Merged: Discussion on Tanking

[AHF]

We all know how a night of Keno ends up, usually lots of crying and regrets. But no matter what game you are playing, you probably have more DUI's than teeth. But hey, sometimes it works!

Note: it never works. People keep going backwards in this analysis, "Look who has won! And out of those who have won, look how many of them 'tanked' (even though this definition of tank is different from everything else)." If you want to see how effective a strategy is, you condition on all of those who have performed said strategy. So you look at all of those who have tanked and look at their performance. These arguments look at all those who succeeded in doing well and which of them tanked. That is a biased sample. Once you take the correct perspective, the numbers become depressingly bleak. http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/

I disagree with this to the extent that people had previously stated on this thread that tanking can't work. To that point, it makes perfect sense to look at champions first and see how many of them dipped high into the lottery before succeeding.

I agree with your comment as far as assessing the probability of championship success with the tanking model assuming the wages of wins numbers are any good. I would be interested to see a correct version of this analysis applied for teams that stuck around in the 10-20 (draft pick) range of success and how many of them won championships.

Now let's consider whether the wages of wins argument holds up to a very basic level of scrutiny:

Well, only five players taken in the lottery have won a championship with the team that drafted them: the aforementioned Duncan and Milicic, as well as David Robinson, Sean Elliott, and Jason Kidd.

Really? Last time I checked, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan, Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowtizki, and Hakeem Olajuwon all were top picks leading their teams to championships in the 90's and 00's.

How much do I trust your numbers if you count Jason Kidd who took 16 years to win one with the Mavericks but you forget about Dwyane Wade who won a championship in his third season with the team?

Oh, perhaps WOW are only counting top 3 picks. Why would we only count top 3 picks and ignore someone like Dwyane Wade?

What about Jordan and Hakeem? How do they not count? This analysis is fundamentally flawed.

The argument you will get from the WOW writer on Jordan and Hakeem is that he is only considering drafts from 1984 to the present because that is the lottery era. What is the logic in that? Is the idea that teams who acquire high picks through losing to maximize their chances in the lottery are somehow inherently less able to build success than teams that were simply the worst in the league ala the Houston Rockets having the worst record to land Hakeem? I have to hear the rationale argument behind that one before it moves me.

By arbitrarily excluding lottery picks like Wade, Dirk and Pierce and arbitrarily ignoring teams that just flat sucked to get their pick like the Chicago Bulls (as if that is somehow different from sucking in the lottery era), the WOW author taints the numbers.

He ends up ignoring the fact that the champions since 1984 won with the following players that they drafted high in the range we associate with the lottery:

1985 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1986 Boston - Bird / McHale / Parish

1987 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1988 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1989 Pistons - Thomas

1990 Pistons - Thomas

1991 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1992 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1993 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1994 Houston - Hakeem

1995 Houston - Hakeem

1996 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1997 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1998 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1999 Spurs - Duncan / Robinson / Elliot

2000 LA Lakers - Kobe (I count him as drafted by the Lakers in the lottery since he was a lottery pick and never played for any other team ala Pau Gasol to Memphis but not as being a top pick they sucked to get)

2001 LA Lakers - Kobe

2002 LA Lakers - Kobe

2003 Spurs - Duncan / Robinson

2004 Pistons - NO ONE

2005 Spurs - Duncan

2006 Heat - Wade

2007 Spurs - Duncan

2008 Celtics - Pierce

2009 Lakers - Kobe

2010 Lakers - Kobe

2011 Mavericks - Dirk / Kidd

2012 Heat - Wade

2013 Spurs - Duncan / Heat - Wade

BOLD = No home drafted lottery-range talent that was a key piece of the puzzle (usually Finals MVP)

Italics = No home drafted top of the lottery talent that a team stunk for a period of time to acquire

If we are going to bash tanking as a strategy, let's use something better than that WOW article which (a) is flawed and (b) doesn't offer a necessary counter-point which is the % of teams that won without tanking to acquire one of their foundational players.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AHF

[KB21]

Personally, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea of tanking. It might be different if you got the first pick by having the worst record regardless, but that's not the case. There is a reason the teams in the lottery tend to be in the lottery for a long time until they finally break through. The data says that it is easier to go from being a 40-49 win team to a 55+ win team than it is to go from being a 13 win team to being a 55+ winning team.

