Author Topic: What's the average rebuild time?  (Read 1095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What's the average rebuild time?
« on: February 18, 2013, 02:02:23 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2851
  • Tommy Points: 619
Some people want the C’s to rebuild, some people want to hang on to Pierce and Garnett, and I understand where both sides are coming from.  But that got me thinking, what’s the average or typical or realistic rebuilding time for a team?

Now there is rarely a clear consensus about who actually is a contender, but for the sake of this discussion of rebuilding times, I considered a team a contender when they win 50 games (or 61% win % for lockouts) and make the 2nd round of the playoffs (though this is just a guideline, not a rule).  So let’s take a look at how much time teams spend between being contenders:

Atlanta was last a contender in 1999 and didn’t become somewhat of a contender again until 2010.  That’s 11 years (and most probably wouldn't even consider them contenders the last few years).

Boston was a contender in 1992 and didn’t become a contender again until 2008.  That’s 16 years.

Brooklyn was a contender from 2002 to 2006 and that was it unless you go back to their ABA days.  But some would argue they’re a contender now (though not on pace for 50 wins).  Best case was 7 years rebuilding till now.  Before Kidd got there, it was about 25 years rebuilding.

Charlotte has never been a contender in 9 years.

Chicago was a contender in 1998 and wasn’t a contender again until 2011.  That’s 13 years.

Cleveland was a contender in ’93 and wasn’t a contender again until 2006. That’s 13 years, and despite Irving looking awesome, who knows when they’ll be a contender again.

Dallas was a contender in ’88 and wasn’t a contender again until 2001.  That’s 13 years, but they had a solid 10+ year run after that.

Denver was a contender in ’88 and wasn’t a contender again until 2009.  That’s 21 years.

Detroit was a contender in ’91 and wasn’t a contender again until 2002.  That’s 11 years.

Golden State was a contender in ’76 and hasn’t been a contender since until this year.  That’s 36 years until now.

Houston was a contender in ’99 and only made the 2nd round once since, when both their superstars (TMac and Yao) were injured.  Though even though they didn’t make it out of the 2nd round except that one time, I would consider them a dark horse contender in the mid-to-late 2000’s with Yao and TMac.  So they probably had a 6 year stretch of rebuilding between Hakeem and Yao, and currently been rebuilding for about 4 years now.

Indiana was a contender in 2000, again in 2004, and again in 2012.  They’ve been able to build 3 different contenders in 12 years, that front office has been pretty underrated in my opinion.

LA Clippers were never a contender until this season.  That’s 42 seasons.

LA Lakers were contenders in ’91, then again from ’96-’05,then again from ’08-’12.  So they had a 5 year and 3 year rebuild.

Memphis was never a contender (though is probably one now, it may be very brief though with them cutting salary).  That’s 17 years.

Miami was a contender in 2001, again from ’05-’06, and again starting in 2011.

Milwaukee was probably last contenders in ’91, then contended again for a year in 2001, hasn’t been a contender since.    So they’ve basically been rebuilding 21 of the last 22 years.

Minnesota was a contender for one year, 2004, one year in their entire 24 year history.

New Orleans was a contender in 2008, and that was about it.  (Though you could probably argue they were dark horses a couple of years in the early 2000’s.).  So all but a handful of seasons at best in 24 years, have been spent rebuilding.

New York was last a contender in 2000, and hasn’t been a contender again till this year. That’s 12 years.

OKC/Seattle was a contender in 1998, had a fluke year in 2005, and then again in 2011.  Excluding 2005 (Ray/Rashard’s team), they’ve been rebuilding for 12 of 13 years until recently.

Orlando was a contender in ’96, then again from ’08-’11.  That’s 12 years of rebuilding, for a 304 year run.

Philly was a contender in 1990, then again for one season (or maybe two) with Iverson in ’99 and ’00, and hasn’t been a contender again since.  So a 9 year rebuilding period, for a 2 year run. Followed by at least a 13 year rebuilding period (that may go much longer, who knows how Bynum will perform as the main man).

Phoenix was a contender in 1995, then again from 2005-2010.  (And possibly from ’98-’01 when they had three 50 win seasons, but only made it out of the 1st round once).  At worst, 10 years between contenders.

Portland was a contender in 2000, kept hope alive until 2003, then have been rebuilding for 10 years now.

Sacramento had a 4-5 year stretch from ’01-’05 when they were contenders, and besides that you have to go back to when they played in Cincinnati and Rochester to find when they were last contenders.  They’ve been rebuilding for 8 years now.

