2011 NBA Playoffs

[dfwabel]

I hate how the ping pong balls are picked behind closed doors. They should do it in front of the audience. For a league trying to gain its fans trust in terms of things not being rigged, they sure miss their free throws, so to speak.

I am not sure if that would make a difference. If a team failed to win when they had the greatest chance, we would hear about the ping-pong balls being tampered with (weighted down with water or some other liquid).

[NJTank]

I hate how the ping pong balls are picked behind closed doors. They should do it in front of the audience. For a league trying to gain its fans trust in terms of things not being rigged, they sure miss their free throws, so to speak.

I agree

[Lights Out]

Yes you can. The old adage is, "young teams don't win in the NBA," and there's definitely truth to that. Young talent can help you win, but it's the veterans with experience that put teams over the top. The Clippers have the young talent in spades, but there's a dearth of good veterans. Another high draft pick - in a weak draft, might I add - would only make that problem worse.

The Thunder disagree.

But the Spurs, Celtics, and Lakers would agree with me, and they've been the ones winning titles lately.

[TFoA]

Yes you can. The old adage is, "young teams don't win in the NBA," and there's definitely truth to that. Young talent can help you win, but it's the veterans with experience that put teams over the top. The Clippers have the young talent in spades, but there's a dearth of good veterans. Another high draft pick - in a weak draft, might I add - would only make that problem worse.

The Thunder disagree.

But the Spurs, Celtics, and Lakers would agree with me, and they've been the ones winning titles lately.

And those teams are on the decline while the Thunder are on the ascent.

[UnclearInitial]

Well, it appears the Clips are cursed after all, trading a No.1 overall for Jamario Moon.

But what about the Nets, trading 2 consecutive #3 overall+ Devin Harris for 1 and 1/2 years of Deron Williams?

[Lights Out]

And those teams are on the decline while the Thunder are on the ascent.

They're on the decline now, but when their veterans were at their peak, they were winning titles.

Who knows, maybe the Thunder will buck the trend soon. But for now, the conventional wisdom of veterans being crucial to a championship appears to be sound.

[loogodude90]

Yes you can. The old adage is, "young teams don't win in the NBA," and there's definitely truth to that. Young talent can help you win, but it's the veterans with experience that put teams over the top. The Clippers have the young talent in spades, but there's a dearth of good veterans. Another high draft pick - in a weak draft, might I add - would only make that problem worse.

The Thunder disagree.

But the Spurs, Celtics, and Lakers would agree with me, and they've been the ones winning titles lately.

And those teams are on the decline while the Thunder are on the ascent.

I'm with LightsOut on this one though... when it comes down to it, experience wins in the NBA. This isn't the NCAA tournament where teams can "luck" their way to the championship game. You need to beat a single team 4 times before you can move on to the next round... and history has shown that generally speaking, the experienced teams are tougher mentally, which translates onto the floor.

You're right about the Thunder being on the ascent - but until they are holding that championship trophy while fielding a young team, it's meaningless to this argument.

This year's playoffs are special because I feel that we are on a "cusp" between eras. I feel that the Lakers, Spurs, and Celtics may be in for (at least temporary) slump years. That's because these teams (especially the Celtics) have crossed the point from experienced, to just old.

When is the last time you saw a very young team win the championship in the NBA? I'm honestly looking at the NBA year-by-year champions and I can't see a young team that made it all the way. It had to have been before the '90s, I don't know much about the championship teams before the 90's. But every champion over the past 20 years at least has been a veteran team. Feel free to correct me, I may be forgetting some exceptions.

[TFoA]

Yes you can. The old adage is, "young teams don't win in the NBA," and there's definitely truth to that. Young talent can help you win, but it's the veterans with experience that put teams over the top. The Clippers have the young talent in spades, but there's a dearth of good veterans. Another high draft pick - in a weak draft, might I add - would only make that problem worse.

The Thunder disagree.

But the Spurs, Celtics, and Lakers would agree with me, and they've been the ones winning titles lately.

And those teams are on the decline while the Thunder are on the ascent.

I'm with LightsOut on this one though... when it comes down to it, experience wins in the NBA. This isn't the NCAA tournament where teams can "luck" their way to the championship game. You need to beat a single team 4 times before you can move on to the next round... and history has shown that generally speaking, the experienced teams are tougher mentally, which translates onto the floor.

