How Contenders Were Built

[42PhD]

The title of this article is pretty Fryeing self-explanatory. I've gathered data for a couple of articles here, and this is the first of them.

My last major analytical piece was looking at what all the title teams had in common. That common element was having players with PER over 30 (about), or a few players with PER over 20.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1087

This article looks at the champs, but instead looks at what how they acquired their top talent. This effort is two fold. First, by looking at the champs, we may see just how what the secret is to winning titles, besides luck. Second, the claim is that the "best way" to build a contender is "through the draft," a claim that makes draft picks have great value. If that's the case, then we should see drafting as a key component to title winning teams.

Below is a list of the champs along with what I considered to be their five most important players that season. This is based on my judgment using minutes and stats as the primary inputs. For each player, the mode of acquisition is noted. The possibilities are Creation Draft, Draft, Trade, Free Agent. Note that this is how the team acquired the player initially. If a player is drafted by Team A, and that player is traded to Team B, then that player resigns with Team B as a Free Agent, I recorded this as Trade. Apologies for any errors or if you disagree. No system is perfect here, but this is what I did, as incumbent teams have an advantage in Free Agency. I also recorded draft position, but did not research if the pick was the team's own.


1990-1991. Hawks.

Magic Johnson, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Detlef Schrempf, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Jerry Reynolds, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Moses Malone, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Pervis Ellison, Creation Draft (Hawks)


1991-1992. Hawks.

Magic Johnson, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Detlef Schrempf, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Jerry Reynolds, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Pervis Ellison, Creation Draft (Hawks)
Kevin McHale, Creation Draft (Rockets)


1992-1993. Lakers.

Benoit Benjamin, Creation Draft (Raptors)
Larry Johnson, Draft (2nd overall, 1991)
Kevin Johnson, Creation Draft (Lakers)
Cedric Ceballos, Creation Draft (Lakers)
Doc Rivers, Creation Draft (Celtics)


1993-1994. Celtics.

Alonzo Mourning, Draft (2nd overall, 1992)
Armen Gilliam, Free Agent
Clyde Drexler, Trade (Timberwolves)
Mitch Richmond, Trade (Lakers)
Bimbo Coles, Trade (Hornets)


1994-1995. Celtics.

Alonzo Mourning, Draft (2nd overall, 1992)
Derrick Coleman, Free Agent
Toni Kukoc, Draft (7th overall, 1993)
Mitch Richmond, Trade (Lakers)
Tim Hardaway, Free Agent


1995-1996. Warriors.

Rick Smits, Trade (Jazz)
Shawn Kemp, Creation Draft (Warriors)
Cedric Ceballos, Trade (Lakers)
Glen Rice, Free Agent
Sam Cassell, Trade (Heat)


1996-1997. Mavericks.

Arvydas Sabonis, Draft (9th overall, 1995)
Hakeem Olajuwon, Trade (Clippers)
Terry Mills, Trade (Clippers)
Chris Mullin, Trade (76'ers)
Anfernee Hardaway, Draft (2nd overall, 1993)


1997-1998. Mavericks.

Arvydas Sabonis, Draft (9th overall, 1995)
Terry Mills, Trade (Clippers)
Eric Piatkowski, Trade (Knicks)
John Barry, Free Agent (?)
Anfernee Hardaway, Draft (2nd overall, 1993)


1998-1999. Warriors.

Shawn Kemp, Creation Draft (Warriors)
Cedric Ceballos, Trade (Lakers)
Hersey Hawkins, Free Agent
Rex Chapman, Free Agent
Randy Brown, Trade (Hawks)


1999-2000. Lakers.

Vin Baker, Trade (Supersonics)
Kevin Garnett, Trade (Cavaliers)
Andrei Kirilenko, Draft (5th overall, 1999)
Bruce Bowen, Trade (Pistons)
Jason Kidd, Trade (Magic)


1999-2000. Hawks.

Ben Wallace, Draft (8th overall, 1996)
Antonio McDyess, Trade (Jazz)
Grant Hill, Trade (Timberwolves)
Latrell Sprewell, Trade (Clippers)
Anfernee Hardaway, Trade (Mavericks)


1999-2000. Hawks.

Ben Wallace, Draft (8th overall, 1996)
Antonio McDyess, Trade (Jazz)
Grant Hill, Trade (Timberwolves)
Latrell Sprewell, Trade (Clippers)
Anfernee Hardaway, Trade (Mavericks)


2002-2003. Raptors.

