Down with tanking, play to win!

[Brickowski]

You don't need high picks to trade for superstars, you need good players-- and very often expiring contracts, because teams willing to unload superstars are typically looking to unload salary as well.
 
If you had the No. 1 pick in the 2014 and the Pacers offered Paul George, would you take it?  Suppose OKC offered Serge Ibaka or Denver offered Kenneth Faried? I would gladly trade that pick for any one of those three players.
 
In any event, if the C's are tanking they seem to be doing a lousy job of it, and the folks who want them to win 10-15 games are going to be sorely disappointed.  If they keep playing like they did yesterday, they could easily have 10+ wins by Christmas.

 

[Stitch01]

No to all three trades.
 
EDIT: Maybe to the George trade, but probably no.
 
Should probably elaborate, if the Celtics were bad enough to get the number 1 pick through anything but a super lottery fluke I dont think its a good move. 
 
If a decent team somehow had the number 1 draft pick, Id make that trade.

 

[wutang112878]

You don't need high picks to trade for superstars, you need good players-- and very often expiring contracts, because teams willing to unload superstars are typically looking to unload salary as well.
 

 
Is this a joke?  You need good players and most likely the good players are high picks, most are going to be picked 10 and below, some are going to be in the 10s and very few will be 20 and beyond.  Name me a superstar who was traded for players drafted in the 20s?  Pau Gasol is probably the only example I can think of

 

[bowiac]

GMB, the only place I really disagree with that the most consistently available assets are via lottery picks. Lottery picks are great, but they often come at a high cost - a terrible team, and in particular, one that hasn't been developing its existing players (assets) well. I think you're more likely to develop a tradeable asset by trying to do the things that winning teams do rather than by tanking.
 
Put another way, if the Celtics somehow make the playoffs this year, that's great, because it means several of Rondo, Olynyk, Sullinger, Faverani, Bradley, Green, or even Bass played well. That's valuable because you then try and trade those players for other assets, which can eventually turn into a star. 

 

[bowiac]

If you had the No. 1 pick in the 2014 and the Pacers offered Paul George, would you take it?  Suppose OKC offered Serge Ibaka or Denver offered Kenneth Faried? I would gladly trade that pick for any one of those three players.

I think you'd be crazy to turn down Paul George, and you'd be crazy to take Kenneth Faried. Ibaka is somewhere in between.

 

[Stitch01]

 
Is this a joke?  You need good players and most likely the good players are high picks, most are going to be picked 10 and below, some are going to be in the 10s and very few will be 20 and beyond.  Name me a superstar who was traded for players drafted in the 20s?  Pau Gasol is probably the only example I can think of

 
For illustration purposes.
 
The third overall pick
 
2013 Otto Porter Georgetown Washington
2012 Bradley Beal Florida Washington
2011 Enes Kanter Kentucky Utah
2010 Derrick Favors Georgia Tech New Jersey
2009 James Harden Arizona State Oklahoma
2008 O.J. Mayo USC Minnesota
2007 Al Horford Florida Atlanta
2006 Adam Morrison Gonzaga Portland
2005 Deron Williams Illinois Jr. Utah
2004 Ben Gordon UConn Jr. Chicago
2003 Carmelo Anthony Syracuse Fr. Denver
2002 Mike Dunleavy Duke Jr. Golden State
2001 Pau Gasol Spain Memphis
2000 Darius Miles HSSr. LA Clippers
1999 Baron Davis UCLA So. NO Hornets
1998 Raef LaFrentz Kansas Denver
1997 Chauncey Billups Colorado Boston
1996 Shareef Abdur-Rahim California Vancouver
1995 Jerry Stackhouse North Carolina Philadelphia
1994 Grant Hill Duke Detroit
1993 Anfernee Hardaway MemphisState Golden State
1992 Christian Laettner Duke Minnesota
1991 Billy Owens Syracuse Sacramento
1990 Chris Jackson Louisiana State Denver
1989 Sean Elliott Arizona San Antonio
1988 Charles Smith Pittsburgh Philadelphia
1987 Dennis Hopson Ohio State New Jersey
1986 Chris Washburn North Carolina State Golden State
1985 Benoit Benjamin Creighton LA Clippers
1984 Michael Jordan North Carolina Chicago
1983 Rodney McCray Louisville Houston
1982 Dominique Wilkins Georgia Utah
1981 Buck Williams Maryland New Jersey
1980 Kevin McHale Minnesota Boston
 
