What's new
By:

The value of finishing in the bottom 5

I

idiot

Well-Known Member
We're hoping that a bottom-5 finish allows us to draft up a player who can eventually become the top player on a championship team for us. Though it's hard to think soberly about this with the narrative that tanking is self-evidently the best path to a championship (or only path for small markets?), it might be worth a reminder of how unlikely this is (having a drafted player from a bottom-5 finish lead the team he is drafted on and had that bottom-5 finish to a championship -- without returning in free agency, like Lebron).

Let's take a look at what bottom-5 finishes have given to teams over the past 25 years (since the 2000 draft). This encompasses about 128 bottom-5 finishes (since there were a few ties for 5th in that period). It also encompasses 60 "episodes" of bottom 5 finishes (which could include a single year, or multiple years in close succession finishing bottom-5):
  • 1 player drafted because of the bottom-5 finish led his team to (just a single) championship as the best player on the team (D. Wade -- drafted 22 years ago; it hasn't happened since, though maybe Wemby has the best chance among those who still fit the criteria)
  • 4 players drafted became the best player on a Finals-losing team (Luka, Lebron, Durant, Dwight -- only one of them drafted in the past 17 years)
  • 2 players were the 2nd-best player on Finals winners (Kyrie, D. Wade in the Heattles era)
  • 5 additional players became the best player on a conference finals loser (including Deron Williams)
  • Only 22 total became the best player on a playoff team of any kind with the team that drafted them (about 17%)
  • Out of the 60 bottom-5 episodes, in 19 of these (or nearly 1/3 of all such episodes) no player(s) drafted even went to the playoffs with the team that drafted them
We can enjoy the tank race all we want, but it might be better for our sanity if we don't have unrealistic expectations for what it will produce.
 
Last edited:
idiot said:
We're hoping that a bottom-5 finish allows us to draft up a player who can eventually become the top player on a championship team for us. Though it's hard to think soberly about this with the narrative that tanking is self-evidently the best path to a championship (or only path for small markets?), it might be worth a reminder of how unlikely this is (having a drafted player from a bottom-5 finish lead the team he is drafted on and had that bottom-5 finish to a championship -- without returning in free agency, like Lebron).

Let's take a look at what bottom-5 finishes have given to teams over the past 25 years (since the 2000 draft). This encompasses about 128 bottom-5 finishes (since there were a few ties for 5th in that period). It also encompasses 60 "episodes" of bottom 5 finishes (which could include a single year, or multiple years in close succession finishing bottom-5):
  • 1 player drafted because of the bottom-5 finish led his team to (just a single) championship as the best player on the team (D. Wade -- drafted 22 years ago; it hasn't happened since, though maybe Wemby has the best chance among those who still fit the criteria)
  • 4 players drafted became the best player on a Finals-losing team (Luka, Lebron, Durant, Dwight -- only one of them drafted in the past 17 years)
  • 2 players were the 2nd-best player on Finals winners (Kyrie, D. Wade in the Heattles era)
  • 5 additional players became the best player on a conference finals loser (including Deron Williams)
  • Only 22 total became the best player on a playoff team of any kind with the team that drafted them (about 17%)
  • Out of the 60 bottom-5 episodes, in 19 of these (or nearly 1/3 of all such episodes) no player(s) drafted even went to the playoffs with the team that drafted them
We can enjoy the tank race all we want, but it might be better for our sanity if we don't have unrealistic expectations for what it will produce.
Click to expand...
Well that was depressing.
 
The alternative is to what, actively root for something that doesn’t give us anything?

Yes, it is important to remember that the draft isn’t magic, but I’ve actually found this counter tanking message to be almost as annoying. I am complete agreement with @idiot that the value is not much, but it’s beating a dead horse at this point. We get it.

It’s not even a conversation. This is really no different than the one sided “tanking is the only way” BS. It’s just complaining that the current approach is unlikely. There is no consideration for another approach. I’m all ears if there’s a conversation to be had about “we should actually try to win these games”, “we shouldn’t do this next year”, or even “we shouldn’t have done it this year”. But this one way conversation of “this is unlikely” really means nothing on its own.

It’s the equivalent of being that nagging fan that says “we should tank” and tries to say I told you so if we don’t win the championship.
 
Talent is talent. You have to use every tool in the toolbox. Tanking sucks, but if you believe in your evaluation process (and the early flashes from KG, Collier, Kessler & Filipowski suggests they do), you just draft who you like the most.

My guess is that the Jazz are hoping to luck out and win the Flagg sweepstakes and then shift from asset collection mode to star hunting mode. If they miss out of Flagg, I have no idea what they do.
 
Of course, a top 5 finish is no guarantee of getting a bona-fide #1 guy on a championship team.

But in this year's draft, IMO there's a clear-cut top 5, all of whom I think will turn into high-impact guys and probably would have gone #1 last year. Flagg is in his own tier.

The way I look at it, we have a 67% chance of getting one of those guys based on where we currently sit which I feel pretty good about. IMO, finishing #6 would be a huge let down, and finishing #7 would be flat out devastating.
 
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?
 
HadAnEffectHere said:
I mean, yes, the most likely outcome for the next three to five years of tanking is the current Orlando Magic. I'm not sure many people doubt that other than like Ryan Smit
Click to expand...

LogGrad98 said:
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?
Click to expand...

He forces his way out of the franchise that drafted him within 4-5 years and miraculously ends up with the Celtics or Lakers
 
LogGrad98 said:
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?
Click to expand...
LeBron?
 