I'd also argue that San Antonio did not in fact tank to get Tim Duncan. They lost David Robinson for that season, and he was worth 18.3 win shares from the previous season. That was a 59 win team that lost its best and most effective player and also missed their best perimeter shooter for more than half the next season in Sean Elliot.

[AHF]

* I totally agree that the Hawks are more likely to win more games over the next 4 years if they simply resigned Teague and Josh and added their draft picks than if they took a dip into the lottery. That isn't my goal for this team so I take limited value from the second article.

* Being in the range of the #7 team coming into the lottery qualifies as 'tanking' for my purposes because you are in a range to get a franchise changing talent out of the lottery.

* The article says nothing specifically about champions and the 4 year range seems fairly limited if you look at the growth of champions over the last 20 years:

Dallas - 1 Championship - Won First Championship in Year #13 of Dirk (20-62 season prior to acquiring Dirk)

Houston - 2 Championships - Won First Championship in Year #10 of Hakeem (29-53 season prior to acquiring Hakeem)

Boston - 1 Championship - Won First Championship in Year #10 of Pierce (36-46 season prior to acquiring Pierce)

Bulls - 6 Championships - Won First Championship In Year #7 of Jordan (27-55 season prior to acquiring Jordan)

Miami - 2.5 Championships - Won First Championship In Year #3 of Wade; Second in Year #9 (25-57 season prior to acquiring Wade)

Spurs - 4.5 Championships - Won First Championship in Year #2 of Duncan; Second Championship in Year #6 (21-61 season prior to acquiring Robinson; 20-62 season prior to acquiring Duncan)

So since 1991, you have 23 champions:

6 of those champions didn't have craptastic seasons that left them in the lottery to acquire their foundational player (5 by the LA Lakers; 1 by Detroit) = 26%

1 of those champions won more than 30 games to get their top lottery talent = 4%

16 of those champions (2 HOU; 6 CHI; 2.5 MIA; 4.5 SAS; 1 DAL) won 20 - 29 games to acquire their foundational talent who led them to a ring = 70%

Now let's see if going back another decade tells a different story:

Pistons - 21-61 prior to draft Thomas

LA Lakers - 47-35 prior to drafting Magic

Boston - 29-53 prior to drafting Bird

So basically, the Lakers are the only franchise that have won multiple championships without digressing to a 20-29 win team to get that foundational player in the draft and in both cases they swindled a team out of their lottery pick to acquire that talent.

Hey, if the Hawks can deal Josh Smith or Jeff Teague for a foundational player that will lead us to a championship ala the Lakers, I am all for that. Until then or until we can sign that Shaq, etc. type of free agent, I see dropping into the lottery-territory as the consistent model used by most prior NBA champions to start their climb to the top rather than going and signing an Al Jefferson type of free agent.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AHF

[AHF]

How many teams like the Hawks have won championships by drafting in the 18 pick range and picking up mid-tier free agents? If we are going to slam the tanking model in spite of all the teams that have won by dropping one way or another into the 20-something win range, let's talk about all the champions who didn't do it that way and see which of those models seem viable for Atlanta.

[MaceCase]

How many teams like the Hawks have won championships by drafting in the 18 pick range and picking up mid-tier free agents? If we are going to slam the tanking model in spite of all the teams that have won by dropping one way or another into the 20-something win range, let's talk about all the champions who didn't do it that way and see which of those models seem viable for Atlanta.

I believe we are upsetting people with the word "tank", AHF. I think we should just say that the Hawks should just happen to be "bad" or "not very good" as a team to satisfy both sides rather than suggest any deliberate attempt at sucking. Basically the old high school tenet of "be cool but don't act cool".

