important in the NBA because they can dominate mismatches and create scoring when the defense tightens up at the end of games (see Bryant, Kobe). The thing is, this isn’t what San Antonio needed. They had Manu for that and he is better at it.
So Jefferson adapted, bought in, and filled the role the system required of him. They needed a knock down shooter who could play off the ball, so Pop and RJ got together and made it happen. When he accepted his role in the system and tailored his skill set, his efficiency went up and the Spurs turned back into that well oiled machine we all know.
Isaac, I am totally on board with you on this. Good organizations and continuity win in sports (any sport). You just grab a bunch of talented guys and throw them together, you have Knicks (sans Lin lol) or 2011 Eagles. You have a good organization and established consistent system, you have the San Antonio Spurs and Pittsburg Steelers.
Kevin,
The main problem facing the majority of NBA teams is that they don’t have a player capable of leading a team to a championship. With the exception of the Pistons, every title team has had at least one guy that could put the team on his back in crunch time. While there are quite a few All-Star caliber players coming into the league every year, often only one or two players in each draft that have the ability to lead championship-contending teams.
The other main ingredients are an All-Star level player (which is fairly common amongst top 8 picks), a very good starter or two, and a handful of solid role players.
Fortunately, I think we may be closer than many people think. We might have our leader in Irving and a smart draft pick this year could give us the All-Star sidekick. If Varejao returns to the level he played this year, he would be in that third tier along with a potential free agent signing. We’ve got plenty of role players in Gibson, Gee, TT, and some late first/early second round draft picks.
Like you said, it will take smart personnel decisions to fill in the rest of the gaps, but we definitely have the skeleton for success.
im not a huge fan of the OKC model, and wrote about it on fear the sword. That being said, if we dont get MKG, Barnes, Beal, Lamb, or Drummond in the draft i will be really, really depressed
I think that there is a Z variable not talked about all that much. Teams who consistently draft in the top 10 are bound to be run by poor organizations who either draft poorly, evaluate personell poorly, or develop players poorly. Think about it, the Bulls got good when they radically overhauled their organization. Same with Seattle (to OKC), Us (Danny Ferry did some incredible things, and some incredibly bad things but still), and Dallas (Mark Cuban). It starts from the top, OKC did well with the lottery model because they drafted well. San Antonio did well with their model because they develop talent well. Dallas did well with their model because they traded well. The Lakers do well because they are the Lakers, same with Boston. It all comes down to having the right people around and making the proper decisions. Kyrie Irving: good decision, Alonzo Gee: developing into a good player and Byron Scott: most likely a good decision. Whatever we end up doing, it all comes down to making the best possible personnel decisions under our circumstances.
Right now what we have is a few very capable players, a couple good trade pieces, cap space and draft picks. If we can turn our potential assets into tangible results (which I think is very possible given the amount of flexibility we have) then it will be great. If not, the we will turn out like the Knicks.
I agree that good management/decision making is the most important thing when building a championship quality team. You can argue that the Spurs, Mavs and Lakers all did this. But anytime you have a top 5 player in the league (not necessarily all-time top 5, just that season/era) that makes things a lot easier. Arguably, the Pistons are the only championship quality team to win without a top 5 player (Hamilton, Prince, Wallace etc pistons, not the Isah, Dumars, Lambier version). What I think the Cavs did NOT have in place during while we had LeBron was good management or decision making. We had a top 5 player, and didn’t put all the parts around him to win a championship, although we can say we did have a championship quality team.
A large part of what has to be factored into the equation is luck. Even with development, the Spurs didn’t know how good Parker or Ginobli could/would be. Teams always hope for the ‘potential’ to be realized (sounds familiar with Eyenga and Hickson), but actually getting players to realize that full potential isn’t something that’s easily duplicated – or every team would do that. Also luck plays a part in making the ‘right’ draft pick, I’ve stated before that the OKC model that people seem to insist we can follow was largely enabled because the Thunder got Lucky by getting the #2 pick instead of the #1 pick, because if they had gotten the #1 picked they would have drafted Oden, instead of Durrant who is now a top 5 NBA player.
