The value of finishing in the bottom 5

[idiot]

How about looking at it from this perspective:

Among the last 20 champions, there are only two instances where a team won a championship WITHOUT spending any time in the bottom 5 of their conference in the preceding 10 years. Those two are 2014 Spurs and 2011 Mavs.

• Even the Celtics who uniquely cashed in big time on the picks of another team finished 12th in the East in 2013-14 with 25-57 record
• Nuggets were in the bottom 5 three years in a row from 2013-2016
• Warriors were dead last in the West in 2019-20 and before their dynasty run they finished bottom 5 three times in a row between 2009-2012
• Lakers finished bottom 5 FIVE years between 2013-2018, and they also finished bottom 5 once (2004-05) before their previous championships in '09 and '10.
• Bucks finished bottom 5 two times 2013-14 and 2015-16 seasons
• Raptors spent 3 years in bottom 5 between 2008-2012
• Cavs I probably dont need to detail
• Miami finished dead last in 2007-2008 and before the chip they won in 2006 they had spent 2 years in the bottom 5 from 2001-03
• Celtics won in 2008 with a bunch of FA's, but they still had spent 3 years in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to 2008.
• Pistons had spent 3 seasons in bottom 5 in the 10 years leading up to their 2004 championship
• Spurs I also dont need to detail, as their case of acquiring Duncan is rather famous. Funny part about it is that the 10 year window I set here covers 4 of their 5 championships.

So in light of those details it would seem that 90% of champions tanked or at least were in the bottom 5 for some period of time (usually 3+ years) before they built up their championship winning team. Some used their own draft picks, and some used the talent they acquired as assets (Lakers being the most blatant example of this).

Not sure where to start here:

• You seem to be moving the goalposts. My argument was about bottom-5 league finishes (since I think that's what most people around here would argue is a proper tank). Now you're saying bottom-5 conference finish (this encompasses several of your examples -- esp. Denver, Boston, Toronto, Miami a bit). We finished bottom-5 in the conference the past two years. Are you arguing that we're good to go now?
• Are you arguing that drafting Wiseman is what put the Warriors back on top for their most recent championship run?
• You seem to be arguing more from correlation than causation at some points here (Warriors, Bucks, Raptors perhaps being the best example). Are you arguing that it doesn't really matter how good the player obtained in by drafting with a bottom-5 finish is (or whether that player is even on the team any longer) -- but rather the simple fact that they spent time in the bottom-5? Or are you arguing that picking Michael Beasley and Jabari Parker at #2 after bottom-5 finishes were the (or even one of the) key reasons the Heat and Bucks subsequently won championships?
• I think I acknowledged the role of the trade for Ingram for the Lakers in the OP (at least I meant to, and should have if I didn't). I certainly mentioned the issue with Cleveland (got their second-best player directly as a result of their bottom-5 finish). And I very definitely acknowledged that the 2003 Miami example was the single example since 2000 that worked out the very best (drafted player became the best player on the team's championship).
• For the Celtics, they only had one bottom-5 draft choice from those years you mention. That turned into Jeff Green, and then Ray Allen in a trade. He was their third best player (though admittedly important) for their championship. That's why they didn't get mention (the ideal goal is to get something more than a third-best player as a result of tanking).
• My time period was not championships since 2000, but draft picks leading to championships from bottom-5 finishes since 2000. Thus Detroit and SA weren't included. Their key picks came pre-2000. @NUMBERICA raised the valid issue that maybe that's cherry picking too much, but I hope I've raised valid issues in the posts following for the argument that if we can't find an example of a best-player on a championship with the same team drafted off a pick since 2003, then maybe the league has changed from what it was in the earlier period.

A reminder: I am NOT arguing that a bottom-5 finish can't have some benefits for a team, sometimes fairly significant benefits. It does. There are lots of examples. I'm only arguing that the recent history of the NBA seems to suggest that those benefits have been less than what our dreams our for our own bottom-5 finish(es) will be. (If you read Andy's and Sarah's tweets, it seems the Jazz fully intend to do this again next year.)