[GameTime]

I'm not bending over for Dwight...This Dwight n friends bs is gettin to me.I am sick of athletic dummies i.e. smoove montaI agree with cp Dwight or bust. But to me tanking isn't top 7....it's top 5 for 3 years. I want to have 3 years of a top 5 picks, maintain cap flex, and develop picks to the fullest. Then attack in 2016/17. I know it sounds like a ways away but this is better than 45,48,43 win seasons.Ps jaybird how u make that oven baked chick. My stuff dries out. I need to keep it juicy.

I know this is later on this year, but do you think Horford would be willing to go 3 years of tanking? Or would it be better to trade him along the way for assets?

[MaceCase]

I know this is later on this year, but do you think Horford would be willing to go 3 years of tanking? Or would it be better to trade him along the way for assets?

Obviously if the team doesn't get back to any reasonable amount of success the Hawks would greatly consider moving Horford while his value is high and before he can control his destination with his contract status.........Unless we pull a Pierce in Boston instead and trade all the other assets for vets like KG and Allen.....Or Horf is just like Steve Nash where he doesn't mind hanging around for years knowing that his team isn't going anywhere.

[KB21]

I know this is later on this year, but do you think Horford would be willing to go 3 years of tanking? Or would it be better to trade him along the way for assets?

Yeah. Let's become the Charlotte Hornets. Tanking has certainly helped them out.

[NBASupes]

Yeah. Let's become the Charlotte Hornets. Tanking has certainly helped them out.

It actually has. They have better attendance and fan morale right now than the Hawks fans do outside of this off-season where our morale is sky high with rumors of CP3 and D12 coming to Atlanta.

[Guest]

I love Horford more than any Hawk in a long time. But if we want to seriously tank then Horford would have to be dealt as well. Horford is just too good to be on a bottom 5 nba team record wise ..unless we have Horford and 11 stiffs lol

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I disagree with this to the extent that people had previously stated on this thread that tanking can't work. To that point, it makes perfect sense to look at champions first and see how many of them dipped high into the lottery before succeeding.

I agree with your comment as far as assessing the probability of championship success with the tanking model assuming the wages of wins numbers are any good. I would be interested to see a correct version of this analysis applied for teams that stuck around in the 10-20 (draft pick) range of success and how many of them won championships.

Now let's consider whether the wages of wins argument holds up to a very basic level of scrutiny:

Really? Last time I checked, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan, Paul Pierce, Dirk Nowtizki, and Hakeem Olajuwon all were top picks leading their teams to championships in the 90's and 00's.

How much do I trust your numbers if you count Jason Kidd who took 16 years to win one with the Mavericks but you forget about Dwyane Wade who won a championship in his third season with the team?

Oh, perhaps WOW are only counting top 3 picks. Why would we only count top 3 picks and ignore someone like Dwyane Wade?

What about Jordan and Hakeem? How do they not count? This analysis is fundamentally flawed.

The argument you will get from the WOW writer on Jordan and Hakeem is that he is only considering drafts from 1984 to the present because that is the lottery era. What is the logic in that? Is the idea that teams who acquire high picks through losing to maximize their chances in the lottery are somehow inherently less able to build success than teams that were simply the worst in the league ala the Houston Rockets having the worst record to land Hakeem? I have to hear the rationale argument behind that one before it moves me.

By arbitrarily excluding lottery picks like Wade, Dirk and Pierce and arbitrarily ignoring teams that just flat sucked to get their pick like the Chicago Bulls (as if that is somehow different from sucking in the lottery era), the WOW author taints the numbers.

