Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
I looked for teams who had gotten 3 or more of their own top 7 draft picks within 4 years. Looking quickly I found about 33 cases in the last 25 years. In no case did any of these teams win a title in the following years with at least 2 of those draft picks playing prominent roles. A few made the finals but no wins. Relying mainly on the draft to produce multiple leaders to win a title does not seem to be the specific title winning recipe. There are cases though where teams got the one guy they really needed to win the title but they got the other main pieces via other avenues (including lower draft picks) and thus it is a different kind of model than the one I specified and looked at. Sorry to those who meet these criteria currently- OKC, Cleveland, Washington, Golden State, Sacramento and other teams planning to try to use this particular strategy to win a title. If recent history is a guide, probably will need to change things up via trade or free agency to win the title. With current CBA luxury tax rules this history may get longer and the case even stronger, unless you can possibly get the right top draft picks and the right supporting cast and the right coach who can win a title before the big second contracts kick in and persist and get bigger and cause luxury tax hassles or barriers.
Re: Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
The Warriors only had two top 7 picks (Curry and Barnes), so I guess they can safely win a title.
Re: Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
They selected 3 in top 7 in last years including Udoh so they meet the criteria I posited. They already dealt one. (Hard to say if that was the right move or not.) Neither Curry or Barnes seems like 'the" superstar to build around or that elite a duo to buck the trend found and stated above. Tell will tell if they break the trend.
Earlier I said " There are cases though where teams got the one guy they really needed to win the title but they got the other main pieces via other avenues (including lower draft picks) and thus it is a different kind of model than the one I specified and looked at."
I will add & clarify:
There are cases though where teams got the one guy they really needed to win the title... but unless I forgot something, it turns out upon further consideration that actually none of the teams that had the specified wave of top draft acquisitions in the last 25 years parlayed it, even with just one main star, into a title. The one top draft pick superstar teams that won titles all fell outside this set of teams with 3 top 7 picks within 4 years. They tend to be the better historical teams who got bad or lucky enough to snag a superstar with their uncommon dip in the top draft pick pool.
I did not account for teams who immediately traded for a top 7 pick after the draft. These I considered trades, though they are really both a draft pick and a trade. Considering that nuance might be an enhancement to the mini-study and it could catch a title winning case but I don't think so. I don't know if I'll do that later or post it.
Earlier I said " There are cases though where teams got the one guy they really needed to win the title but they got the other main pieces via other avenues (including lower draft picks) and thus it is a different kind of model than the one I specified and looked at."
I will add & clarify:
There are cases though where teams got the one guy they really needed to win the title... but unless I forgot something, it turns out upon further consideration that actually none of the teams that had the specified wave of top draft acquisitions in the last 25 years parlayed it, even with just one main star, into a title. The one top draft pick superstar teams that won titles all fell outside this set of teams with 3 top 7 picks within 4 years. They tend to be the better historical teams who got bad or lucky enough to snag a superstar with their uncommon dip in the top draft pick pool.
I did not account for teams who immediately traded for a top 7 pick after the draft. These I considered trades, though they are really both a draft pick and a trade. Considering that nuance might be an enhancement to the mini-study and it could catch a title winning case but I don't think so. I don't know if I'll do that later or post it.
Re: Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
Huh, I already forgot about Udoh. Go figure. At least we ended up turning him into Bogut.Crow wrote:They selected 3 in top 7 in last years including Udoh so they meet the criteria I posited. They already dealt one. (Hard to say if that was the right move or not.) Neither Curry or Barnes seems like 'the" superstar to build around or that elite a duo to buck the trend found and stated above. Tell will tell if they break the trend.
Re: Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
Three Top 7 picks in four years seems like a rather extended period of bad play. I would hypothesize that such a crummy 4-year period is evidence that the front office is not capable of assembling a championship roster. There are some potential exceptions such as OKC, but then there may be a second reason why these teams fail to win a championship with their draftees: the final step may require trading one of them away, simply to get a better-fitting piece (or in OKC's case, to reduce future salary).
Re: Winning a title with your own multiple top draft picks?
4 years is the max time limit to the data search. Some get their 3+ top 7 picks in less time, sometimes in 2 years. I agree that being bad for a long time is a bad marker and is probably most associated with weaker than average franchises but I thought this query was worthwhile since the model sounds like a pretty good approach and 5 current teams meet the criteria.
This data leads me to think that it is either best or at least most likely that a team will only snag one of its main pieces that lead to a title thru the top of the draft and that maybe they should assume that will be the likely case and make sure the rest of the overall strategy carries the rest of the load. Of course one far more likely can be a good team or even a contending team than a title winner and that has some merit but the title remains the overwhelming goal of teams and perhaps the only goal of some.
OKC is the best current prospect. Will be interesting to see where things are in 2-3 years. Would be interesting to look closer at the other past teams who met this criteria and at least got to conference finals and look into what else they did and did not do, how much they were willing to spend at peak, etc. Always more than could be researched with more time and incentive.
This data leads me to think that it is either best or at least most likely that a team will only snag one of its main pieces that lead to a title thru the top of the draft and that maybe they should assume that will be the likely case and make sure the rest of the overall strategy carries the rest of the load. Of course one far more likely can be a good team or even a contending team than a title winner and that has some merit but the title remains the overwhelming goal of teams and perhaps the only goal of some.
OKC is the best current prospect. Will be interesting to see where things are in 2-3 years. Would be interesting to look closer at the other past teams who met this criteria and at least got to conference finals and look into what else they did and did not do, how much they were willing to spend at peak, etc. Always more than could be researched with more time and incentive.