The 15th overall pick
 
Year Player Drafted From Drafted By
2013 Giannis Adetokunbo Greece Milwaukee
2012 Moe Harkless St. John's Philadelphia
2011 Kawhi Leonard San Diego St. Indiana
2010 Larry Sanders VCU Milwaukee
2009 Austin Daye Gonzaga Detroit
2008 Robin Lopez Stanford Phoenix
2007 Rodney Stuckey Eastern Wash Detroit
2006 Cedric Simmons NC State New Orleans
2005 Antoine Wright A&M Jr. New Jersey
2004 Al Jefferson MS HSSr. Boston
2003 Reece Gaines Louisville Sr. Orlando
2002 Bostjan Nachbar Slovenia 1980 Houston
2001 Steven Hunter DePaul So. Orlando
2000 Jason Collier Georgia St. Sr. Milwaukee
1999 Frederick Weis France New York
1998 Matt Harpring Georgia Tech Orlando 1
997 Kelvin Cato Iowa State Minnesota
1996 Steve Nash Santa Clara Phoenix
1995 Brent Barry Oregon State Denver
1994 Eric Piatkowski Nebraska Indiana
1993 Doug Edwards Florida State Atlanta
1992 Anthony Peeler Missouri LA Lakers
1991 Anthony Avent Seton Hall Atlanta
1990 Dave Jamerson Ohio Miami
1989 Todd Lichti Stanford Denver
1988 Gary Grant Michigan Seattle
1987 Jose Ortiz Oregon State Utah
1986 Dell Curry Virginia Tech Utah
1985 Blair Rasmussen Oregon Denver
1984 Terence Stansbury Temple Dallas
1983 Howard Carter Louisiana State Denver
1982 David Thirdkill Bradley Phoenix
1981 Jeff Lamp Virginia Portland
1980 Reggie Johnson Tennessee San Antonio
 
EDIT Fixed
 
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/15th-overall/150509/
 
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/3rd-overall/30509/

 

[bowiac]

Is this a joke?  You need good players and most likely the good players are high picks, most are going to be picked 10 and below, some are going to be in the 10s and very few will be 20 and beyond.  Name me a superstar who was traded for players drafted in the 20s?  Pau Gasol is probably the only example I can think of

I'm going to move the goalpost a bit and say Harden was traded for two #12 picks, and Howard was traded for players drafted 15th, 16th, 27th, and I think they get Denver's first round pick this year. Those are all attainable picks.
 
Plus sometimes these guys leave free agency, or quasi-free agency, like Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, or LeBron.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

You don't need high picks to trade for superstars, you need good players-- and very often expiring contracts, because teams willing to unload superstars are typically looking to unload salary as well.
 
If you had the No. 1 pick in the 2014 and the Pacers offered Paul George, would you take it?  Suppose OKC offered Serge Ibaka or Denver offered Kenneth Faried? I would gladly trade that pick for any one of those three players.

 
I would trade the #1 overall pick for Paul George, yes. I think he's a very unique talent on both sides of the floor. I would not trade it for Ibaka or Faried. 
 
Again, I'm not saying you need a high pick to acquire a superstar. I'm saying that you need a lot of assets. Assets include good players, draft picks, and expiring contracts. A high pick is a more valuable asset than a low pick. This conversation is about how to maximize your assets to acquire a superstar. I think, given the position the Celtics are in, that the fastest and most obvious route to picking up a very valuable asset is to end up in the 2014 draft lottery. That doesn't mean I think they should throw their young players under the bus or teach them bad habits. I think they should try to win games and turn Olynyk, Sullinger, Bradley and the gang into the best basketball players they can be, but there's nothing about doing so that precludes them from losing a lot of games.

 

[bowiac]

I basically agree with everything that GMB said above, except that if Olynyk, Sullinger, Bradley and the gang turn into good players, that probably precludes them from losing a lot of games.
 
They should still be trying to win games however. If they don't, it's because they weren't able to turn the existing young talent into assets. 

 

[Stitch01]

 
I would trade the #1 overall pick for Paul George, yes. I think he's a very unique talent on both sides of the floor. I would not trade it for Ibaka or Faried. 
 