He ends up ignoring the fact that the champions since 1984 won with the following players that they drafted high in the range we associate with the lottery:

1985 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1986 Boston - Bird / McHale / Parish

1987 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1988 LA Lakers - Magic / Worthy

1989 Pistons - Thomas

1990 Pistons - Thomas

1991 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1992 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1993 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen / Grant

1994 Houston - Hakeem

1995 Houston - Hakeem

1996 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1997 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1998 Bulls - Jordan / Pippen

1999 Spurs - Duncan / Robinson / Elliot

2000 LA Lakers - Kobe (I count him as drafted by the Lakers in the lottery since he was a lottery pick and never played for any other team ala Pau Gasol to Memphis but not as being a top pick they sucked to get)

2001 LA Lakers - Kobe

2002 LA Lakers - Kobe

2003 Spurs - Duncan / Robinson

2004 Pistons - NO ONE

2005 Spurs - Duncan

2006 Heat - Wade

2007 Spurs - Duncan

2008 Celtics - Pierce

2009 Lakers - Kobe

2010 Lakers - Kobe

2011 Mavericks - Dirk / Kidd

2012 Heat - Wade

2013 Spurs - Duncan / Heat - Wade

BOLD = No home drafted lottery-range talent that was a key piece of the puzzle (usually Finals MVP)

Italics = No home drafted top of the lottery talent that a team stunk for a period of time to acquire

If we are going to bash tanking as a strategy, let's use something better than that WOW article which (a) is flawed and (b) doesn't offer a necessary counter-point which is the % of teams that won without tanking to acquire one of their foundational players.

Good post.

But here's the thing though. If the Hawks could surround Al Horford with the type of talent that turns us into a championship caliber team, and then see us win a title, Al Horford all of a sudden goes on that list. To me, you have to evaluate which method to get yourself in contention for a championship has been traditionally most successful . . . tanking/being bad for a high lottery pick, or acquiring a high lottery pick in free agency or via a trade?

If you say it doesn't matter, that's cool. But then it comes to what the REAL thing is . . . acquiring Hall of Fame caliber talent.

You can go back through that same list, and see how many Hall of Fame players were on those championship teams that were acquired via a trade or in free agency, regardless of where they were drafted. And you can see what the trend has been especially after the Jordan era.

1985 - Kareem

1986 - Dennis Johnson - Bill Walton ( although in a 6th man role )

1987 - Kareem

1988 - Kareem

1989 - NONE

1990 - NONE

1991 - NONE

1992 - NONE

1993 - NONE

1994 - NONE

1995 - Drexler

1996 - Rodman

1997 - Rodman

1998 - Rodman

1999 - NONE

2000 - Shaq

2001 - Shaq

2002 - Shaq

2003 - NONE

2004 - NONE ( although Billups will probably get in )

2005 - NONE

2006 - Shaq

2007 - NONE

2008 - Garnett - Allen

2009 - Gasol

2010 - Gasol

2011 - NONE

2012 - Lebron - Bosh ( who will get in, especially if he gets another ring )

2013 - NONE . . . or Lebron - Bosh - Allen

That list is honestly a testament of how great Tim Duncan is. He's literally been the only guy who has won multiple titles, without having to bring in one or more superstars to help him. He can at least been partially credited with the development of Parker and Ginobli. His high level of play ensured that they never had to worry about being the sole #1 option in the offense, taking stress off of those guys.

Shaq had to team up with arguably 2 of the top 5 SGs in history ( Kobe and Wade ), in order to win his rings. Conversely, those same SGs couldn't win a ring without bringing someone else in. Kobe needed Gasol. Lebron couldn't win one by himself and had to take his talents to South Beach. And even though another superstar didn't play with Dirk, the Mavs did bring in 2 of the better defensive players of the past decade in Chandler and Marion.

So whether it's through "tanking", trading, or free agency, the ultimate goal should be to acquire Hall of Fame caliber talent.

And that's why the Hawks need to do anything they can possibly do, to bring both Howard and Paul to Atlanta.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

It actually has. They have better attendance and fan morale right now than the Hawks fans do outside of this off-season where our morale is sky high with rumors of CP3 and D12 coming to Atlanta.

That has more to do with how "bad" or "apathetic" the Atlanta fan base is, than it has to do with whatever small strides the Bobcats/Hornets have made last season, due to being a little more appealing. The Bobcats also outdrew us in 2011.