 

[fishonjazz]

Six of the rotational players that brought the Celtics a championship were brought to Boston by Ainge. Folks credit Ainge for a remarkable trade with the Brooklyn Nets that ultimately led to Boston landing Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown in the draft. It was a brilliant strategy and added to the lore of the team Ainge had a hand in during the past 18 years.
He also traded the #1 pick in 2017 for the #3 pick. He would have taken Tatum #1 overall but thought Tatum would be there at 3 so he traded back for a future first round pick. (this pick turned into derrick white)

Maybe Ainge knows how to do his job.

 

[idiot]

On the other hand, the model the jazz have used for the past 50 years hasn't worked so why wouldn't we be supportive of the jazz trying a different model?

Also what if the jazz are doing the celtics model? The celtics won a chip last season. They drafted Tatum 3rd overall. They got that draft pick by doing what the jazz did.

What is that model? Is it just one?

Though I think that tanking can be generally called a "model," I tend not to like using the term "model" to describe how teams succeed. I think success is too varied and complex most of the time to fall under the label of "model". We need to succeed at a lot to become championship competitive.

Yeah, the Celtics are probably the closest to a counter example of my argument. You might say they had the advantage of not needed to tear their team down in order to benefit from their top-5 draft choices. Maybe you could argue that (by keeping Lauri and not getting rid of other vets for peanuts) they are trying to replicate this. Hopefully it works.

 

[idiot]

Six of the rotational players that brought the Celtics a championship were brought to Boston by Ainge. Folks credit Ainge for a remarkable trade with the Brooklyn Nets that ultimately led to Boston landing Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown in the draft. It was a brilliant strategy and added to the lore of the team Ainge had a hand in during the past 18 years.
He also traded the #1 pick in 2017 for the #3 pick. He would have taken Tatum #1 overall but thought Tatum would be there at 3 so he traded back for a future first round pick. (this pick turned into derrick white)

Maybe Ainge knows how to do his job.

I don't doubt that he does. But I suspect he'd be the first to tell you need a lot of luck for something like this to happen again.

With the Celtics, he placed a short-bet on the Nets. He won that bet. He also won the subsequent drafts. Now they have a championship.

With the Jazz, he seems to have placed short bets on the Cavs, Wolves, Lakers, and Suns. At least two of these look very unlikely to give the hoped-for returns. We'll see on the others. He seems to not have greatly overperformed with the Jazz's draft (to this point).

 

[idiot]

You’ve hit it out of the park.

I think this post should at long last officially put a stop to @idiot’s drawn out ‘crusade’ against tanking.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not anti-tanking. I'm anti-overrating tanking.

(OK, I am anti-tanking as a matter of principle. I think it's bad for the league. I think we need to change the system that rewards tanking. But I'm not against the Jazz tanking under the league system that we currently have. I hope they succeed. But, at the same time, I hope my expectations are realistic.)

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't doubt that he does. But I suspect he'd be the first to tell you need a lot of luck for something like this to happen again.

But of course. Literally everyone would agree.

 

[cowhide]

I think the San Antonio Spurs might disagree with your point of view. You have to be lucky in the draft. How disappointing it would be if Utah finishes in the bottom 3 and then drops lower. People need to remember that teams win Championships so one player even a superstar isn't enough. Sometimes teams get lucky in the draft and find stars in 2nd round Jokic and Ginobili. Free agency comes with uncertainty like injuries or lower performance once they sign their big contracts. Organization need stability, a good plan and lots of luck. Jazz have young talent, most of their young players are basically college players when you look at their ages. They have shown signs of improvement but make a lot of dumb young player mistakes. I am hopeful this team is going in the right direction, but it will be a setback if they don't get a top 3 pick and ideally the number one pick.

 

[idiot]

I think the San Antonio Spurs might disagree with your point of view. You have to be lucky in the draft.

Yep.

But even the Spurs are beginning to show the difference between getting lucky when you still have a good /great team and getting lucky when you've mostly emptied the cupboard. With Duncan it was full speed ahead. With Wemby there have been (and may possibly yet be) more speedbumps along the way. They may not even get to where they want. The Fox trade doesn't look as good now as it did at the time.

