A Brief History of Reviving Losing Teams
Often, discussions about improving teams are based on hypotheticals or quick fixes. But I also think it's instructive to figure out how past franchises have turned themselves around. So here's the basic premise: find the teams in the post-no-hand-check era (starting in '04-05 season) that had a two-season stretch of fewer than 45 wins combined and revisit the decisions they made to return to a positive SRS (the statistical measure from basketball-reference.com where 0 indicates an average team).
First, here are the teams who haven't yet recovered from those types of seasons: the Wolves, the 07-09 Clippers, the 08-10 Wizards, and the 08-10 Kings.
2004-06 Atlanta Hawks
First year back with a positive SRS: 08-09 (team made playoffs w/losing record in 07-08)
Player with team entire time: Josh Smith
Coaching changes: None (04-05 was Mike Woodson's first season)
Rotation players added via draft: 2 (Marvin Williams and Al Horford)
Rotation players added via trade: Joe Johnson (sign-and-trade in which Hawks gave up Boris Diaw and 3 first-rounders), Mike Bibby (Hawks traded former first-rounder Shelden Williams and expiring contracts)
Rotation players added via free agency: Flip Murray, Mo Evans
Analysis: The catalyst was obviously Johnson's desire to leave Phoenix, an unusual decision many players wouldn't make and haven't made. Horford and Smith's development and average veteran role players allowed the team to establish a pecking order with the youth at the top, and the starting unit's size/strength gave them an athletic advantage over many opponents. Keeping Woodson as coach and the early contributions of Smith helped the team build a (mediocre) foundation that's been good enough to make the playoffs in the East and win 3 series.
2004-06 Charlotte Bobcats
First year with a positive SRS: 2009-10 (only playoff series)
Player with team entire time: Gerald Wallace
Coaching changes: 2 (Sam Vincent, Larry Brown)
Rotation players added via draft: D.J. Augustin, Raymond Felton
Rotation players added via trade: Stephen Jackson (acquired for expiring contracts), Boris Diaw (acquired in order to dump Jason Richardson's contract), Tyson Chandler (acquired to dump Emeka Okafor's contract), Tyrus Thomas (acquired for a future first and expirings), Nazr Mohammed (acquired for expirings)
Rotation players added via free agency: Larry Hughes
Analysis: This a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul; the Bobcats' inability to build through the draft stuck them with albatross deals that were able to come together for one season with a Hall of Fame coach. If anyone wants to repeat this track for the Wolves, please comment with your reasons why.
2006-08 Memphis Grizzlies
First year with a positive SRS: 2010-11
Players with team entire time: Rudy Gay
Coaching changes: 2 (Marc Iavaroni, Lionel Hollins)
Rotation players added via draft: Darrell Arthur (draft-day pick swap), Mike Conley, O.J. Mayo, Sam Young, Greivis Vasquez
Rotation players added via trade: Marc Gasol (acquired with expirings and late 1st-rounders for Pau Gasol), Zach Randolph (acquired for expiring deal), Shane Battier (acquired for 1st rounder and Hasheem Thabeet)
Rotation players added via free agency: Tony Allen
Analysis: The catalysts seemed to be hiring Hollins and trading for Randolph; both moves established a direction for Grizz, and the role players added around them fit what they wanted to do. An important but underrated aspect is the team's success with late first-rounders and second-rounders; getting 3 rotation players in 3 years is a good haul. It's unclear if their success is sustainable, but there is a definite identity to the team, and they weren't afraid to change coaches when one wasn't getting results.
2007-09 OKC Thunder
First year with a positive SRS: 2009-10
Players with team entire time: Kevin Durant, Jeff Green, Nick Collison
Coaching changes: 1 (Scott Brooks)
Rotation players added via draft: Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka
Rotation players added via trade: Eric Maynor (acquired with contract of retiring player for rights to Peter Fehse), Thabo Sefolosha (acquired for late first-rounder)
Rotation players added via free agency: Nenad Krstic
Analysis: Lottery luck in the form of Durant was an important first step, but so was picking Westbrook 4th when it was considered a reach at the time and picking Harden 3rd when Ricky Rubio was the hot name at the time. Changing coaches when a recent hire wasn't working out was definitely important, as was having the cap space to take on players that came with young talent like Ibaka and Maynor.
What I derive from this analysis:
- Always hold onto athletic players and work around them. I don't think it's a coincidence that Smith, Wallace, and Gay were the lone holdovers for their team, and drafting Harden instead of Rubio or Curry allowed Westbrook to develop faster as a lead guard.
- Don't be afraid to fire a coach when they're not working out. An argument could be made that the Hawks would've been better off firing Woodson early, but his team also doubled their win total in his second season. It's clear, though, that Hollins and Brooks have been important in their franchises' resurgences.
- Draft well in the later first round and the early second round. The Wolves currently have a few Eurostashes, and Malcolm Lee was just drafted, but the jury's out on whether Hayward or Ellington can contribute at the same level as even Young and Vasquez did last year.
- Don't overpay for mediocre veterans or take on their long-term deals. That's the main difference between the Bobcats and these other teams. It's usually a better strategy to overpay your own young players than overpay new free agents, but ideally, the young players should be prominently featured and learn on the job.
- Even mismanaged franchises can eventually win if they don't continually overturn the roster. The Hawks haven't been managed well at all (even the Johnson deal almost didn't go through because of an ownership squabble), yet they kept Smith, Johnson, and Williams (despite Williams being a moderate bust), added Horford, and were able to eventually return to the playoffs despite an unconventional lineup where their 2 was the primary ballhandler, they played 2 small-ball 4s as their starting forwards, and they played Horford out of position at the 5. The key: they played their best young players regardless of position and tried to manage roster imbalances with cheaper free agents.
- Free agents/vets added in trades must maximize the production of the young players. Zaza Pachulia allows Horford to slide to the 4 at times and gives the team a bit of a tough streak; Bibby was a good complement as a spot-up shooter who could handle the ball. Nick Collison does the dirty work; Krstic was, um, there (though maybe that's hope for those worried about Darko and Pek), and Sefolosha covered the opponent's top wing scorer. Allen brought defense and intensity, while Battier didn't make mistakes while rebounding/playing tough D/making big shots.
21 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is awesome
I would love to see the comparative analysis for why the Wolves, Clips, Wiz, and Kings haven’t turned the corner yet, or where (perhaps) they are on this continuum.
This just reaffirms my belief that the Wolves are in a really good spot right now – except for having a coach. Whoever gets hired will hopefully be on the level of a Lionel Hollins or Scottie Brooks in terms of impact. This team needs direction, needs identity, and while (on paper) the players of this team scream a certain general flavor of identity, they really need that one extra piece (the HC) to really give it shape and direction and, dare I say, subtlety (in keeping with the flavor analogy).
I will say the other thing that’s interesting to me is that these franchises made their turnarounds, with the exception of OKC, without ‘nailing’ their upper level draft picks. Not many of those guys are even fringe level All-Stars, and with the catterwalling around here about the production of our draft picks you would think that All-Star level talent is a pre-requisite for such a turnaround. If anything the ability to make a trade for a single high quality veteran starter is more important. Perhaps Kahn’s apparent strategy of waiting for a difficult salary cap to enable the poaching of a veteran for pennies on the dollar may prove prudent after all. At the very least, keeping the team – as is constructed – together for the next 2-3 years seems like a pretty good idea.
by Dr. Wolfenstein on Jun 30, 2011 2:56 PM CDT reply actions
I agree
I think we are in a really good position right now as well. Watching the playoffs and comparing the wolves with the grizzlies there were a few similarities. Mainly that if Randolph could be the best player on the grizzlies and make a playoff run, then perhaps Love can be the best t-wolf and do the same as statistically they are both 20-10 power forwards.
Great post - a very rational way teams should think about it (but probably don't)
It is hard for me to see a general rule re: trading for veterans from this though. Jackson and Randolph clearly had a big positive effect. There are many examples where such a trade did not work out.
Maybe the key is ‘fit’ with the rest of the team, as you mentioned. Draft for talent, trade/sign for fit.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
Well put
My opinion would be slightly different: Keep who you draft and sign/trade to fit around them.
The good news is hopeful doesn't mean dumb. The bad news is cynical doesn't mean smart. -- Sarah Silverman
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jun 30, 2011 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Two things OKC did that I'd like to see the Wolves do moving forward
- Dumped a high profile coach that obviously wasn’t working out for a very good young guy.
- Traded one good young player for another that better balanced their roster: Green <→ Perkins. Green is a 3/4 tweener, was hurting them on D, and keeping two better players from getting ideal minutes at their ideal position (Durant & Ibaka). This was not an obvious trade, as Green was well liked by both fans & Durant. Hope the Wolves can show the same wisdom, as they will need to make a similar trade.
I think Atlanta is an example of a team that did not ultimately balance their roster. They have two very good PFs: Smith & Horford. They played Smith & Horford out of position IMO at times and tried to work around this. Ultimately they are going to have to trade Smith, and they will likely get less now because he is older, did not play well in the recent playoffs, and has a largish contract. The Wolves need to avoid this situation.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
The difference between Our PFs and the Atlanta situation
Is that Williams, Beasely, and Love are all legit 3 shooters. Obviously we don’t know for sure if it can work on the court yet, but I think we should try it out until the trade deadline. There’s a chance that Beasely and Love both won’t be back for next season anyway. I don’t see a huge problem of having extra in one position for 1 season.
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jun 30, 2011 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice work.
I really think the shortest path for the Wolves to be a decent team would be to trade for Iguodala. I don’t think Wes or Webster can hold down the SG position. Iggy could help balance the roster (especially if Beasley was in the trade to get him) and let more players play their best positions. His defense might even let us get away with having Love play big minutes at center.
Iggy might be 1-2 years older than ideal and he’s not cheap, but if he didn’t have those issues we probably couldn’t get him in the first place. We’ll have to see whether this still makes sense after there’s a new CBA.
Hasn't Iggy played most of his NBA minutes at the 3?
I’m not disagreeing with you, if you swapped Iggy for Wes at the two we would be a much better team short term.
I see him listed both ways.
E.g., 82games.com says most of his minutes are at SF, ESPN lists him as a SG, and DX splits the difference by calling him a SG/SF. Either way, I’ll take him.
I really like Iggy a lot as well I would rather not give up
One of our core for him just yet. I would rather see these guys play together before we trade one of them.
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jun 30, 2011 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Depends on what you mean by "core"
I’d only count Love, Rubio, and maybe Williams. Anyone else can go.
by Madison Dan on Jun 30, 2011 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Great Post and Analysis - Thank you
OKC gets a lot of credit as an organization, but without lucking into Durant (the premier young scorer in the league) they wouldn’t be a top tier team today.
Memphis is an interesting case – it is very rare for an 8th seed to upset a number 1 seed in the playoffs. Anyway, I attribute their success to two things:
1.)Their coach helped them develop a clear cut identity (scrappy, defensive, team that plays with heart, and offense initiated from inside with Zach and Gasol);
2.) Added grissled veterans who play great tough D – Battier and T-Allen.
Their Defense is amazing their steal stats is insanse
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jun 30, 2011 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe this isn't the best forum to make this observation, but I'm going to anyway.
James Harden is a good fit in OKC. He was a good choice for them because of the fit. I’m wondering whether they would have been better off drafting Rubio. At the #3 he probably would have been able to make it across to the NBA right away instead of having to wait two years for a more friendly buyout. I think the questions surrounding his buyout were probably the reason the Thunder didn’t draft him in the first place. But for argument’s sake let’s say he was able to come over right away. Instead of having Westbrook playing the point guard position, he would have been free to move to shooting guard – the position he played in college. Of course, he’d probably be coming off the bench in this sort of situation. The biggest impediment to the Thunder winning a championship at this point in time is that Westbrook hasn’t developed into a real point guard and there’s legitimate concern about whether he ever will. The common line of thinking at this point is that they will most likely have to trade him for a player that is willing to recognize that the team is at its best when Durant is getting the damn ball on close to every possession. For all that Westbrook brings to the table, he may be the player that is holding them back the most. I don’t think that would be an issue if they had drafted Rubio to play the point and pushed Westbrook into the super-sub role that is currently occupied by Harden.
At this point, if you’re OKC don’t you almost have to consider a Westbrook for Paul swap with someone like Nick Collison thrown in to make the cap numbers work? Wouldn’t that instantly make OKC the odds-on favorite to win the title for the next 3-4 years? And if you’re New Orleans, don’t you have to make that deal if it is offered in order to save your franchise from the elephant in the room (Chris Paul leaving via free agency next summer)?
Toddler Riley Scientist
It's ok
I think people underrate how good Harden was. For most of the year, he was the projected #2 pick, and workouts/hype more than anything pushed him down because he’s not (good)freakish in ways that Thabeet and Evans were thought to be at that time. Even now, I think he’ll be a better player than everyone in this draft except Griffin, and when the Wolves traded for the #5, my first thought was, “wow, they’re actually going to get Harden this late.” As for Westbrook, he’ll be 23 in November. The Thunder have multiple seasons to figure this out before making that move; they could trade him for anybody in this league, and I don’t know if Paul’s injury history is a gamble they should take.
The good news is hopeful doesn't mean dumb. The bad news is cynical doesn't mean smart. -- Sarah Silverman
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 1, 2011 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think they'd be the odds-on favorite
but they’d be a little bit better than they already are.
The reason I don’t think that Paul-Durant is necessarily a lock to win it all is because that is basically setting up a team around one player’s ability to set the other up for jumpshots. Unless the team is built around being excellent defensively (2008 Celtics) jumpshooting is usually not good enough to win the title, even if it can win 50-60 games and come close.
Westbrook isn’t a true point guard, but he’s relentless in attacking the rim. That’s a big part of OKC’s success. I think OKC would be smart to try to get Dwight Howard for Westbrook, but I’m not sure how much Paul helps them improve over where they are already (which is very good, and very young.) They could win the title next year (assuming there is a season) without making any trades.
I think they would be insane to trade Westbrook.
A 23 year old point on a team that made it to the conference finals. He might not have the playmaking chops at this point that are to be desired, but he helps his team win. Time and again when things weren’t going OKC’s way, he would just blow by people for an easy layup in transition or even when the D was set up. That is more rare at 23 then playmaking ability, and less likely to develop.
Good thought processes
And looking at it, the wolves are following some of your derived analysis:They aren’t overpaying for vets, they are (seemingly) building around the best talent they have (Love & Rubio). They got rid of a coach who was holding them back. We will have to see who they get to coach the team and see if he (or she) works out.
Waiting to see RR play with Love
Is that a call for Nancy Lieberman?
The good news is hopeful doesn't mean dumb. The bad news is cynical doesn't mean smart. -- Sarah Silverman
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 13, 2011 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions

by 