IF the Cavs get a top 3 pick this year, it will take some luck to make sure we pick the ‘right’ one, who will hopefully be that top 5 player and fit the system. With so much young talent with Kyrie, TT and an ever improved/improving Gee, and a solid veteran like Andy (if healthy and not traded), the Cavs are much better prepared now for a top 5 type player than we were when we drafted Lebron to a team with very little in the way of talent and future draft picks. This brings up a 3rd thing that I think all championship teams need – good timing. Management is core in making the right decisions, but without some luck and being able to make the decisions when timing is most appropriate for them is important.
I believe (at least I hope), that Grant is a much better GM than Ferry. Just like I feel that Gilbert is a better owner than Gund. When Ferry seemed to just look for good players to combine with LeBron, I don’t think he necessarily thought about the system that we were trying to build. I also think that because we didn’t seem to have a ‘sophisticated’ offensive system in place, that the Cavs managment and ownership were not in the best place to really make the ‘right’ decisons. Now with Grant at the helm, a more sophisticated offensive scheme (as well as a good defensive process), and an owner who feels as though he’s gotten burned after bending over for a superstar. I think the managment decisons are going to be much better than the LeBron era. Words like ‘system’, ‘character’, ‘work ethic’ etc, seem to be the hallmarks of each of the championship teams in the last 2 decades or so. IF we are blessed enough to draft a top 5 talent that would be wonderful. If we build a core and make some good trades that’s another way to go.
As far as the draft goes, I think it’s worth noting that all three teams were able to score big in the draft by scouting for players from populations that other teams were ignoring. When the Lakers got Kobe, teams were wary of drafting high school players. The Mavs got Dirk where they got him because Euros were for the most part considered not NBA-viable at the time (and they were mocked for the pick). And San Antonio did a better job scouting Europe than anybody else for a long time, which allowed them to get Parker and Ginobili. Plus, LA’s only had like 3 bad years out of the past 30 and San Antonio’s been good 19 of the past 20, so they were coming from a better place.
I don’t know that the same opportunities to Moneyball the other teams through the draft still exist (maybe heavy scouting in Asia or South America? Or small college conferences?). I’m not firmly in the lose-to-win camp, but I’m not sure the footsteps we’re trying to follow in otherwise are actually followable.
Kevin, I don’t think it’s a disaster one way or the other either. But put it another way. Can we leave ‘championship’ out of the equation as a way of determining success? I know this sounds silly because its the ultimate determination of success in sports eyes, but really its open to all kinds of crazy fluke and misfortune. If we look at regular season wins as something more easily predictable and quantifiable (or whatever the right word is) then I think the value of high draft picks becomes a little clearer. Take the best run of success the Cavs have had for a long, long time – the Lebron James era. Didn’t end in a championship and thats terribly sad. But each year there were 10 viable teams trying to get the win, sadly the Cavs came up short the couple times that they were legitimate contenders – not unsurprising really given the odds against them. What separated the Cavs from being champs, apart from stats? Who knows. Each year I thought we had added enough pieces. Its only in hindsight you can see what worked and what didn’t.
What I’m trying to say is, all you can do is put yourself in the best position to capitalize on fluke when it happens – good shooting runs when they happen (Dirk, anyone?), etc. There can never be a successful method of winning championships because for everyone who tries it, the vast majority will fail. Its so difficult all we can hope for is luck, but thats okay because thats what sports is. But to put ourselves in a position to capitalize on it, we need every break we can get, whether its high draft picks or whatever.
Isaac,
I 100% agree. The teams listed above were selected because they were the winningest regular season teams of the last 10 years.
It’s unlikely the Cavs build a team that is so overwhelmingly dominant that a championship is a given. What they can do is build a well structured team with smart cap management, win 55 games for an extended period and hope one year ends up being their year. I’m not opposed to that, and I think they can build that whether they pick 3rd or 11th this year.
As an aside, Of all the things that were unfortunate about Andy getting hurt, a very minor thing was that this series became even less relevant than it was before. To some extent, the whole series was conceived to play into the trading Andy debate.
Tom P, loving your insights here. I’m not even gonna throw in a big response.