Tom Gugliotta, Trade (Hornets)
Elton Brand, Draft (2nd overall, 1999)
Steve Smith, Trade (Heat)
Michael Finley, Trade (Bucks)
Chauncey Billups, Trade (3rd overall, 1997)


Creation Draft has to have some influence early on, and the influence is expected to decrease over time. This is what we see. The first title contender to have a major player not from the Creation Draft was the 1991-1992 Hawks, as they had a major player they traded for. The 1992-1993 Lakers had just a pair of Creation Draft Players. After that, winners had just a single creation draft player of their own (Kemp) for the next three seasons (Celtics had none). After that, there were two champs with none of their Creation Draft player as major contributors, the Warriors won again with Kemp, and then the Creation Draft's influence was no more.

Of the 65 player-slots considered, 13 were Creation Draft, but just 2 in the last 10 seasons (50 player-slots), and those were Kemp in 1995-1996 and 1998-1999.

Free Agent signings did not make any impact in the first 3 seasons, which makes sense given the low salary cap and the creation draft. In the past 10 seasons, just 7 of the 50 player-slots on titles teams were occupied by Free Agents, and none in the past 4 seasons.

Drafting is only about as effective as Free Agency, but my guess is that it is slightly more important since teams well over the cap can draft talent but can not sign free agents. Only 10 player-slots of the 65 examined were occupied by draftees who had not changed teams, and only 8 in the last 10 seasons. Also of note, here are the positions where the players were drafted: second (four times, different players, Johnson early, Mourning twice), third, fifth, seventh, eighth (twice, same player), ninth. Not top pick has ever won a title on the team that drafted him without changing teams. I haven't looked (yet) to see if any have won titles at all.

That leaves trades. Trades make up the lion's share of the player-slots, 32 of 50 and 35 of 65. In the first three seasons, the 15 player slots were 11 Creation Draft, 3 Trade, 1 Draft, 0 Free Agent. So, even in the early days, Trades beat out all other means of building a title post-creation. The most interesting thing here is, of course, that whoever makes the trade with the title winner that gives them their final major player likely has full knowledge of what the major players will be when they agree to the trade. Yet, they allow the team to build the team anyway.

Participating in building a team that thwarts any practical chance or even a sense of hope for the title is positively foolish. Perhaps this is exactly how title teams are really built. It's not drafting well, it's not crafting your roster, it's not planning your roster and your cap, it's not finding good and creative trades, it's not doing all the things that one would like to think give you a good chance at winning a title. It's finding someone on the right day to trade you a top player for pieces that just are not worth it. Perhaps that's the skill.

Thoughts?

Is anyone surprised by this?

Does anyone care to suggest an alternate analysis?

Next up, what happens to top draft picks.

[kucoach7]

This is great and totally true. All of my best teams have been formed based on lopsided (at the time) trades.

[WigNosy]

It might be worth going back and looking at "what was traded" to get more context on trades. The latest Hawks title teams, for example, relied on about 4 seasons spent gathering younger assets (Miller, Maggette, Marshall, Davis) and then flipping those younger assets to teams that were playoff teams starting to decline for established stars (Hill, Sprewell, Penny). Three seasons post trade, the four main players I traded away are producing over 80 ppg while the guys I picked up are now combining for just 50. Both sides knew going in this was a swap of "talent now" for "talent in the near future." I suspect if you look at most other title teams' trades a similar pattern will hold - it isn't "talent now for garbage" except when the crapshoot of a draft pick gets involved (where there is more risk than trading for a player).

So I not convinced it is just "finding people on the right day" - I think it is identifying when teams are willing to swap "success now" for "success later" and finding enough teams willing to do so make enough moves for "success now" to get you over the hump.

[IamQuailman]

Also:

1998-1999. Warriors.

Shawn Kemp, Creation Draft (Warriors)
Cedric Ceballos, Trade (Lakers)
Hersey Hawkins, Free Agent
Rex Chapman, Free Agent
Randy Brown, Trade (Hawks)

WHAT THE ACTUAL Frye? How did this team win a championship?! lol

[42PhD]

Yeah, pretty sure that's not totally easy or worth it since tracking down things like injury and other variables factor.

Besides, that's not really the point. The point is not that any particular deal is good or bad when only looking at the deal.

The point is to see how title teams were built, as the title says. That seems to have been very effective because has disputed the facts of history even if they ignore the lessons in favor or tired maxims.

Success now for success later partially breaks down when you put the final piece of the puzzle in place for your competitor in a way that lasts for seasons because that success later part lessens. Deals should not be judged on players only, or whatever assets, but the teams as well. Both teams.

The finding that the majority of of success for title winners comes from direct, willful input of other GM's can mean many things, and I think many of those are true. Some GM's are impatient, others can't really build a team leanly, so they go for the overbuild and largely can't, others wait for Pennys from draft heaven while others can't coach. All GM's have weaknesses.

One conclusion is that, likely, and this has been confirmed in writing, that lopsided trades were key to building a good team. Pointing to good players on separate teams shows that, yes, maybe game points now for game points later did work out and can be considered fair. Sure. Maybe the points are lopsided "the other way" in one or many views. But, those guys aren't competing against each other on possessions and they aren't competing together for a title or two or three.

[kucoach7]

Also:

1998-1999. Warriors.

Shawn Kemp, Creation Draft (Warriors)
Cedric Ceballos, Trade (Lakers)
Hersey Hawkins, Free Agent
Rex Chapman, Free Agent
Randy Brown, Trade (Hawks)

WHAT THE ACTUAL WIG? How did this team win a championship?! lol

See above.

[NOLa.]

Kemp and Ceballos was a crazy pairing and was very tough to beat.

Sent via Morse code

[Darth Vegito]

Note to all champions:

"You all aren't really that good or talented or skilled for that matter. Others built your teams for you and pennys and zos and Kemps fell into your lap. You really actually suck. Get bent."
----------PER THIS ARTICLE

Signed with a Scarlet Letter

[42PhD]

Kemp's PER was through the roof. The post I linked to showed that guys with 35+ PER in a season were worth most of a title.

Oh, and you guys apparently suck.

[NOLa.]

OP or be OP'd

Sent via Morse code

[Soundwave]

Chauncey was a draft pick btw.

My Ship was built through traping Doug raw.

[Soundwave]

Chauncey was a draft pick btw.

My Ship was built through traping Doug raw.

Just joking,

my Ship was built through hard work, patience, resilience, hustle, loyalty, and respect.

But I somewhat agree with the premise of the article, knowing when to strike is a huge part in building a championship contender.

[42PhD]

Chauncey was a draft pick btw.

My Ship was built through traping Doug raw.

Thanks. I had it down, clearly (3rd overall), but didn't edit that part from my copy-paste. I'll update it tonight. Sorry about that.

I initially had Zo down as a creation draft guy and had to fix that. There may be other mistakes.

Interestingly, there was no info on John Barry (I think) moving teams early on, but he did, so I guessed FA based on the contracts through time.

[42PhD]

It's funny the reactions here. Everyone is discussing trades and GMing. Typos aside, the above is mostly just data.

The staggering conclusion is that current draft picks are overrated. Sure, all the best players are drafted, aside from the few good leftovers from the creation draft, but people often do not make the best use of them on their team.

Trades of good players are many time, in part at least, an admission of a failure to capitalize on a draft pick or two or more.

So, why are they sooo prized?

Yet, the discussion is about trades, because that is what the blood and breath of the League is.

A good GM has to use all tools in accordance with a plan... that is likely the end result of all these studies I'm doing. It's this hunch that's led me to constantly tinker with trades and coaching and rosters and to study up, as I always do.

Still, it is staggering to me how worshipped some draft picks are and how disregarded others are. Highly irrational, highly inefficient market. And no one will has broached the subject yet here when the data is staggering compared to conventional wisdom.

GM's like Conroy and Wave and Darth show that drafting well can lead to titles, but it's the irrational love by other GM's that leads to lopsided trades that lead to a lack of significant churn in the League likely. Lesser GM's chase the impossible dream, training camp kills, the OP days cover mistakes, and more of course, all highlight the perils or drafting... and no one has said boo about it.

Fascinating.

[Xist2Inspire]

Probably because despite drafted players being highly unreliable in results, playing the draft game is a hell of a lot easier than finding the right deal or signing the right free agent. It's far easier to say "to hell with this" and start over rather than hold steady with your likely average team and wait for the right acquisition or perfect gameplan to finally put you over the top. There's also the cap game to worry about, since you don't want to lock yourself into an underachieving yet expensive core. And since FA often favors the big spenders, "blowing it up" can sometimes be as much about luring whatever names you can to your team as it is about draft picks.