And there's nothing about the morale of the Hawks fan base being "sky high", when it's probably only a few thousand of us who even follow the goings-on of the Hawks a daily basis. The rest of the city isn't even going to care, until we actually SIGN both Howard and Paul.

[AHF]

You are still committing the same errors I have pointed out before, plus a few more.

One, you have a jaded view of "tanking" that now somehow implies that so long as you have a 5.3% chance at the number 1 pick you are somehow tanking. No it doesn't. That is right at the cusp of generally accepted statistical significance to NOT get the 1st pick.

Define tanking for me. You also need to put a timetable in this.

I am not tying this to 'tanking' per se so much as getting top picks. I am tying it to playing in the lottery so you can land that foundational talent that you have better odds to resign than you do to acquire on the free market. Dirk and PP are among the Finals MVPs who were drafted in the middle of the lottery rather than at the top. If you look at my post above, the vast majority of NBA champs over the last 20 or 30 years acquired their foundational player (who was the Finals MVP most of the time) in a season in which they won 20-29 games. Let's use that for the benchmark and acknowledge that if you can pull off a Lakers-esque move to acquire a top draft pick that this has the potential to work just as well (see Magic and Worthy).

Apparently, you can tank up to 16 years ago in order to qualify that as being a tank job. It looks like there is no such thing as free agency in your mind because clearly Jordan and Duncan and whoever else you want to include in your analysis never had a chance to leave said team.

There is a good reason I am looking at it like that. A good number of NBA superstars don't change teams. The odds for a team like Atlanta of acquiring an 'in-his-prime' MJ or Magic or Duncan, etc. outside of the draft are pretty darn low. I like the odds of retaining a superstar talent like that much better than I like the odds of landing one from FA or someone else. That said, whenever you have a shot at doing so you need to go for it which is why I am rooting for Dwight and Paul to join Horford.

When you have unrealistic definitions on tanking you can get your theory to fit the data. Hell, you can always get a theory to fit the data if you make enough ifs, ands, and buts to it. Your definitions are completely unrealistic as a rookie will only be under contract for 2 to 5 years in your sample. Here is a funny exercise, what percentage of teams over the past year have been in the lottery? Well 14 out of 30 for 47%. Past 2 years? 18 out of 30 for 60%. And the further and further back I go, the more teams will have been in the lottery. Think about that and think about how you are saying, "yeah well you need to have been in the lottery at some point"...you are basically describing "well you need to have been an NBA team in order to win a championship".

I think that if you land a superstar your odds of retaining him if you are a contender are pretty good and better than attracting said player in FA or by trade.

Like I said earlier, if there is a better path to starting down the road to a championship than winning 20-29 games and landing a star in the draft then let's look at the case studies for how this has been accomplished and discuss whether they can be implemented in Atlanta.

Another issue I have is something you always commit, and that is implying those that win championships are the only ones who are capable of winning championship. You completely ignore randomness in evaluation. Right now, who has a chance to win the championship for the year? Spurs or Heat? Well, with your analysis you would say that it is 100% (whoever wins) and 0% for the other. Somehow, there is no luck or natural randomness to basketball.

I find that when 70% of champions over a 20 or 30 year window fit a certain pattern that this is persuasive and that low % of teams that don't fit that pattern seems to argue against randomness. Let's look at the odds for the championship right now in this context.

Right now who has the chance to win a championship? I put it as pretty close to 50/50 whether it will be the Heat or the Spurs. But I put it at 100% that it will be a team that won 20-29 games before drafting their foundational stud in Tim Duncan or Dwyane Wade.