6f8ac07b-b1e3-4f79-a0c2-5317bc98de48_text.gif
 
idiot said:
We're hoping that a bottom-5 finish allows us to draft up a player who can eventually become the top player on a championship team for us. Though it's hard to think soberly about this with the narrative that tanking is self-evidently the best path to a championship (or only path for small markets?), it might be worth a reminder of how unlikely this is (having a drafted player from a bottom-5 finish lead the team he is drafted on and had that bottom-5 finish to a championship -- without returning in free agency, like Lebron).

Let's take a look at what bottom-5 finishes have given to teams over the past 25 years (since the 2000 draft). This encompasses about 128 bottom-5 finishes (since there were a few ties for 5th in that period). It also encompasses 60 "episodes" of bottom 5 finishes (which could include a single year, or multiple years in close succession finishing bottom-5):
  • 1 player drafted because of the bottom-5 finish led his team to (just a single) championship as the best player on the team (D. Wade -- drafted 22 years ago; it hasn't happened since, though maybe Wemby has the best chance among those who still fit the criteria)
  • 4 players drafted became the best player on a Finals-losing team (Luka, Lebron, Durant, Dwight -- only one of them drafted in the past 17 years)
  • 2 players were the 2nd-best player on Finals winners (Kyrie, D. Wade in the Heattles era)
  • 5 additional players became the best player on a conference finals loser (including Deron Williams)
  • Only 22 total became the best player on a playoff team of any kind with the team that drafted them (about 17%)
  • Out of the 60 bottom-5 episodes, in 19 of these (or nearly 1/3 of all such episodes) no player(s) drafted even went to the playoffs with the team that drafted them
We can enjoy the tank race all we want, but it might be better for our sanity if we don't have unrealistic expectations for what it will produce.
Click to expand...
I think you are overlooking the fact that acquiring top end talent is just one part of rebuilding. Tanking is perfectly valid strategy in achieving that goal.

I think the main reason tanking usually doesnt lead to great success is actually because building up (and around) that talent is much harder than people acknowledge. You also dont really know if "your guy" (the blue chip guy you decided to build around) is good enough until he is in the spotlight and has to prove it.

Im not a fan of the concept, but at least our FO is doing it while holding onto some pretty good players. That gives us a shorter path to building up.
 
Does this bit of data help you all feel better? I wouldn't want anyone to lose faith in the prevailing (mostly data-free, beyond that it's better in a vacuum to have higher odds and higher picks) narrative about the value of tanking:

Out of the past 25 NBA champions, 8 of the teams (nearly 1/3) had a player that the team itself drafted top 5 as one of their top-3 players. (This represents just three players who happened to be part of multiple championships, however: Duncan, Wade, Irving).

Two more champions (arguably) were benefitted substantially by trading top-5 picks for another player key to their championships (Valanciunas for Gasol, Ingram & company for AD). If you really want to stretch things, then you could argue that losing a top 5 draftee (Lebron) set the stage for the Cavs to pick another (Kyrie), contributing to their championship.

And, if you have faith in OKC and/or Cleveland, there's a good likelihood that this year's champion will have obtained their second-best player because of a bottom-five finish.
 
Teams with top 5 picks rarely win titles because they're either forced into tanking because they're in an unappealing situation or because they're a terrible organization that isn't actually tanking, they're just consistently bad.

A big issue with the Jazz, of course, is that it's going to be incredibly difficult to build a team around Flagg or Peterson (even if the Jazz luck into one of them) unless they're top 20 players of all time as it's going to be difficult to trade for players to come to Utah and it's not clear at all whether Ryan Smith will go deep into the tax.
 
Drafting one player does not singlehandedly change the fate of a franchise. To make the playoffs and advance requires solid team building across the board, plus some coaching. Hence, I wouldn't use team success as a barometer for the value of drafting in the top 5.
 
HermanG said:
I think you are overlooking the fact that acquiring top end talent is just one part of rebuilding. Tanking is perfectly valid strategy in achieving that goal.

I think the main reason tanking usually doesnt lead to great success is actually because building up (and around) that talent is much harder than people acknowledge. You also dont really know if "your guy" (the blue chip guy you decided to build around) is good enough until he is in the spotlight and has to prove it.

Im not a fan of the concept, but at least our FO is doing it while holding onto some pretty good players. That gives us a shorter path to building up.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm overlooking anything. I don't disagree with anything you say here.

I'm actually totally with you and others like @SoberasHotRod and @KqWIN (though I clearly annoy him and others). I think you guys perfectly understand what's at stake. Tanking is a valid tool, one that's probably appropriate for where we are in the franchise now. But it's just one of so many other needed tools for us to get back to championship contention. It may turn out to be the most important tool, but there's a greater likelihood that it won't be the most important one.

So it's not you I'm trying to persuade (though I'm a little surprised how annoying people find it to have facts (historical outcomes, for example) brought into the conversation, given how infrequently they're part of the discussions here).

It's more just the prevailing narrative that tanking is the necessary/best/only/easy path to a championship that I'm going after. The kind of narrative that told us that the Jazz were/are forever doomed to mediocrity without bottoming out -- that we are in a far better place as a franchise now than we were with Mitchell/Gobert in their good years (I'm not trying to argue that we should have kept that sinking ship afloat, once it was clear that it had taken on too much water). The kind of narrative that is leading us to live and die emotionally based on whether we pull off another loss or that is furious that the Jazz didn't succeed in bottoming out the past two years.
 
Last edited:
HadAnEffectHere said:
Teams with top 5 picks rarely win titles because they're either forced into tanking because they're in an unappealing situation or because they're a terrible organization that isn't actually tanking, they're just consistently bad.

A big issue with the Jazz, of course, is that it's going to be incredibly difficult to build a team around Flagg or Peterson (even if the Jazz luck into one of them) unless they're top 20 players of all time as it's going to be difficult to trade for players to come to Utah and it's not clear at all whether Ryan Smith will go deep into the tax.
Click to expand...
Peterson?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top