Again, I'm not saying you need a high pick to acquire a superstar. I'm saying that you need a lot of assets. Assets include good players, draft picks, and expiring contracts. A high pick is a more valuable asset than a low pick. This conversation is about how to maximize your assets to acquire a superstar. I think, given the position the Celtics are in, that the fastest and most obvious route to picking up a very valuable asset is to end up in the 2014 draft lottery. That doesn't mean I think they should throw their young players under the bus or teach them bad habits. I think they should try to win games and turn Olynyk, Sullinger, Bradley and the gang into the best basketball players they can be, but there's nothing about doing so that precludes them from losing a lot of games.

Right, and if they can get any reasonable return for assets that arent going to be a part of a title team they should take it.
 
They should also be giving minutes to young guys (at least those who are doing the right thing in terms of work ethic and development) at the expense of older guys who are better players today even if it means fewer W's.
 
The guys on the floor should be playing to win, but winning games this year shouldn't be a goal.

 

[wutang112878]

I basically agree with everything that GMB said above, except that if Olynyk, Sullinger, Bradley and the gang turn into good players, that probably precludes them from losing a lot of games.
 
They should still be trying to win games however. If they don't, it's because they weren't able to turn the existing young talent into assets. 

 
Lets try to quantify this a bit.  If you asked me to choose between the collective value of the Olynyk, Sully, Bradley assets at 41 wins and early playoff exit + a late teen pick, vs a top 10 pick and the reduced collective value of O&S&B  I am taking that top 10 pick every time.  You can lose and develop assets at the same time, thats exactly what the Celts did pre 2008

 

[Stitch01]

Yes.  Snap pick the latter.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm going to move the goalpost a bit and say Harden was traded for two #12 picks, and Howard was traded for players drafted 15th, 16th, 27th, and I think they get Denver's first round pick this year. Those are all attainable picks.
 
Plus sometimes these guys leave free agency, or quasi-free agency, like Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, or LeBron.

 
Are we talking about the Howard trade or Carmelo trade?  Harden is a good example, but at the time I think it looked like the first rounder Houston got was going to be a bit better than the 12th pick
 
 
Solid point on free agency, I just dont ever see us as a destination get together landing spot, we are more of a Vegas and have to turn some sand into an attraction

 

[bowiac]

 
Lets try to quantify this a bit.  If you asked me to choose between the collective value of the Olynyk, Sully, Bradley assets at 41 wins and early playoff exit + a late teen pick, vs a top 10 pick and the reduced collective value of O&S&B  I am taking that top 10 pick every time.  You can lose and develop assets at the same time, thats exactly what the Celts did pre 2008

Yeah, I'm taking the former, and it's not particularly close.

 

[bowiac]

 
Are we talking about the Howard trade or Carmelo trade?  Harden is a good example, but at the time I think it looked like the first rounder Houston got was going to be a bit better than the 12th pick

I'm talking the Howard trade. It was technically a 4-way, and one of the picks that Orlando got was Denver's.
 
 

Solid point on free agency, I just dont ever see us as a destination get together landing spot, we are more of a Vegas and have to turn some sand into an attraction
 
 

You become a destination spot because you look like a winner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if Wade was playing in Charlotte and they had the cap space to sign LeBron and Bosh, they'd have all ended up there too. The South Beach part wasn't key (although it doesn't hurt obviously).

 

[wutang112878]

Yeah, I'm taking the former, and it's not particularly close.

 
So I am assuming that you think Delonte, Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Rondo and Perk would have been more valuable if that 06/07 team won 42 games?  I think all of those players demonstrated their ceilings and abilities as players while they won 24 games, and I really dont think their value could have got much higher.  I actually think losing helped them because Al Jefferson should not have been playing 33 minutes a game because he could not play defense whatsoever.  He developed because he got minutes he wouldnt get on a 40+ win team which allowed him to be showcased

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

GMB, the only place I really disagree with that the most consistently available assets are via lottery picks. Lottery picks are great, but they often come at a high cost - a terrible team, and in particular, one that hasn't been developing its existing players (assets) well. I think you're more likely to develop a tradeable asset by trying to do the things that winning teams do rather than by tanking.
 
Put another way, if the Celtics somehow make the playoffs this year, that's great, because it means several of Rondo, Olynyk, Sullinger, Faverani, Bradley, Green, or even Bass played well. That's valuable because you then try and trade those players for other assets, which can eventually turn into a star. 