How does that compare to what we saw coming into the season? The favorites for me in the West were the Oklahoma Thunder and the SAS. The Thunder won 20 games the season before acquiring Westbrook and 31 games the season before acquiring Durant. The Spurs won 20 games before acquiring Duncan. The Heat were 90% favorites in my eyes prior to the season to make it out of the East. No one else was close and absent injury I would have bet heavily if I could have gotten odds of a healthy Miami at even 1:3 (making 1 dollar for every 3 I bet if they made the Finals). The only other team that would have made my radar as having a meaningful shot at winning a championship was the LAL had they gelled in a way they completely did not. As we entered the playoffs, OKC seemed to have lost their shot at a championship and the Lakers were clearly no longer in the picture. That left Memphis, Denver, and the LAC as a trio with very low % shots at winning an NBA championship but at least a group that collectively had a meaningful chance since the favorite Spurs by themselves are not as daunting an obstacle as the Spurs + Thunder. Not surprisingly, it was the Memphis Grizzlies who emerged as the true contender as Mike Conley emerged as the team's second best player (a guy who was drafted 4th overall after a 22 win season and was resigned by the team that drafted him).

In any case, the favorites coming into the season and into the playoffs from both conferences were teams that won 20-29 games prior to acquiring a foundational talent high in the draft.

Our best asset and hope for the future today is Horford, who was the crown jewel of years of what I call a piss poor job of tanking. If we add Paul and Dwight to him, I think we are a legit contender precisely because he is good enough to be a difference maker.

No other combination of free agents is going to put us in a contender role as far as I can see (which is admittedly not a high bar because I am not an expert talent evaluator but this is my $.02).

I am proposing (1) going after these studs in FA and (2) considering losing a lot of games and getting into the 2014 lottery if we can't. I think both of those are paths with championship possibilities.

I am curious to hear what other paths people are considering because I don't think a path of Al Jefferson and Tyreke Evans will have us doing anything more than rinsing and repeating the kind of success we have enjoyed over the last 4 years.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AHF

[AHF]

That has more to do with how "bad" or "apathetic" the Atlanta fan base is, than it has to do with whatever small strides the Bobcats/Hornets have made last season, due to being a little more appealing. The Bobcats also outdrew us in 2011.

And there's nothing about the morale of the Hawks fan base being "sky high", when it's probably only a few thousand of us who even follow the goings-on of the Hawks a daily basis. The rest of the city isn't even going to care, until we actually SIGN both Howard and Paul.

Yeah, I would hold the Bobcats up as an example of an incompetent organization that would fail whether it was trying to tank or trying to win that 8th playoff seed precisely because it is cheap and incompetent. It doesn't matter much what a team like that does because you still need to have competent management if any approach is going to work.

[NBASupes]

This is worthless. You basically defined the entire set of the NBA. There are only two teams in the NBA that this criteria does not apply to, New York and Houston. So long as New York or Houston do not win the championship (apparently your only criteria), your "theory" still holds.

I am done with this as you were talking about tanking and then changed your mind to talk about something else. When you talk about tanking, it is painfully obvious it is a strategy that hardly ever pays off. But your new theory about being in the lottery for acquiring talent is even more ridiculous. It defines basically everyone in the NBA and has 0 application.

My new theory is that we need to make sure our team has more than 4 letters in their name. I have heard the rumors of us becoming the "Hawk" and not the "Hawks" and I am upset about them. I mean, if you just look at the stats we have only ONE out of the four teams with 4 letters in their name has ever won a championship. This is a plan destined to fail. Since 1950, 60 of the 62 championships have gone to teams with more than 4 letters in their name! Can you believe that?

What's your theory?

[AHF]

This is worthless. You basically defined the entire set of the NBA. There are only two teams in the NBA that this criteria does not apply to, New York and Houston. So long as New York or Houston do not win the championship (apparently your only criteria), your "theory" still holds.

I am done with this as you were talking about tanking and then changed your mind to talk about something else. When you talk about tanking, it is painfully obvious it is a strategy that hardly ever pays off. But your new theory about being in the lottery for acquiring talent is even more ridiculous. It defines basically everyone in the NBA and has 0 application.

My new theory is that we need to make sure our team has more than 4 letters in their name. I have heard the rumors of us becoming the "Hawk" and not the "Hawks" and I am upset about them. I mean, if you just look at the stats we have only ONE out of the four teams with 4 letters in their name has ever won a championship. This is a plan destined to fail. Since 1950, 60 of the 62 championships have gone to teams with more than 4 letters in their name! Can you believe that?

