Culture of winning or tank?

[sahlensguy]

I have reiterated that same history multiple times so trust me, I know it. Would have saved you some time to read my reply properly.

I never argued you dont need a MVP caliber player. However the guys you listed serve as a proof that there is not one type of player/skill/attribute that your top guy must have.

Curry, Duncan, Shaq and MJ have little in common between each other in terms of skillsets. Three of them are great defenders though. Even mentally, the only thing they all share is "the killer instinct" or whatever you wanna call it.

What most of those guys do have in common though, is the team that they won the championship with, drafted them. (I'll exclude Shaq, because he had Kobe, who the Lakers did draft).

 

[Step-Back Lauri]

After what they've done these last two seasons, nothing else than very unlikely superstar trade in the summer, or hard tank makes any sense right now. And as the team is so unfinished, I guess they Have to go that way.

 

[JimLes]

For the last 30 years there is one team that has won the NBA championship without an MVP level talent. ONE!

Ok, let's look at this the other way then. In the past 30 years, the average spot where the NBA MVP was picked has been 9. Last decade, it's trended lower and it's 17. Of course, Jokić repeating skews that, but a number one pick hasn't won the MVP in more than a decade. Nor has anyone picked 2nd.

You wanna expand this a bit? Let's take top 5 MVP vote getters in the past 5 years. The average is 14. Of course, there are a lot of players repeating. It's only been 13 unique players getting top 5 votes the past 5 years. The average is 12 if you just take each of the 11 players once.

Of those 13 players, only 6 were drafted with the team's own pick of the team they were on when they got the votes. The other 7 were either obtained in trades or drafted with a pick obtained in trades. In other words, those picks had nothing to do with the records of those teams the year before. You know the average of the players drafted with their team's own picks and still on the team when they were getting these MVP votes? Twenty! Brunson and Jokić were both second round picks, Giannis went 15th, Booker went 13th, and Curry was 7th. The only one picked in top 5 of those six was Embiid at #3.

I mean, I'd love to tell you that teams get MVP level players by tanking and finishing bottom 5 in the league, but it doesn't look like it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Ok, let's look at this the other way then. In the past 30 years, the average spot where the NBA MVP was picked has been 9. Last decade, it's trended lower and it's 17. Of course, Jokić repeating skews that, but a number one pick hasn't won the MVP in more than a decade. Nor has anyone picked 2nd.

You wanna expand this a bit? Let's take top 5 MVP vote getters in the past 5 years. The average is 14. Of course, there are a lot of players repeating. It's only been 13 unique players getting top 5 votes the past 5 years. The average is 12 if you just take each of the 11 players once.

Of those 13 players, only 6 were drafted with the team's own pick of the team they were on when they got the votes. The other 7 were either obtained in trades or drafted with a pick obtained in trades. In other words, those picks had nothing to do with the records of those teams the year before. You know the average of the players drafted with their team's own picks and still on the team when they were getting these MVP votes? Twenty! Brunson and Jokić were both second round picks, Giannis went 15th, Booker went 13th, and Curry was 7th. The only one picked in top 5 of those six was Embiid at #3.

I mean, I'd love to tell you that teams get MVP level players by tanking and finishing bottom 5 in the league, but it doesn't look like it.

Helluva post. Well done. Great info

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Ok, let's look at this the other way then. In the past 30 years, the average spot where the NBA MVP was picked has been 9. Last decade, it's trended lower and it's 17. Of course, Jokić repeating skews that, but a number one pick hasn't won the MVP in more than a decade. Nor has anyone picked 2nd.

You wanna expand this a bit? Let's take top 5 MVP vote getters in the past 5 years. The average is 14. Of course, there are a lot of players repeating. It's only been 13 unique players getting top 5 votes the past 5 years. The average is 12 if you just take each of the 11 players once.

Of those 13 players, only 6 were drafted with the team's own pick of the team they were on when they got the votes. The other 7 were either obtained in trades or drafted with a pick obtained in trades. In other words, those picks had nothing to do with the records of those teams the year before. You know the average of the players drafted with their team's own picks and still on the team when they were getting these MVP votes? Twenty! Brunson and Jokić were both second round picks, Giannis went 15th, Booker went 13th, and Curry was 7th. The only one picked in top 5 of those six was Embiid at #3.

I mean, I'd love to tell you that teams get MVP level players by tanking and finishing bottom 5 in the league, but it doesn't look like it.