San Antonio, except for a couple of seasons have been contenders pretty much since 1990.

Toronto has never been a contender in 18 years

Utah had a pretty solid 20 year run as contenders, ending about 2001, and then a 4 year stretch from ’07-’10.  That’s a 5 year rebuild, who knows how long till they’re contenders again.

Washington hasn’t been a contender since 1979.  That’s 33 years.

Maybe you can argue a team or two, but I see a lot of 10+ year stretches between contenders for the majority of teams.  And the rebuild time is typically longer than the good times.  It even takes premier destinations like LAL and Miami 3-5 years to rebuild.  Another premier destination, New York has been rebuilding for 12 years.   It’s rare when you get a San Antonio, Dallas, Utah who can contend for 10+ years straight.  And you have only a handful of non-premier destinations like Indiana who were able to rebuild somewhat quickly.

It doesn’t matter when you start rebuilding, it can take a long time.  I think we should ride Garnett and Pierce to retirement.  The idea that the C's can rebuild in 3 or so years is just a pipe dream.  I think Danny is a great GM, but even so, it’s rare when a team can rebuild in a short period of time.  It takes a lot of luck.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2013, 02:11:24 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
Boston just missed your "contender" cut by one regular season game in 2002.

TP for an interesting post.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9417
  • Tommy Points: 410
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002.  You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender.  There really is no other way around it.  Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.

The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.

Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games.  Thus the champion was not a contender.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.  It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.

I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender.  As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season.  As is any team that wins at least 55 games.  That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2013, 02:46:44 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5735
  • Tommy Points: 305
TP.

And regardless of whether people think we should trade PP and KG or not, people do need to take a look at the above list and get a reality check.  Even if we trade PP and KG for nice packages of young players, it's still likely going to be a very long time before we're a contender again. 

The NBA is a league where superstars dominate.  And no one is going to give us one for KG and PP. 

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2013, 02:55:08 PM »

Offline scaryjerry

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1624
  • Tommy Points: 72
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002.  You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender.  There really is no other way around it.  Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.

The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.

Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games.  Thus the champion was not a contender.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.  It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.

I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender.  As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season.  As is any team that wins at least 55 games.  That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.


They weren't a legitimate contender in 2002 because they lucked into a conference final in a pathetic conference and proceeded to fall off the map, sorry.
Last year's team was because of the players on the team and just the era of Celtics basketball where they've gone into every year with kg thinking championship.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2013, 03:00:33 PM »

Offline ScottHow

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1710
  • Tommy Points: 354
  • It's what I do! It's who I am!
    • Sports Paintings
Pretty cool post. Tp

I'd like to see something where it shows the avg time it took for a contending team to move on and get the next big piece to the next string of contending years

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2013, 03:02:47 PM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4506
  • Tommy Points: 233
TP.

And regardless of whether people think we should trade PP and KG or not, people do need to take a look at the above list and get a reality check.  Even if we trade PP and KG for nice packages of young players, it's still likely going to be a very long time before we're a contender again. 

The NBA is a league where superstars dominate.  And no one is going to give us one for KG and PP.
Precisely.

Which is why the haste to close the book on this era is folly. There is plenty of time for that in the off-season, if necessary.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2013, 03:20:24 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10072
  • Tommy Points: 605
Great post. TP. Even the best franchises go through there rebuilds. Crazy how it works.
DKC: GM Boston Celtics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuCTllmkG26udHRaa0xrWm1qZTExaHltaEdtZzVRNFE&usp=sharing#gid=50
PICK 2: Trail Blazers
PG: Lillard/ReggieJackson
SG: D. Green/Miller/Wroten
SF: Leonard/Prince
PF: Aldridge/Diaw
C:  Noah/Birdman/Perkins

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2013, 03:21:56 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22174
  • Tommy Points: 1012
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002.  You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender.  There really is no other way around it.  Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.

The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.

Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games.  Thus the champion was not a contender.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.  It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.

I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender.  As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season.  As is any team that wins at least 55 games.  That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.

   Funny, I'd have thought that you were in the camp that the Celts weren't really contenders last year despite their reaching the ecf.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2013, 03:25:36 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
By this set of metrics, we weren't a contender last year, we were barely a contender in 2010 by winning exactly 50 games, and we certainly aren't a contender this year.

So even with Pierce and KG, we aren't contenders, according to this post.  Hardly an argument to keep both.