It's pretty much human nature to be restless, chase the unknown, search for greener pastures somewhere else rather than tend their own fields. Draft chasing's a risky road no doubt, but it's also a very easy one to ride on, with open air and plenty of options to change course...and of course, nice scenery that gives a faint promise of something special on the horizon, just around the bend. A road that isn't safe at all, but far more inviting than the rough road to success littered with the bones of the unworthy.

[PaulyP]

You become a contender by suckering a stupid GM into giving you good players. Some of the top guys are very very good negotiators and by the time its time to pay up for that Lux Tax you've accumulated enough points to cover your ass for a couple years

[42PhD]

I think you hit on the allure, the seduction. However, easier is not exactly the right word, at least when it comes to winning a title. The data suggests it is harder, though it may seem easier.

It's an easier ladder to start to climb, but it's not clear that getting to the top using it is easier than anything else.

Good comments.

[Xist2Inspire]

I think you hit on the allure, the seduction. However, easier is not exactly the right word, at least when it comes to winning a title. The data suggests it is harder, though it may seem easier.

It's an easier ladder to start to climb, but it's not clear that getting to the top using it is easier than anything else.

Good comments.

That's the key. That's why so many people in this league and real-life sports leagues in general go for the draft solution, it both appears easy and is easy to start. One knows exactly how to start building for success through the draft. Building through trades and FA signings, however, is a far more intimidating task, with completely unclear guidelines as to how you get started and proceed...as well as less margin for error.

[NOLa.]

It's a process for sure. I think most GMs, as it was brought up in this thread by others, feel they need to draft their "alpha" player first. Depending on how long it takes for that player to grow, the team will try to time it's second phase: free agency acquisitions and trades.

I think training camp has more to do with championship caliber teams than drafting or trading. The game constantly changes the field of teams each offseason before we start the regular season. It also accouhts for the rise and fall of these championship teams.

Penny came in the league looking amazing, but he received an even bigger boost in TC. Larry Johnson with the Lakers came in scoring nearly 30ppg, but died the next TC. Kemp was great before, but TC made him a legend. Celtics had Zo who I dont think got a boost, but when Conroy got Bimbo he received a boost in TC and gave the Celtics a more dominant and balanced team. Dennis Scott received a boost as well with the Lakers, not sure if he won a ship though.

Anyways, I'm sure there are more instances, but just looking at the championship teams, we all saw what training camps did for them and to them later.

Im certain there are a few teams that could have won championships if their star player didn't get hit. It really sucks when he is a rookie or going into his second year ans gets killed (LJ and Amare come to mind).

Sent via Morse code

[IamQuailman]

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[42PhD]

Everything you said makes sense, but I don't think "more" is at least obviously appropriate. It is also something that is largely outside of anyone's control, so it sort of has little to do with GMing or building a contender.

I will say that this is likely why trades have some value. As Wig said and is clear to most, trading for someone who has weathered more camps ok and actually benefited already puts you in a better position in term of volatility than someone who has to go through 6 camps to reach potential.

Likewise, people seem to bail on players after one bad camp at times. This is likely not the best move.

Back to TC, good points, but TC cuts across all teams and has less to do with building a team than with that team actualizing.

[Conroy]

It's a process for sure. I think most GMs, as it was brought up in this thread by others, feel they need to draft their "alpha" player first. Depending on how long it takes for that player to grow, the team will try to time it's second phase: free agency acquisitions and trades.

I think training camp has more to do with championship caliber teams than drafting or trading. The game constantly changes the field of teams each offseason before we start the regular season. It also accouhts for the rise and fall of these championship teams.

Penny came in the league looking amazing, but he received an even bigger boost in TC. Larry Johnson with the Lakers came in scoring nearly 30ppg, but died the next TC. Kemp was great before, but TC made him a legend. Celtics had Zo who I dont think got a boost, but when Conroy got Bimbo he received a boost in TC and gave the Celtics a more dominant and balanced team. Dennis Scott received a boost as well with the Lakers, not sure if he won a ship though.

Anyways, I'm sure there are more instances, but just looking at the championship teams, we all saw what training camps did for them and to them later.

Im certain there are a few teams that could have won championships if their star player didn't get hit. It really sucks when he is a rookie or going into his second year ans gets killed (LJ and Amare come to mind).

Sent via Morse code

I also think we've done this league long enough, that TC has affected everybody. I feel like you could take every single team and talk about how TC hurt them, and how it helped.

[IamQuailman]

I'm going to combine the points for this article and the other articles (Top of the Draft series) and just award you 10 points for your 03-04 media. Thanks a bunch! Great work!