 

[HermanG]

Not sure where to start here:

• You seem to be moving the goalposts. My argument was about bottom-5 league finishes (since I think that's what most people around here would argue is a proper tank). Now you're saying bottom-5 conference finish (this encompasses several of your examples -- esp. Denver, Boston, Toronto, Miami a bit). We finished bottom-5 in the conference the past two years. Are you arguing that we're good to go now?
• Are you arguing that drafting Wiseman is what put the Warriors back on top for their most recent championship run?
• You seem to be arguing more from correlation than causation at some points here (Warriors, Bucks, Raptors perhaps being the best example). Are you arguing that it doesn't really matter how good the player obtained in by drafting with a bottom-5 finish is (or whether that player is even on the team any longer) -- but rather the simple fact that they spent time in the bottom-5? Or are you arguing that picking Michael Beasley and Jabari Parker at #2 after bottom-5 finishes were the (or even one of the) key reasons the Heat and Bucks subsequently won championships?
• I think I acknowledged the role of the trade for Ingram for the Lakers in the OP (at least I meant to, and should have if I didn't). I certainly mentioned the issue with Cleveland (got their second-best player directly as a result of their bottom-5 finish). And I very definitely acknowledged that the 2003 Miami example was the single example since 2000 that worked out the very best (drafted player became the best player on the team's championship).
• For the Celtics, they only had one bottom-5 draft choice from those years you mention. That turned into Jeff Green, and then Ray Allen in a trade. He was their third best player (though admittedly important) for their championship. That's why they didn't get mention (the ideal goal is to get something more than a third-best player as a result of tanking).
• My time period was not championships since 2000, but draft picks leading to championships from bottom-5 finishes since 2000. Thus Detroit and SA weren't included. Their key picks came pre-2000. @NUMBERICA raised the valid issue that maybe that's cherry picking too much, but I hope I've raised valid issues in the posts following for the argument that if we can't find an example of a best-player on a championship with the same team drafted off a pick since 2003, then maybe the league has changed from what it was in the earlier period.

A reminder: I am NOT arguing that a bottom-5 finish can't have some benefits for a team, sometimes fairly significant benefits. It does. There are lots of examples. I'm only arguing that the recent history of the NBA seems to suggest that those benefits have been less than what our dreams our for our own bottom-5 finish(es) will be. (If you read Andy's and Sarah's tweets, it seems the Jazz fully intend to do this again next year.)

Ehm.... I never argued ANYTHING you try to counter here. I just simply pointed out that nearly every champion was bad in the decade leading up to their championship. Thats a fact, not a debate, idiot.

So no, I'm not moving the goalposts. Putting dumb *** ideas like "we are good to go because we have been bad" into my mouth is just you being an absolute douche. I'm also not arguing anything about Wiseman, or any of the guys you mentioned. Funny thing is I wasnt even arguing your OP points lol.

But I wont try and feed optimism to you since you respond to it this poorly. I have no interest in participating in dumb *** "winning the internet" debates. Keep poisoning the well then.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So what are the comps for Flag, what does he project to turn into, just assuming that he turns into 100% of his potential, what then?

Jayson Tatum (who, strangely, seems to get less hype now that his game has gotten much more complete and is the best player on the defending champions).

 

[idiot]

Ehm.... I never argued ANYTHING you try to counter here. I just simply pointed out that nearly every champion was bad in the decade leading up to their championship. Thats a fact, not a debate, idiot.

So no, I'm not moving the goalposts. Putting dumb *** ideas like "we are good to go because we have been bad" into my mouth is just you being an absolute douche. I'm also not arguing anything about Wiseman, or any of the guys you mentioned. Funny thing is I wasnt even arguing your OP points lol.

But I wont try and feed optimism to you since you respond to it this poorly. I have no interest in participating in dumb *** "winning the internet" debates. Keep poisoning the well then.

Sorry I misinterpreted your intentions. I took your post as a counter to my OP, as @The Midnight apparently did too. I should have been less defensive in my response and more careful in trying to discern your point.

Yes, I totally agree with your key point that teams typically experience down years before championships.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Explain to me how we get a star without tanking? Someone please tell me. Lol