What's new
By:

The value of finishing in the bottom 5

HermanG said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.)
 
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.
 
fishonjazz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
fishonjazz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
The Midnight said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
idiot said:
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.
Click to expand...
But of course. Literally everyone would agree.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
cowhide said:
I think the San Antonio Spurs might disagree with your point of view. You have to be lucky in the draft.
Click to expand...
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.
 
idiot said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
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).
 
Last edited:
HermanG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 Idiotic Minivan K said:
Explain to me how we get a star without tanking? Someone please tell me. Lol
Click to expand...
I think the main point is you need to get lucky / make correct scouting reads. Tanking improves odds but top talent exists outside of top 5 as well.

Current KIA MVP ladder top 3:
  1. SGA 11th pick
  2. Jokic 41st pick
  3. Giannis 15th pick
So the 3 best players in the world right now were not even valued as top 10 in their respective draft classes.
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
Explain to me how we get a star without tanking? Someone please tell me. Lol
Click to expand...
You find a gem in the draft. Jokic was a 2nd round pick. Kobe and Malone were end of lottery picks. Stockton was the 16th pick. There many examples of great players found down in the draft. You don't pass on great players. Giannis was there for the Jazz and they passed on him. I am sure Philly regretted making the Tatum trade. I know people say it is hindsight, but my point is that talent can be found many places in the draft as long as teams don't pass on it.

Tanking is necessary but not a guarantee that a team gets a star. Some years the number one pick is thrash, drafts are overrated and none of the top guys become stars, injuries happen. Before the Lottery tanking gave a team a better chance of getting the number one pick because if you had the worse record then you got the number one pick. Now with the lottery you could have the worst record and drop spots when you get to draft. In the end a franchise has to make smart decisions and have a lot of LUCK to build a championship team.
 
HermanG said:
I think the main point is you need to get lucky / make correct scouting reads. Tanking improves odds but top talent exists outside of top 5 as well.

Current KIA MVP ladder top 3:
  1. SGA 11th pick
  2. Jokic 41st pick
  3. Giannis 15th pick
So the 3 best players in the world right now were not even valued as top 10 in their respective draft classes.
Click to expand...
Of those three guys you listed, how many of those guys did Utah draft? How many HOF players have the Jazz drafted in that range, it’s two in 84-85, none since then, so none in the last 40 years, oh and Lauri absolutely should’ve been traded the offseason coming off his allstar nod to increase our odds of drafting a star. All I can say is thank god we finally figured out how to tank this year with 5-6 really good prospects. And this offseason we better find a way to drop Collins and Sexton and Lauri with another big draft coming in 26.
 
cowhide said:
You find a gem in the draft. Jokic was a 2nd round pick. Kobe and Malone were end of lottery picks. Stockton was the 16th pick. There many examples of great players found down in the draft.
Click to expand...
Last time we did that was in 85, 40 years ago. You can’t rely on that
cowhide said:
Tanking is necessary but not a guarantee that a team gets a star.
Click to expand...
And my point is your odds are greatly increased
 
A look so your point is stupid. “Why tank when you can get Jokic in round two” well lol how about we tank and make good picks with all those other first rounders and seconds that we have
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
Explain to me how we get a star without tanking? Someone please tell me. Lol
Click to expand...
I feel like we have already done this before.
I think Donovan was/is a star. Gobert was pretty awesome.
Jokic is decent. Kawhi had an ok career.

You can also do things like we did when we traded d will. We thought favors would be a star. He was 19 year old athletic freak of nature with great size who went 3rd in the draft (iirc)

I mean I could go on and on but what's the point? I agree that tanking is as good a plan as any to get a star.
 
fishonjazz said:
I feel like we have already done this before.
I think Donovan was/is a star. Gobert was pretty awesome.
Jokic is decent. Kawhi had an ok career.

You can also do things like we did when we traded d will. We thought favors would be a star. He was 19 year old athletic freak of nature with great size who went 3rd in the draft (iirc)

I mean I could go on and on but what's the point? I agree that tanking is as good a plan as any to get a star.
Click to expand...
Right, I forgot about Mitchell so let’s see we drafted car alone in 1985 and Mitchell in 2016 I think, so it took 30 years between drafting Malone and Mitchell so we just need to wait what another 20 or so years for the next one? Yes we traded Darrin Williams for what we thought was going to be a star but first we have to have a Darrin Williams to trade. I’m sorry but Markkanen ain’t on that level and it was a astronomical mistake to give him that contract
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top