For the record, I think we can still be a contender and should keep Pierce and KG (because nothing out there seems overly tempting) but this post doesn't do a good job of arguing for that.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2013, 03:29:24 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2851
  • Tommy Points: 619
Boston was in the Eastern Conference Finals in 2002.  You have to call one of the final 4 teams a contender.  There really is no other way around it.  Also, by your definition, Boston was not a contender last year even though it again was in the ECF and 1 win away from the NBA Finals.

The Nets actually made the NBA Finals in the early 2000's without winning 50 games and were the #2 seed in the Eastern Conference.

Portland actually won the NBA title in 76-77 without winning 50 games.  Thus the champion was not a contender.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.  It just seems to me you arbitrarily picked a win total and didn't put much thought into or make sure you were on to something.

I think a better look would be any team that made the conference finals is a contender.  As is any team that finishes in the top 2 in their conference in the regular season.  As is any team that wins at least 55 games.  That should give you a much better and more accurate look at teams that are actual contenders.

Well thanks for proving my very first point.  ;)

Quote
Now there is rarely a clear consensus about who actually is a contender

And I did say:
Quote
(though this is just a guideline, not a rule)

And I also mentioned how New Jersey was a contender in that year they won less than 50 games but made the Finals.

And you reference 1976 Portland?  I'm talking about the current NBA.  Notice how I only went back for most teams to their 90's teams (unless there was just a clear line of futility back many, many more years).

I admit, not a perfect science.  In my mind, it's simple, 50 wins and 2nd round gives teams and their fans a decent amount of "hope" for the most part that their in the hunt for a championship (compared to teams who upset their way into the later rounds of the playoffs or play in a weak conference).  I think the vast majority of the time, you tell me a team who is a contender, they'll have 50+ wins and make it to the 2nd round.  Plus I am just a poster on a blog,  I need something simple I can look up.  If you want to look up all 30 teams, and where they finished in the conference, plus where they finished in the playoffs, plus if they won 55 games or not, going back X years, be my guest.  The results will be pretty much the same as mine, it takes most teams a VERY long time to rebuild.  Rebuilding isn't as easy as some think.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 03:34:58 PM by bdm860 »

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2013, 04:16:29 PM »

Offline Onslaught

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1511
  • Tommy Points: 134
Actually Charlotte did have some "contending" teams with the Hornets.  But not the Bobcats.
Peace through Tyranny

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2013, 04:17:57 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7934
  • Tommy Points: 225
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
Your post doesn't make keeping Pierce and Garnett sound more attractive. By your guidelines this team is more than likely not a contender, but we're clearly not rebuilding. If rebuilding is something that takes a long time what's the benefit of waiting to dive into it?

I'm definitely willing to hold on to PP and KG until the end of the season, but I'd rather not wait the length of their contracts to start the rebuilding process.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2013, 04:26:46 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22174
  • Tommy Points: 1012
By this set of metrics, we weren't a contender last year, we were barely a contender in 2010 by winning exactly 50 games, and we certainly aren't a contender this year.

So even with Pierce and KG, we aren't contenders, according to this post.  Hardly an argument to keep both.

For the record, I think we can still be a contender and should keep Pierce and KG (because nothing out there seems overly tempting) but this post doesn't do a good job of arguing for that.

  I don't think the point of the thread was "what's the exact definition of a contender", more that everyone who thinks we'll be bad for a few years, draft a franchise player and be right back at the top should take a look at how long it generally takes to get back to the top. Some people want to dump KG and PP to get into rebuilding quicker as if that will mean we'll be contenders sooner when the amount of time you suck for is more luck than anything else.

Re: What's the average rebuild time?
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2013, 04:27:56 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10762
  • Tommy Points: 641
Somewhere between 5 years and never.

It took Chicago 7 years and multiple top 3 picks until they even made the playoffs after they broke up the Jordan team.

Our Celtics mini-dynasty is basically a poor-man's version of Detroit's early 00s mini-dynasty.   If Detroit's 2004 is Boston's 2008... (Champions)... then our 2012 is the same as Detroit's 2008.  (Eastern Conference Finals)...  then Our 2013 might play out the same as their 2009 -  1st round exit...

Their last 3 years:

2010 - 27 wins
2011 - 30 wins
2012 - 25 wins

They are 21-33 right now.    At this pace, Boston will still be well below .500 by 2016.   If it plays out like the 80s Celtics, we might not sniff the playoffs for another 20 or so years.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog