RE: Playoffs vs Lottery

[OzerskyJA <OzerskyJA@cmog.org>]

Excellent post, Tom!  Though it echoes my own of 
two days ago to an almost alarming degree.  I would
point out though, that we are almost guaranteed of getting
the tenth or eleventh pick via Denver, and so it's really a
question of having two shots at the lower end of the lottery
rather than no shot at all.  Personally, I think we should package
the picks and money and ? to move up to five or six, or failing 
that, do whatever possible to acquire one of those fast penetrating
point guards like Travis Best or Avery Johnson.

Josh Ozersky	
Marketing Communications Specialist 
Corning Museum of Glass

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Thomas Murphy [SMTP:tfmiii@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent:	Friday, March 30, 2001 2:04 PM
> To:	Celtic list
> Subject:	Playoffs vs Lottery
> 
> I have to say that I'm excited to see that the Celts will in all
> likelihood
> exceed my prediction this year - for the first time in a while - of 34
> wins.
> (Of course it could never have happened without the departure of that key
> individual mid-season). Some have questioned about whether we should be
> similarly excited about potentially making the playoffs at the 8 spot. The
> reasoning for this perspective is simple: making the playoffs would cost
> us
> a shot at the lottery and somewhere between 4-5 spots in the picking order
> even if we didn't win the lottery. Furthermore, the team would make the
> playoffs with a sub-.500 record and most likely be eliminated in three
> straight.
> 
> These are compelling arguments but I think there are even more compelling
> arguments for the value of making the playoffs even given all the reasons
> stated above.
> 
> Reason #1 for wanting to make the playoffs is very simple: Paul Pierce.
> You've been hearing about whether or not Vince Carter will re-sign in
> Toronto - well, I've got news, Pierce will have to make that decision
> about
> Boston too. There are a lot of places that have better weather and urban
> amenities so a key to keeping Pierce in Boston is providing him with some
> basketball incentives. Playing here for three years without making the
> playoffs is not the recipe for keeping a budding star on-board. The
> excitement of the playoffs and the progress that making the playoffs
> represents may well be a key factor in retaining Pierce's services.
> 
> Reason #2 to root for the playoffs: making the playoffs has benefits in
> terms of league recognition. In other words it not only helps off-set
> 'Vancouver-itis' ("I gotta get out of here because it's the equivalent of
> NBA-Siberia") but it also raises the value of your players in the
> estimation
> of the rest of the league. NBATalk has a feature called MVP watch that
> neatly illustrates this effect. They claim that Pierce cannot be a
> candidate
> for MVP because his team is lousy, otherwise they'd be force to consider
> players who put up great stats on other lousy teams such as Jamison or
> Abdur-Rahim. The overall point is that until you pass certain markers of
> team success your players' value will always be discounted in the NBA. So
> if
> you're looking forward to post-season improvement via trades making the
> playoffs adds luster to the players you have to offer because they are now
> part of a playoff quality outfit.
> 
> Reason #3: making the playoffs can also help focus players on what is
> important for *team* success. There is no guarantee of course, but tasting
> the playoffs might well be the difference between some very talented
> players
> who went on to achieve success and others who didn't. I know it is heresy
> now to suggest that Jordan was ever destined for anything but success, but
> is it really a coincidence that his highest scoring playoff game came in
> one
> of his first playoff appearances - at 8th seed no less. (This is not to
> discount other very important factors such as coaching and teammates). It
> is
> my belief that the Pistons were also brought together as a team in part
> through the experience of the playoffs. Again, this is not guaranteed, but
> if your players' have a burning desire to win, what better way to channel
> that desire than by the teasing torture of being invited to the dance only
> to be sent home early? It sure provides a better set of incentives than
> all-star appearances.
> 
> It may be objected that these arguments are invalid because the Cs are not
> a
> true playoff caliber team since they will have a record below .500 and are
> only in the running due to the inadequacies of the East in general and of
> Isiah Thomas in particular. These issues needs to be addressed. I think
> most
> people would concede that the Celts have played like a different team
> since
> the mid-season quitting of the previous coach. The record bears this out:
> they are 21-16 after beginning the year at 12-26. So while the team as a
> whole is below .500 the team that we've watched perform for the last 37
> games (and the team that may well make the playoffs) is above .500. This
> is
> more than simply semantics because most importantly the players behave as
> if
> THEY believe it were true: they've been presented a new lease on life and
> they are making the most of it, even to the point of overcoming the large
> hole the previous coach helped them dig. Overcoming such adversity
> highlights rather than detracts from the value of their accomplishments
> and
> therefore strengthens the points made above. Prior to mid-season people
> dismissed the Celts as lousy; now we know which part of the team was lousy
> (coaching) and which part was being retarded from attaining its full
> potential (players). If this lesson were further underscored by making the
> playoffs it would strengthen all three of the reasons marshaled above.
> 
> A second consideration to entertain when weighing the two sets of
> arguments is how much difference in the selection order 4-5 positions will
> make. Some have made the argument that truly great players do not need
> time to achieve success but can do it right out of college. This is true,
> but those truly 
> great players will not be available at either 10 or at 14 so such an
> argument is invalid if used to argue against making the playoffs. The case
> MAY be different if we were talking about 1, 2, or 3 versus 15, but we'd
> have to win the lottery for that to be relevant and we all know from
> bitter
> past experience not to allow team strategy to be held hostage by such
> vague
> contingencies. In any case, this look as if it will be a deep draft but
> not
> one with a consensus franchise player pick.
> 
> To sum up, if the choice is between the 10th or 11th pick and the 14th
> pick
> then in my mind the choice really boils down to the following: do you
> provide a foundation for re-signing Paul Pierce and building around him
> for
> the next 10+ years or do you hope that the player you pick at the 10 spot
> is
> so significantly better than those available at 14 that it will alter
> Pierce's estimation of potential future success in Boston despite having
> experienced years of failure? As I see it, even if Pierce maintains only
> 80%
> of the pace he's been on for the last two weeks then HE is the future of
> the
> Celtics and every effort should be made to ensure his re-signing. By
> making
> the playoffs we can make that re-signing more rather than less likely. At
> the same time such an experience would also maximize the confidence (and
> trade value) of Paul's teammates. Exposure to the playoffs is also more
> likely (far moreso than a jump from 14 to 10 in the draft) to focus Paul
> and
> his teammates on what is truly important in order to be a member of a
> successful TEAM.
> 
> Cheers - Tom Murphy
> 
>