 
This is the real source of disconnect. I don't actually think there's anybody out there actively tanking. I think there are teams building for the future, but nobody that is trying to lose. Every organization grasps the basic idea that developing their young players is essential to long term success. There are bad organizations, certainly, but that's a whole different thing. Charlotte, for instance, isn't tanking. Ditto Sacramento. They're both just horribly run organizations and have been for a long time now. There seems to be this belief that if you're bad, you're tanking, and there's no teaching or development taking place. I fundamentally disagree with that. Executing at a winning level in the NBA on a consistent basis takes years for players to develop. Your organization can be terrible in terms of wins and losses while absolutely being on the path to success. I think that's the case in Boston. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that I don't actually think there's a single team in the league that's "tanking" in the sense that they're losing on purpose. Several are building for the future (Utah, Philly, Phoenix, Boston), but those are all organizations that are in good shape in terms of front office and long term strategy. They'll play young lineups, compete as hard as they can night in and night out, and lose a lot of basketball games. And I don't think that Derrick Favors, Enes Kantor, MCW, Kelly Olynyk, Eric Bledsoe, or any of the other young guys those teams play big minutes are going to be worse off for it. They're all playing in solid organizations with the ability to develop players.
 
Edit: started responding before your edit.

 

[bowiac]

 
So I am assuming that you think Delonte, Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Rondo and Perk would have been more valuable if that 06/07 team won 42 games?  I think all of those players demonstrated their ceilings and abilities as players while they won 24 games, and I really dont think their value could have got much higher.  I actually think losing helped them because Al Jefferson should not have been playing 33 minutes a game because he could not play defense whatsoever.  He developed because he got minutes he wouldnt get on a 40+ win team which allowed him to be showcased

I think Delonte, Allen, Jefferson, Rondo and Perk would have had to have been better players if that team had won 42 games. Being better players would have made them more valuable. 
 
I don't think the wins are what matter. I think the talent that causes the wins is what you want.

 

[nighthob]

GMB, the only place I really disagree with that the most consistently available assets are via lottery picks. Lottery picks are great, but they often come at a high cost - a terrible team, and in particular, one that hasn't been developing its existing players (assets) well. I think you're more likely to develop a tradeable asset by trying to do the things that winning teams do rather than by tanking.
 
Put another way, if the Celtics somehow make the playoffs this year, that's great, because it means several of Rondo, Olynyk, Sullinger, Faverani, Bradley, Green, or even Bass played well. That's valuable because you then try and trade those players for other assets, which can eventually turn into a star. 

 
Actually bad teams produce lots of padded stats, so I'm not sure how those guys are "developed" less than by sitting on the bench for vet teams. If you give heavy time to first and second year players, especially non lottery players your team is going to be bad. No two ways around it. (And for the record, for all those people obsessing over Boston's three wins over Utah and the Magic, the 19 win 2011 Cavs started out either 6-6 or 7-7, so, no, this team isn't going to magically morph into a playoff team).

 

[bowiac]

 
Actually bad teams produce lots of padded stats, so I'm not sure how those guys are "developed" less than by sitting on the bench for vet teams. If you give heavy time to first and second year players, especially non lottery players your team is going to be bad. No two ways around it. (And for the record, for all those people obsessing over Boston's three wins over Utah and the Magic, the 19 win 2011 Cavs started out either 6-6 or 7-7, so, no, this team isn't going to magically morph into a playoff team).

The goal isn't to produce padded stats. It's to produce good players. Padded stats are consistent with losing. Good players are mostly not.

 

[wutang112878]

 
I'm talking the Howard trade. It was technically a 4-way, and one of the picks that Orlando got was Denver's.
 
 
You become a destination spot because you look like a winner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if Wade was playing in Charlotte and they had the cap space to sign LeBron and Bosh, they'd have all ended up there too. The South Beach part wasn't key (although it doesn't hurt obviously).
 

 
The Howard one is so complex because of all the teams involved, but look at what LA had to give up to get him.  They gave up Bynum (#10), their 2017 first rounder which certainly has lottery potential.
 
As for the destination, I think we have to recreate the 2008 scenario.  You get one guy in place and make the case that 'with you and playerX on roster we can....', but first you need a guy and Olynyk isnt that guy.  Rondo probably isnt good enough to be that guy.  You need a top 20 talent in the NBA type of guy.  Which kind of brings us back to the big problem: how do you get a top 20 type player on your roster

 

[nighthob]

The goal isn't to produce padded stats. It's to produce good players. Padded stats are consistent with losing. Good players are mostly not.

 
Kevin Durant couldn't deliver wins for Seattle/OKC. He must have really sucked, eh? 

 

[wutang112878]

I think Delonte, Allen, Jefferson, Rondo and Perk would have had to have been better players if that team had won 42 games. Being better players would have made them more valuable. 
 
I don't think the wins are what matter. I think the talent that causes the wins is what you want.

 
This is a bit of chicken and egg situation.  Those young players need minutes to develop, and young first 3 years in the league players generally dont win basketball games.  I think the had to take their lumps and turn regular season games into basically practices and teaching moments, and thats what fulfilled their potential so its just unrealistic to think that core was going to possibly win 42.
 
Here is the big curveball with that scenario, Paul Pierce.  What if he played more that year?  The team certainly would have won more games.  He would have led the offense and it would have revolved around him, Big Al would have got fewer touches and would have certainly developed less offensively.  This is how I see young players developing, not necessarily by winning but by getting minutes early in their career that young players dont get on 40+ win teams.

 

[nighthob]

Here is the big curveball with that scenario, Paul Pierce.  What if he played more that year?  The team certainly would have won more games.  He would have led the offense and it would have revolved around him, Big Al would have got fewer touches and would have certainly developed less offensively.  This is how I see young players developing, not necessarily by winning but by getting minutes early in their career that young players dont get on 40+ win teams.

 
I'll have to look it up, but if I remember correctly they were a 20-26 team with him in the lineup and 4-32 without him. But, yeah, before he broke his foot he was carrying the team on his back, Jefferson didn't begin to get touches until Pierce was sidelined. (Also, people should stop talking about West as an asset, Presti didn't want him, he wanted Rondo, but Boston wasn't biting. West was included in the deal because Szczerbiak for Allen wasn't legal under the CBA, and Boston needed West's salary to complete the #5 for Ray Allen deal.)

 

[Brickowski]

It isn't just developing good individual players, it's developing what Rivers called Ubuntu. Team basketball is winning basketball. There is no such thing as playing "good" basketball and losing. If you are losing, what's good about it?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

It isn't just developing good individual players, it's developing what Rivers called Ubuntu. Team basketball is winning basketball. There is no such thing as playing "good" basketball and losing. If you are losing, what's good about it?

 
You're officially the Joe Morgan of this forum. Congrats.

 

[Stitch01]

I dont really care whether this group of players develops cohesion.  I mean, I do from the standpoint of they'll be more fun to watch this season, but its going to mean pretty much nothing when it comes to the next title team.  Almost none of these guys are going to be on that team.

 

[nighthob]

It isn't just developing good individual players, it's developing what Rivers called Ubuntu. Team basketball is winning basketball. There is no such thing as playing "good" basketball and losing. If you are losing, what's good about it?

 
You can play "team basketball" and still lose.

 

[Brickowski]

You can play "team basketball" and still lose.

Not consistently, because there are so many bad teams in the NBA. For a guy like Stevens who took a mid major to two NCAA title games, it will be shooting fish in a barrel as soon as he gets the hang of it-- so long as his players follow directions.

 

[Brickowski]

You're officially the Joe Morgan of this forum. Congrats.

I guess that's an insult?

 

[nighthob]

Not consistently, because there are so many bad teams in the NBA. For a guy like Stevens who took a mid major to two NCAA title games, it will be shooting fish in a barrel as soon as he gets the hang of it-- so long as his players follow directions.

 
Oh yes you can. If you lack a primary scorer and aren't a lockdown defensive team no matter how much teamwork you have you're going to suck.

 

[bowiac]

 
Kevin Durant couldn't deliver wins for Seattle/OKC. He must have really sucked, eh? 

Kevin Durant, at age 19, was not a good NBA player. He had one year where he was decent the next season and the team was bad. By the time he blew up into a star, the team was powerhouse.

 

[Brickowski]

Oh yes you can. If you lack a primary scorer and aren't a lockdown defensive team no matter how much teamwork you have you're going to suck.

I respectfully disagree with this mythology. For starters, I'll take 7 guys in double figures over a primary scorer any day.

 

[nighthob]

Kevin Durant, at age 19, was not a good NBA player. He had one year where he was decent the next season and the team was bad. By the time he blew up into a star, the team was powerhouse.

 
Actually he was a pretty good offensive player. Not much of a defensive one, but then first & second year players pretty much never are (except in strict man up matchups). But then, per your claim, the 19 year old Durant would have had no trade value. Which is also untrue. 

