Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"

[hpantazo]

Actually Kobe Bryant was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets and acquired by the lakers for Vlade Divac, and Rondo was drafted by the Phoenix Suns.

Both of those trades were agreed to before the pick was actually made and Charlotte/Phoenix were picking for the other team.

It doesn't matter, all draft day trades are agreed on before the picks are made. The point is neither of those teams tanked to draft Kobe or Rondo, they acquired them on the cheap by smart trades. There are many ways to get legitimate star player building blocks. Kobe was drafted 13 th and the hornets were not interested in keeping him, and Rondo was a late first round pick who he suns had no interest in. Neither of them were top 5 picks whom teams tanked all year for.

[Fafnir]

Kobe only fell to 13 because he and his agent threatened higher teams away from drafting him. He would have been a higher lottery pick if not for that manipulation.

[hpantazo]

Kobe only fell to 13 because he and his agent threatened higher teams away from drafting him. He would have been a higher lottery pick if not for that manipulation.

That stuff happens every year and half of those are smokescreens to raise the value of players or hide deficiencies. Smart GMs find ways to get these type of players without tanking.

[BballTim]

Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?

13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)

Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.

And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.

What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.

We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.

Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.

However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.

  Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.

[mmmmm]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

It's not at all a 'weak technicality', it's a fact.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

For #1 pick:
 Houston got two such picks in consecutive years ... and took 10 years to win.
 San Antonio drafted Robinson ... and took 10 years and the addition of Duncan to win.
 
That's it.  No other teams besides those two with the #1 overall pick has won a title AT ALL since making that pick.  And both of those required the addition of a second "#1".

For #2 picks it's not much better.  Only FOUR teams with the #2 pick have won a title AT ALL since making that pick.  And not one of those picks actually contributed to the title:  Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours ... two decades years later.  Jason Kidd left Dallas and came back over a decade later to help with Dallas' title.   Darko sat on the bench watching Detroit win their title and finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they traded for trash.  They then only became a title team after buying Lebron in free agency.

The numbers are similar for #3 picks.



 

[Boris Badenov]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

[mmmmm]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Nope.  THIS is what I said:

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft.   But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA.   Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol).   Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron.  Pierce needed KG (& Ray).   Same pattern, rinse repeat.

Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'.  An all-star.   But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.

Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan.  They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.

Another statement that the data suggests is true is that:

3. After getting a top 3 pick, even if you do ever win a title, it may take decades.

[BballTim]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

  None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.

You just happened to define your cutoff as the year right after 16 rings in a row were won by teams that drafted their best players...

  That's true, but the fact that more than half of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category is IMO better than having this conversation after your 16 year streak. More options seem to be available now.

[Boris Badenov]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Nope.  THIS is what I said:

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft.   But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA.   Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol).   Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron.  Pierce needed KG (& Ray).   Same pattern, rinse repeat.

Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'.  An all-star.   But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.

Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan.  They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.

As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?

The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.

I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.

Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.

[D.o.s.]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Bolded for emphasis.

[mmmmm]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Nope.  THIS is what I said:

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft.   But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA.   Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol).   Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron.  Pierce needed KG (& Ray).   Same pattern, rinse repeat.

Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'.  An all-star.   But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.

Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan.  They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.

As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?

The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.

I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.

Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.

First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples.   Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery.  Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).

I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston:  back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title.  Did they win it because they 'tanked'?  Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?

I also specifically mentioned San Antonio.  Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years.  Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.

Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.

2013 Miami  (Lebron)*
2012 Miami  (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*

Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season.  In most cases he also lead in WS.  That happened all but twice:  2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.

So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there.   In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.

This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.

The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier.  It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades.   I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.

I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.

[indeedproceed]

Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?

13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)

Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.

And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.

What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.

We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.

Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.

However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.

  Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.

Pretending he's proven himself to be an established leader , or consistently the best player on a contending team night in night out is silly.

[BballTim]

Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?

13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)

Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.

And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.

What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.

We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.

Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.

However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.

  Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.

Pretending he's proven himself to be an established leader , or consistently the best player on a contending team night in night out is silly.

  That probably depends on whether you form your opinion based on what you see on the court/hear from the rest of the team or on what people say on the internet. He's been the best player on a contending team before. Rondo doesn't play great every night, that's true. But claims that others "bring it all the time" are nonsense. And everyone associated with the team, from management to coaches to the other players that have commented on Rondo's leadership capabilities over the last few years (with the possible exception of traitor Ray) is "pretending" that Rondo's proven himself to be an established leader.

[Boris Badenov]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Nope.  THIS is what I said:

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft.   But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA.   Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol).   Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron.  Pierce needed KG (& Ray).   Same pattern, rinse repeat.

Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'.  An all-star.   But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.

Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan.  They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.

As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?

The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.

I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.

Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.

First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples.   Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery.  Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).

I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston:  back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title.  Did they win it because they 'tanked'?  Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?

I also specifically mentioned San Antonio.  Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years.  Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.

Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.

2013 Miami  (Lebron)*
2012 Miami  (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*

Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season.  In most cases he also lead in WS.  That happened all but twice:  2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.

So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there.   In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.

This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.

The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier.  It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades.   I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.

I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.

OK. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you can claim to be not so horribly wrong if you:

a. Cherry-pick the time period to start right *after* the period during which 15 straight titles were won by teams who drafted their best player, and;

b. Believe that Gasol, Chandler and Manu were better than Duncan, Nowitzki and Kobe on their respective championship teams.

Got it. I'll let others form their own opinions about the merits of your argument. As I said, I'm done.

[mmmmm]

I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!

Extremely weak in Bird's case.

Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."

Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.

Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.

Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!

Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.

It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.

Nope.  THIS is what I said:

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft.   But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA.   Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol).   Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron.  Pierce needed KG (& Ray).   Same pattern, rinse repeat.

Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'.  An all-star.   But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.

Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan.  They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.

As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?

The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.

I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.

Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.

First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples.   Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery.  Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).

I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston:  back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title.  Did they win it because they 'tanked'?  Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?

I also specifically mentioned San Antonio.  Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years.  Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.

Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.

2013 Miami  (Lebron)*
2012 Miami  (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*

Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season.  In most cases he also lead in WS.  That happened all but twice:  2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.

So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there.   In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.

This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.

The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier.  It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades.   I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.

I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.

OK. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you can claim to be not so horribly wrong if you:

a. Cherry-pick the time period to start right *after* the period during which 15 straight titles were won by teams who drafted their best player, and;

b. Believe that Gasol, Chandler and Manu were better than Duncan, Nowitzki and Kobe on their respective championship teams.

Got it. I'll let others form their own opinions about the merits of your argument. As I said, I'm done.

There is no cherry picking.  I went linearly back in time.  I don't have infinite free time and it is an obvious stoping point because the Jordan Bulls dominated 6 of the next 8 seasons before that. 

The current weighted lottery system started in 1990, during Jordan's run, so the 'modern era' of NBA rules that affect how you build a roster kind of picks up logically right after that.

As to your point (b) - that's silly.  I never asserted they were all better.  But statistically, the players I noted clearly performed on a par - and in some cases better - than those guys.  The point - as I've plainly stated - is not necessarily that every one of these guys was clearly better.  The point is that overwhelmingly, they were at least on a par.  And in a majority of the cases, yeah, they were 'better' - at least statistically. 

Seriously, you have offered nothing but broad opinions based on ... what?  Your overwhelming desire not to be wrong?

You think you somehow have offered some compelling rebuttal and now, for the second time, you are "done"?

Whatever.