The Atlanta Hawks have the second longest playoff streak in basketball

[pearljammer10]

Saw some stat last week that Tim Duncan, alone, has more 50 win seasons than 26 NBA teams have in their team histories.

For the completist:


https://twitter.com/BWB76/status/451202640601313280/photo/1

This is completely absurd.


Also gives me great back up to provide in every nba argument i find myself in. When I say Tim Duncan is the guy I would take to start my franchise with, I can then give this stat.

[fairweatherfan]

And the only reason Duncan isn't 17 for 17 is because of the 50-game lockout season.

[PhoSita]

And the only reason Duncan isn't 17 for 17 is because of the 50-game lockout season.

Yep, his team has never won less than 61% of their games.

[pearljammer10]

And the only reason Duncan isn't 17 for 17 is because of the 50-game lockout season.

This makes it even more absurd.


To add to this ridiculousness....

1. Duncan has actually been through two lockout seasons. In the 66 game season, he still won 50 games.

and 2. That one season was the 50 game lockout season.... in which the Spurs won the championship.

[PhoSita]

Sure, but you almost never hear the phrase brought out unless it's an example of why the team should blow it up and bottom out -- to 'avoid being a treadmill team.' It's never brought up around a team like the Rockets, who had a solid string of 50 win teams while building around, variously, Yao Ming, T-Mac, Free Throws, James Harden, and Dwight Howard, even though they're just as much of a 'treadmill of mediocrity' team as the Hawks or Milwaukee.

That's true, although I think when you have players of that caliber, there's a perception (probably a fair one) that there is still a ceiling for the team that hasn't been reached.

If you have a Yao, Howard, T-Mac, Harden etc on your team, it makes sense to shoot for the stars.

Generally, I do think if you have the talent on your team to consistently win 50 games and have a shot at winning more than one playoff series, it makes far more sense to stick with a good thing than to try and tear it down.  That's why I don't blame Danny for holding onto the KG / Pierce era for as long as he did.

Those Hawks teams generally just hung out in the 40-win area and never had much of a shot at making the ECF.  They also didn't really have any room to grow unless a point guard they drafted in the late first round turned into an All-Star.

[Moranis]

Congrats, Hawks are the definition of a treadmill team. Look for them to blow it up soon and tank it out just like we are doing.

This is nothing about you, really, but the entire concept of a treadmill team has been the most annoying conceit of the 2014 NBA fanbase. Far and away, as far as I'm concerned.

I can't fault you for finding the concept annoying, but it seem a fair assessment of where the Hawks have been over most of the past decade, doesn't it?

They peaked as a second round team and never really got better.  With Horford suffering so many injuries the past few years, it really seems like they're going to have to tear things down a bit before they can get significantly better.  Atlanta isn't a free agent definition by any stretch of the imagination, and they have a largely apathetic fanbase.

The Hawks should be commended for a long run of relatively competitive seasons, but they haven't really been a truly exciting team during that timeframe, except for some Josh Smith dunks and Joe Johnson game winners (in the regular season).


I'd love it if the NBA were structured in such a way that a team run like the Hawks couldn't be said to be getting in their own way.  But it's kind of true.

Sure, but you almost never hear the phrase brought out unless it's an example of why the team should blow it up and bottom out -- to 'avoid being a treadmill team.' It's never brought up around a team like the Rockets, who had a solid string of 50 win teams while building around, variously, Yao Ming, T-Mac, Free Throws, James Harden, and Dwight Howard, even though they're just as much of a 'treadmill of mediocrity' team as the Hawks or Milwaukee.

I think people felt that if the Ming/TMac Rockets could ever get healthy they could have been a real contender.  I don't think anyone thought Atlanta at any time in these past 7 years was a real contender. 

[Smokeeye123]

Exactly Moranis, and the Rockets aren't a good example. They are located in a place that FA would consider signing in. There's no way the Dwight Howards of the world pick ATL to make a superteam in

[pearljammer10]

Exactly Moranis, and the Rockets aren't a good example. They are located in a place that FA would consider signing in. There's no way the Dwight Howards of the world pick ATL to make a superteam in

The same Atlanta where Howard's from and was rumored to be teaming up with Paul in early summer 2013?

[Endless Paradise]

Exactly Moranis, and the Rockets aren't a good example. They are located in a place that FA would consider signing in. There's no way the Dwight Howards of the world pick ATL to make a superteam in

The same Atlanta where Howard's from and was rumored to be teaming up with Paul in early summer 2013?

Those rumors were unsubstantiated and it was pretty much understood all along by almost every respected reporter that Howard and Paul were not going to the Hawks.

[bdm860]

Exactly Moranis, and the Rockets aren't a good example. They are located in a place that FA would consider signing in. There's no way the Dwight Howards of the world pick ATL to make a superteam in

I disagree about Houston/Atlanta.  Why do you think players wouldn't consider Atlanta?

When they have had cap room (which isn't that often) they haven't had a problem attracting All-Star players. (Moses Malone in '89, Mutombo in '96, Joe Johnson in '05, Millsap in '13).

Atlanta is a pretty hot destination, the team just hasn't been run well.  City-wise, I don't believe Houston is any more desirable than Atlanta.

[bdm860]

Saw some stat last week that Tim Duncan, alone, has more 50 win seasons than 26 NBA teams have in their team histories.

For the completist:


https://twitter.com/BWB76/status/451202640601313280/photo/1

This is super interesting, got me curious about how every other team was fairing, luckily somebody threw it together in a chart a couple of weeks ago:

[Moranis]

Saw some stat last week that Tim Duncan, alone, has more 50 win seasons than 26 NBA teams have in their team histories.

For the completist:


https://twitter.com/BWB76/status/451202640601313280/photo/1

This is super interesting, got me curious about how every other team was fairing, luckily somebody threw it together in a chart a couple of weeks ago:

I don't get why they separated the Sonics and Thunder, but didn't separate any of the other teams that moved like the Warriors, Lakers, Jazz, Kings, Pelicans, etc. 

[RyNye]

The problem with the "treadmill of mediocrity" argument is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is only ever used retrospectively, when a 50-ish win team has failed to advance. But it is a worthless label because it isn't prescriptive at all.

In fact, historically, teams are more likely to win a championship (or their conference) after being in "the treadmill" than coming from the lottery. Seriously, look at most of the recent champions, and at those team's records in the seasons leading up to their championship. Our 2008 Celtics were the only one to get there from the bottom.

The Heat had been a perpetual 40-50 win team since the 90s, with only occasional blips (2001,2002). Then they got D-Wade and won a ring … and were on the treadmill until Lebron came and they win two more.

The Mavericks had been on the treadmill. They had won at least 50 games for 10 consecutive seasons leading into their championship run.

What about Dwight's Magic squads? Never won the ring, but made it to the finals. Were they a treadmill of mediocrity, too?

(Also, on a slightly different note, people really underrate the mid-aughts Detroit Pistons. 7 consecutive 50 win seasons, 1 of which was a 60 win. 1 title, 1 finals loss, 4 conference finals losses. If just one of those conference finals had gone differently, even if they don't win the title, we think about that era differently).

But anyway, my point is that the "treadmill of mediocrity" argument is inherently meaningless, because we cherry pick our evidence to support it. We say things like, "Well, if you ignore the Lakers, the Spurs, and all the other teams, and look just at the Atlanta Hawks with no context, it's true."

And this is without even getting into the argument about how playoff series (even first round exits) make NBA teams a LOT of money, and get them a level of exposure that can have many long term off-court effects for a team (including attract free agents).