 

[bowiac]

 
Actually he was a pretty good offensive player. Not much of a defensive one, but then first & second year players pretty much never are (except in strict man up matchups). But then, per your claim, the 19 year old Durant would have had no trade value. Which is also untrue. 

That's not my claim. I'd clarify, but I honestly have no idea what the source of your confusion is.

 

[nighthob]

I respectfully disagree with this mythology. For starters, I'll take 7 guys in double figures over a primary scorer any day.

 
Is there any way we can get you promoted to Utah's GM position? Because Danny Ainge would gladly trade you three double digit scorers for their top 5 pick.

 

[bowiac]

 
Is there any way we can get you promoted to Utah's GM position? Because Danny Ainge would gladly trade you three double digit scorers for their top 5 pick.

I don't really agree with Brickowski in re: ubuntu, but this is a strawman. That's not what he said.

 

[wutang112878]

Kevin Durant, at age 19, was not a good NBA player. He had one year where he was decent the next season and the team was bad. By the time he blew up into a star, the team was powerhouse.

 
In year 3 he took 1 more 3 a game, got 3 more free throws a game and averaged 5 points more a game but beyond that he was the same player from an efficiency standpoint.  His effective FG% was virtually the same.  He was the same guy, the talent around him changed

 

[bowiac]

 
In year 3 he took 1 more 3 a game, got 3 more free throws a game and averaged 5 points more a game but beyond that he was the same player from an efficiency standpoint.  His effective FG% was virtually the same.  He was the same guy, the talent around him changed

He led the league in free throws, and made 90% of them. He was a much more efficient scorer in year 3. Effective FG% does not consider the value of free throws. His TS% (which does consider free throws) went from .577 (good) to .607 (great). He did so while increasing his usage from 28.3% to 32%.
 
He also added rebounds, blocked shots, and decreased his turnover rate. He was not the same guy. 

 

[wutang112878]

He led the league in free throws, and made 90% of them. He was a much more efficient scorer in year 3. Effective FG% does not consider the value of free throws. His TS% (which does consider free throws) went from .577 (good) to .607 (great). He did so while increasing his usage from 28.3% to 32%.
 
He also added rebounds, blocked shots, and decreased his turnover rate. He was not the same guy. 

 
Riddle me this.  Year 2 to 3 he takes 1 more 3 a game and his 2pt FGA per game only increased by 0.4 from 15.7 to 16.1  Meanwhile he goes from averaging .37 FTs per FGA to 0.5 FTs per FGA.  I dont remember him taking it to the rim that much more, so my narrative theory is that he got more 'respect' from the officials who gave him more FTAs per game and that was a function of his status more than his game.  I cant prove that with #s unless we get into shot charts, but I suspect that we might find that he really wasnt taking it to the rim in year 3

 

[bowiac]

 
Riddle me this.  Year 2 to 3 he takes 1 more 3 a game and his 2pt FGA per game only increased by 0.4 from 15.7 to 16.1  Meanwhile he goes from averaging .37 FTs per FGA to 0.5 FTs per FGA.  I dont remember him taking it to the rim that much more, so my narrative theory is that he got more 'respect' from the officials who gave him more FTAs per game and that was a function of his status more than his game.  I cant prove that with #s unless we get into shot charts, but I suspect that we might find that he really wasnt taking it to the rim in year 3

That is basically correct, yes. He went from 5.1 shots at the rim in 2009 to 5.3 in 2010, a far smaller difference than the extra free throws.

 

[wutang112878]

So his efficiency gains were a gift from the official gods, ergo year 2 to 3 he was basically the same guy who shot a little more and the talent around him didnt matter that much

 

[crystalline]

It isn't just developing good individual players, it's developing what Rivers called Ubuntu. Team basketball is winning basketball. There is no such thing as playing "good" basketball and losing. If you are losing, what's good about it?

There have been a lot of strawmen presented recently but let's cut through the chaff (no pun) and focus only on this statement.

It is certainly possible to lose many games while developing players. For example, this is why practices are not merely constant scrimmaging. Many skills improve faster from activities and drills that are not the optimal strategy for winning a game.

Can you disagree? I find this to be almost trivially obvious. (Hence Joe Morgan)

 

[Brickowski]

There have been a lot of strawmen presented recently but let's cut through the chaff (no pun) and focus only on this statement.

It is certainly possible to lose many games while developing players. Can you disagree?

Yes, Joe Morgan disagrees. You can develop individual skills while losing, but you will have great difficulty developing players who know how to win as part of a team. That kind of development takes winning itself. Positive reinforcement works wonders.