The Jazz enough picks to the point that a quality team should be able to grab an all star talent. No need to bottom out

 

[fishonjazz]

The Jazz enough picks to the point that a quality team should be able to grab an all star talent. No need to bottom out

Agreed. Again, I wish we wouldn't have made the deadline trades and just had the pick convey right now and got to battle in the play in tournament/first round.
Jimles post just re-enforces that feeling

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[JimLes]

The Jazz enough picks to the point that a quality team should be able to grab an all star talent. No need to bottom out

This. The numbers seem to suggest that while a higher pick does improve your chances of finding your stud, being able to identify talent is the more important factor.

If you've got 5-6 lottery picks and you can't find your All-NBA franchise cornerstone with those, what difference will another 5-6 picks make?*

* see Sacramento, Detroit, Washington, etc.

 

[sahlensguy]

Agreed. Again, I wish we wouldn't have made the deadline trades and just had the pick convey right now and got to battle in the play in tournament/first round.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Not only would it have been fun for the fans, but would have given Markkanen a taste of what the post season feels like. The trades took that opportunity from him and some of his good role playing teammates to add insult to injury.

 

[sip]

Agreed. Again, I wish we wouldn't have made the deadline trades and just had the pick convey right now and got to battle in the play in tournament/first round.
Jimles post just re-enforces that feeling

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Nah. We need to bottom out if we actually want to build a legit contender. I'm tired of this middle of the pack crap.

 

[sip]

Not only would it have been fun for the fans, but would have given Markkanen a taste of what the post season feels like. The trades took that opportunity from him and some of his good role playing teammates to add insult to injury.

We weren't making the playoffs regardless so keeping our pick was best case scenario. We went on a little run when Sexton went nuclear for a month and we had a softer schedule but that wasn't going to last.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nah. We need to bottom out if we actually want to build a legit contender. I'm tired of this middle of the pack crap.

The data says otherwise though. Check the post by jimles. According to what actually happens (not what makes sense on paper) being middle of the road is actually the best way to draft an MVP level championship player.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

We weren't making the playoffs regardless so keeping our pick was best case scenario. We went on a little run when Sexton went nuclear for a month and we had a softer schedule but that wasn't going to last.

Agree to disagree. I think we had a decent chance. We were ballin. Ya sexton was killing it but that's just kind of who sexton is. During that nice run I thought that Lauri was actually not playing at his best.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I love when folks are like… tanking doesn’t work… you can get all stars at other points in the draft…

What if… what if you did both??? That’s what OKC did (yes yes I know SGA blah blah blah). We can trade Lauri or whoever for young players and picks too… maybe not on SGAs level but still.

You have to acquire top level talent. Go ahead and dip your poles in as many stocked ponds as you can.

The whole trade for a star discussion is also dumb. We’ve had opportunities to get “stars” at decent prices and balked because they likely wouldn’t re-sign because they are only under contract for a year (Jrue and Pascal and OG)… guess what… 80% of the stars that become available will be in the same situation. I get that we should be patient and we aren’t there yet but nothing about the last 12 months tells me we are more ready now to call someone’s bluff.

I don’t buy that we are big game hunting yet… I don’t know that we trade Lauri or whatever but I think we do more sit and wait unless a perfect opportunity comes along… and I wouldn’t eff around much anymore personally. Yall can drink the kool aid if ya want.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The data says otherwise though. Check the post by jimles. According to what actually happens (not what makes sense on paper) being middle of the road is actually the best way to draft an MVP level championship player.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

It’s not. There are many ways to have success and more ways to fail. Waiting to land the next Giannis at 15 or Jokic in the second is less reliable than tanking and there are no rules that say you can’t do both.

 

[fishonjazz]

It’s not. There are many ways to have success and more ways to fail. Waiting to land the next Giannis at 15 or Jokic in the second is less reliable than tanking and there are no rules that say you can’t do both.

The data provided gave an average draft position for MVP championship players. The data is the data.

Look I know that a better pick is better than a worse pick because if you have the first pick then you can still take Gianni's or kawhi or whoever. But the data is the data and I like winning way more than losing. If the data says that winning more and getting a player like giannis is just as likely as losing more and getting a player like Giannis then I would rather win more.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

A coach can create a culture and environment where players are unselfish, play hard, share the ball, make good decisions, etc. regardless of the level of talent the team has. So, in other words, the Jazz can do both--instill good habits and still lose games due to lack of talent.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I love when folks are like… tanking doesn’t work… you can get all stars at other points in the draft…

What if… what if you did both??? That’s what OKC did (yes yes I know SGA blah blah blah). We can trade Lauri or whoever for young players and picks too… maybe not on SGAs level but still.