Kevin,
Thanks again for a very well thought out article. Your numbers on how the different lottery draft groups all basically ended up improving to be, on average, middling teams does seem to support the theory that draft position alone is not a good predictor of future success. I’m thinking that in the long run you will find that the number of opportunities to add players will be a major factor. The preferred destination franchises will always have more opportunities than the norm because of location alone. That puts the flyover cities at a disadvantage so they have to find other ways of creating opportunities to acquire players. Grant did that with the Clipper trade by being very creative. Ultimately he has acquired six additional draft picks over the next four years. That’s six more opportunities than the rest of the league will have on average. CAP space and an owner willing to spend also can give the Cavs more opportunities. That looks to me to be the good management factor you are referring to. Better scouting and player development than your competitors can make a team better when they all have equal opportunities. If you start out with more opportunities even better. Interestingly via chance, more opportunities alone should lead to more success.
I’m sure some people will think that I’m not factoring in the fact that higher draft picks are better opportunities. In other words not all opportunities are created equal. While higher picks do have more value I’ll posit that over time the distribution of draft picks will even out over a five year period. Your numbers on how lottery team records regressed toward the mean supports that position. What that means is that, on average, all the lottery teams will have a relatively equal number of higher and lower picks. That should mostly cancel out the differences coming from quality of opportunities.
As far as your OKC model, I will suggest that you are overlooking the fact that the very important role player positions on their team were filled either by using their extra picks to draft players like Ibaka and Collison, or to trade for players like Perkins, Cook and Sefolosha. The vast majority of their scoring comes from their big three high draft picks. Without those quality role players the big three wouldn’t be enough to compete for a championship. The theme to what I am saying is that OKC’s success is in part due to the extra picks they accumulated.
Tom,
I echo Keith P, thanks for the tip on the Hollinger article and the other comments.
Over the last few weeks, as I’ve pretended to have time to publish 10,000 words on the NBA in 8 days, it’s limited my ability to do things like ummm…watch or read about much basketball (or sleep).
Thought JDW had a great point about looking for players where other teams weren’t. I think the next frontier on that is the D-League. We found a solid player in Gee, and the Knicks seem to have hit a lottery pick in Lin (who I think was unfairly evaluated for years). There are players who are good in the D-League that need to be in the right system to succeed, but I want a player that is constantly trying to improve his game. Dick Vermeil always said that you build a roster from the bottom up. If the guys at the bottom think they have a shot, then they’re always pushing the guys in front of them, etc. A culture of winning and accountability are there from the start. Also, I see a lot of preconceived notions about NBA players color people’s analyses, like in Moneyball.
That being said, I give you the guy I’d like to see the Cavs sign after they trade Sessions:
http://www.nba.com/dleague/playerfile/index.jsp?player=blake_ahearn
Kevin,
I assume your play on the Anderson Verajao trade was that the draft pick might we get in return not be worth losing a proven player as the draft picks are no guarantee of future success. If I am wrong in assuming that you want to keep Andy, correct me. I too believe the Cavs should keep Andy, at least until his final year. I think he is a valuable piece not just for his play, but for the leadership and examples he sets for the younger players. Andy’s presence alone thwarts the loosing culture / mentality that a lot of the cellar dwelling teams have. I just don’t think a deal with equal value can be had for him.
As for Antawn and Ramon, neither player will be back next year for the Cavs, and I will be upset if the Cavs do not move both of them and try to get some assets in return. We should be able to score a 1st round pick for Ramon, and I think we could get something for Jamison. I’d at least like to see Jamison get a chance to play for a contender at his age. Keeping them here to make a run at the 8 seed in the playoffs would be a mistake. I think the point is moot now, what aspirations the Cavs had of getting that 8 seed fractured with Andy wrist.
I do agree with you that it is absurd to want the Cavs to lose to get a higher pick, I root for the Cavs to win every game I watch. On the other hand, I am not that upset about the injuries and the Cavs possibly losing a lot of games because of them because a higher pick will be gained from it. While it will suck to have to watch Erden, Hollins, and Samardo play the 5 for extended minutes until Andy can play again, I can’t help but be excited for the opportunity to get a higher draft pick in this upcoming draft that is loaded with talent.