 

[JakeRae]

There have been a lot of strawmen presented recently but let's cut through the chaff (no pun) and focus only on this statement.

It is certainly possible to lose many games while developing players. For example, this is why practices are not merely constant scrimmaging. Many skills improve faster from activities and drills that are not the optimal strategy for winning a game.

Can you disagree? I find this to be almost trivially obvious. (Hence Joe Morgan)

 
I'll take this one step further. There are very real ways in which developing talent conflicts with short term winning. For example, Rondo might be best served, developmentally, working on developing an in-game 3-point shot. However, since he's not yet a very good 3-point shooter, Rondo taking a bunch of 3's could hurt the team in terms of wins and losses. Similarly, Bradley needs to work on his ability to create offense with the ball in his hands, which he really isn't very good at yet. Sullinger could use practice expanding his range. Practice time is limited, so a team that actually decided to pursue development as the primary objective would probably lose more games than the same team that decided to pursue winning as the primary objective.
 
My preference for this season would be for the Celtics to use it as one extended practice session where they focused on making the young players on the team better at basketball. If that leads to wins, that's fine. But, the goal should be development of assets, not winning, because this team isn't good enough to win anything this year no matter how well coached they might be and this draft class is really strong.

 

[bowiac]

So his efficiency gains were a gift from the official gods, ergo year 2 to 3 he was basically the same guy who shot a little more and the talent around him didnt matter that much

What do I care if he became a much better player because the officials liked him more, or because he worked hard during the offseason. Drawing fouls is as much a skill as anything else. Either way, he wasn't a superstar on a bad team. He was a superstar on a great team.
 
I think you lost sight of the point.

 

[JakeRae]

What do I care if he became a much better player because the officials liked him more, or because he worked hard during the offseason. Drawing fouls is as much a skill as anything else. Either way, he wasn't a superstar on a bad team. He was a superstar on a great team.
 
I think you lost sight of the point.

 
Drawing fouls is a skill. But, getting more fouls called on your behalf without actually drawing more fouls is not a skill change. It's a circumstantial change. That is, unless you are saying that he got better at acting like he was fouled. That could be a skill change. (I'm not saying he didn't get better at drawing fouls. I don't know. I'm just trying to explain the distinction.)

 

[wutang112878]

I thought this was the point, that Durants superstar status was a function of the team being a powerhouse.

Kevin Durant, at age 19, was not a good NBA player. He had one year where he was decent the next season and the team was bad. By the time he blew up into a star, the team was powerhouse.

When we look at the numbers I think it's a little much to say he went from decent to superstar just because he got a few more FTs

 

[bowiac]

I thought this was the point, that Durants superstar status was a function of the team being a powerhouse.


When we look at the numbers I think it's a little much to say he went from decent to superstar just because he got a few more FTs

It's not a few more, and as I pointed out, he went from decent to superstar for many reasons beyond a large increase in efficiency. He also got more usage, blocks, rebounds, and decreased his turnovers. 

 

[Koufax]

FWIW, I took a look at the 1989-90 Pistons, a team I always found interesting because it seemed, like the current Celtics, like a team of many good players with no superstar.  And they won the championship.  Isiah Thomas would disagree about the lack of a superstar, and maybe the facts bear him out.  Here is what I found.  Ranking the players in order of win shares, they had:
 
1. Bill Lambeer, drafted 65th by Cleveland in 1979 
2. Dennis Rodman, drafted 27th by Detroit in 1986
3. Joe Dumars, drafted 18th by Detroit in 1985
4. Isiah Thomas, drafted 2d by Detroit in 1981
5.  Vinnie Johnson, drafted 7th by Seattle in 1979
6.  Adrian Dantley, drafted 7th by Buffalo in 1976
7.  Rick Mahorn, drafted 35th by Washington in 1980
8.  John Salley, drafted 11th by Detroit in 1986
9.  James Edwards, drafted 46th by the Lakers in 1977
 
So yes, that roster had a no 2 overall who was important to the squad.  But the lion's share of the win shares came from guys who were low draft picks and/or started out on other teams.  It's not like Detroit was some glamorous destination that could attract free agents anxious to play there.  This suggests to me that it is possible to put together a winning team with good drafting, trading and coaching, without years of getting high draft picks by sucking.  This example is imperfect because of Isiah Thomas,  I admit.  It's the best I could come up with.