You have to acquire top level talent. Go ahead and dip your poles in as many stocked ponds as you can.

The whole trade for a star discussion is also dumb. We’ve had opportunities to get “stars” at decent prices and balked because they likely wouldn’t re-sign because they are only under contract for a year (Jrue and Pascal and OG)… guess what… 80% of the stars that become available will be in the same situation. I get that we should be patient and we aren’t there yet but nothing about the last 12 months tells me we are more ready now to call someone’s bluff.

I don’t buy that we are big game hunting yet… I don’t know that we trade Lauri or whatever but I think we do more sit and wait unless a perfect opportunity comes along… and I wouldn’t eff around much anymore personally. Yall can drink the kool aid if ya want.

Yeah, Shai runner up to the MVP blah blah blah. Don't worry about that part. That's literally the only part that's hard to come by and the only reason they are successful right now. They traded for a decent looking 10 ppg rookie that turned into a MVP level player.

If they didn't get him they are still a lottery team with lots of picks and young guys with potential. Which isn't a terrible place to be in but not really much to talk about.

We could trade away Lauri and cross our fingers we get a guy at his level. Chances are we can't in multiple drafts with high picks. But he would be younger if we did.

Lauri might fit best fit player ever. You can plug any style guy next to him and he fits. I'm okay losing next year around him if nothing works out but trading him is a really stupid move unless he wants out, which doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The data provided gave an average draft position for MVP championship players. The data is the data.

Look I know that a better pick is better than a worse pick because if you have the first pick then you can still take Gianni's or kawhi or whoever. But the data is the data and I like winning way more than losing. If the data says that winning more and getting a player like giannis is just as likely as losing more and getting a player like Giannis then I would rather win more.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Fish I love you buddy but when “the data” factors in a once in 100 year event to push the average draft position then “the data” isn’t a great predictor of the future. Jokic may be the only mvp ever to be drafted in the second round. Go look at a simple list of league mvps since say 2000 and it’s comprised of guys drafted top 4 or 5… quick count of 14 of the last 24 mvp awards. Can you get an mvp talent between 7-15? Yes. Those picks don’t change hands a ton. If you have extra draft capital you can trade for picks in that range in some drafts… so why wouldn’t we try to do both? Especially because playing the middle will cost us one of those picks in the middle in the next two years and send it to OKC.

You can’t narrow things just to title winners and mvps imo anyway. You try to build a team that can make the conference finals… look at those teams and a disproportionate amount of talent comes from top picks.

Hinkie is like pretty good with data and what did he do? Morey is pretty good with data and what did he do? They both did different things… so the data doesn’t just say one thing.

 

[Ron Mexico]

If Jazz draft at #1 and he turns into an MVP quickly. Does he stay here for his prime when we start winning? Maybe it has to be the right guy. But a lot of guys will want out by then for the spot light like Mitchell. Utah is a unique market. Guys like Lauri and Gobert are rare and valuable to Utah.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, Shai runner up to the MVP blah blah blah. Don't worry about that part. That's literally the only part that's hard to come by and the only reason they are successful right now.

This is so dumb Ron. Chet and Williams have been a huge part of the success. And if Shai is the only thing that matters we need to get a player on his level at all costs. Lauri is not on his level. Lauri may be the thing preventing us from getting that guy.

They traded for a decent looking 10 ppg rookie that turned into a MVP level player.

If they didn't get him they are still a lottery team with lots of picks and young guys with potential. Which isn't a terrible place to be in but not really much to talk about.

If they had Shai and no Chet or Williams they’d also be in the play in or lotto.

We could trade away Lauri and cross our fingers we get a guy at his level. Chances are we can't in multiple drafts with high picks. But he would be younger if we did.

Lauri might fit best fit player ever. You can plug any style guy next to him and he fits. I'm okay losing next year around him if nothing works out but trading him is a really stupid move unless he wants out, which doesn't seem to be the case.

And what about another year of borderline play in team that leads to us sending a pick to OKC. The non tankers seem to want their cake and eat it to ignoring the scenario where we get nothing and now all the competitive advantage of a cheap Lauri contract is fully exhausted. I’m cool with keeping Lauri but we likely have to offload other stuff to stay below 10. Is Lauri excited to hang around next year if we tank second half of the season or get bounced in the play in? Or after he’s been paid does he get more grumbly?

I only move him for a BIG return. But it’s not stupid to trade him if the big offer comes in. The only thing that is dumb is making a move to get in the middle after the last two years we’ve had.