So your alternative that is so superior is.....????

[NBASupes]

I already laid out my theory. Stick with the 5 lettered name, anything less than that is destined to fail. It makes about as much sense as describing teams with lottery talent, i.e. describing >90% of the league. My theory actually contains a smaller subset and has correctly predicted 60 of the previous 62 champs.

(I don't have to have a theory to point out that your new theory on lottery talent is worthless. I mean worthless in the sense that it has no value, you cannot base any decisions off of it because it has no predictive power. I do not mean worthless like my cousin Sean, he just doesn't do anything with his life. You want to try and critique me, but I am not offering up nonsense to critique. So you critique me for not offering up nonsense to critique. Huh?)

Once again, what is your great plan? Stop babbling, tell us what your plan is. It might be better than what we have stated already.

[AHF]

As an aside, here are teams without a foundational talent they got by winning only 29 games or fewer games:

New York Knicks (nobody close to All-Star or foundational status who they drafted)

New York Nets (Lopez isn't good enough to be a foundational player for me but even if he is they only lost 34 games)

Philadelphia 76ers (nobody close to foundational status - closest is Holliday who was drafted after a 41 loss season)

Toronto Raptors (nobody good enough to qualify, although Valanciunas at least has a prayer of someday emerging)

Indiana Pacers (they are close - Paul George was a 32 win season but Hibbert isn't a lottery guy)

Milwaukee Bucks (nobody close to foundational status)

Charlotte Bobcats (nobody close to foundational status)

Orlando Magic (nobody close to foundational status)

Denver Nuggets (nobody foundational that they drafted in the lottery)

Utah Jazz (too many wins)

Lakers (too many wins for Kobe to qualify)

Sacramento Kings (nobody at foundational status)

Suns (nobody close to foundational status)

Rockets (nobody foundational that they drafted in the lottery)

Questionable:

Detroit Pistons (is Greg Monroe, 27 wins, good enough? is Drummon, 25 wins, good enough? There is upside there but nobody has proven it yet)

Pelicans (Davis - unclear but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt after year 1)

Wizards (Wall - unproven yet but at least showing promise)

This is using the loosest possible definition of foundational player I can justify. Cranking it up a notch to require at least an All-NBA or multiple All-Star appearances and you are then dealing with a clear minority of teams as teams like Golden State, Memphis, etc. all drop of the list with the questionables.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AHF

[Dragitoff]

Neither side is going to agree so both sides should just agree to disagree and shut up! Seriously, like 10 pages of back and forth bickering?

[AHF]

Starting next season here is the list of teams that might qualify if you define foundational as either 1 All-NBA selection or 2+ All-Star appearances:

Atlanta Hawks (Horford)

Miami Heat (Wade) FC

San Antonio Spurs (Duncan) FC

Oklahoma Thunder (Westbrook) F

Boston Celtics (If PP returns) FC

Chicago Bulls (Deng)

Portland Trailblazers (Aldridge)

T-Wolves (Love)

Cavs (Irving)

Dallas Mavericks (Dirk) FC

Over the last decade there have been 10 finals with 6 different franchises winning championships and another 2 (Thunder - on the list; Magic - on the list at the time they appeared in the finals; Cavs - on the list at the time they appeared in the finals; and the Pistons who have divested that entire core but who won while not on the list).

Looking at the teams as they stand today (i.e., no credit to Orlando Magic for making the finals with Dwight; no credit to the Nets for making the Finals with Kidd):

Total Number of Teams Not Making the List: 20

Total Number of Finals Appearances Not Making the List: 1 (Lakers)

Total Number of Champions Out of Teams Not Making the List: 1 (Lakers)

Total Number of Teams Making the List: 10

Total Number of Finals Appearances By Teams Making the List: 5

Total Number of Champions on the List: 4

F = Finals Appearance

C = NBA Championship