You're right about the Thunder being on the ascent - but until they are holding that championship trophy while fielding a young team, it's meaningless to this argument.

The point is that all of that young talent will eventually grow into seasoned vets (assuming their team keeps them together) & be able to contend for titles.

I'm not saying that you can just take lotto picks & turn a team into a contender in 2 years based around kids who just got drafted. I'm saying that if you have an opportunity to stack up on lottery-level talent so that that talent can eventually evolve into monsters (like OKC has done) to the point where they're able to either trade some of those pieces for compliments OR be able to attract marquee FAs (which the Clippers haven't been able to do in EVER), you should do it. You can never have enough young talent, because who knows what could happen when all of the talent blossoms sooner or later. You guys are right that veteran talent succeeds, but you've got to get yourself in a situation to actually HAVE veteran talent, whether it's growing it yourself through the draft or cultivating your team to the point where you can attract talent via free agency or trade.

[Lights Out]

Except the Clippers have stockpiled young talent already. Griffin, Gordon, Jordan, Bledsoe, and Aminu are all young and recently drafted. The Clippers at the stage now where they need to get veterans who can dispense their experience and help the team win. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

When is the last time you saw a very young team win the championship in the NBA? I'm honestly looking at the NBA year-by-year champions and I can't see a young team that made it all the way. It had to have been before the '90s, I don't know much about the championship teams before the 90's. But every champion over the past 20 years at least has been a veteran team. Feel free to correct me, I may be forgetting some exceptions.

What's your definition of "very young?" Not sure the average age, but the 2006 Heat won on the back of three-year vet Dwayne Wade. Shaq was there, of course, but he looked to me more like a guy to take fouls and spook Dirk Nowitzki (who was sufficiently spooked) than the Shaq of 2001 to 2003. Udonis Haslem played good minutes on that team, and he was also good.

The general point is good though, however, that experience wins in the NBA. Another truism is that the Clippers always blow it, so I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

EDIT:

Just did some research and on the first point, I was way off:

Interesting, huh?

[TFoA]

Except the Clippers have stockpiled young talent already. Griffin, Gordon, Jordan, Bledsoe, and Aminu are all young and recently drafted. The Clippers at the stage now where they need to get veterans who can dispense their experience and help the team win. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Might be a moot point anyways since it's probably gonna be a weak draft.

[loogodude90]

When is the last time you saw a very young team win the championship in the NBA? I'm honestly looking at the NBA year-by-year champions and I can't see a young team that made it all the way. It had to have been before the '90s, I don't know much about the championship teams before the 90's. But every champion over the past 20 years at least has been a veteran team. Feel free to correct me, I may be forgetting some exceptions.

Interesting, huh?

Yes, especially the Blazers outlier in the '70's. I just now read the Wiki about that Finals. Wow, that was quite a season and series, one that I hadn't known much about.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Also worth noting is the NBA's history of dynasties, excepting an about 10-year-gap between Celtics/Lakers runs -- and the Celtics and Lakers won championships during that gap!

Something may be off though -- I don't see Washington or Seattle on that graphic. Weird.

[Drakonius26]

Except the Clippers have stockpiled young talent already. Griffin, Gordon, Jordan, Bledsoe, and Aminu are all young and recently drafted. The Clippers at the stage now where they need to get veterans who can dispense their experience and help the team win. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Yeah, most of us understand where you're coming from and I agree with you on veteran talent and how you need the proper seasoning (consistent winning season, playoff runs) to build a core that will turn the Clippers into a force for years, and while it's way too soon to see if the Clippers, for lack of a better term, pissed down their leg giving their pick up to the Cavaliers. Having too much talent is never a bad thing, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is Donald Sterling and his lack of being able to keep the good players who develop with the Clippers under contract. If I was a fan of them I would be more worried about the young players they have now not sticking around for the long-term and then suddenly, without young talent matriculating in to keep the Clippers as an average team at best, the wheels come off. That's all.

[lordsketor]

So much for the rust from Dallas tonight....

[dfwabel]

Dirk is a much better version than the player from 06 or 07 when he was MVP. Offensively, he is nearly unstoppable, one just hopes that he misses or a foul is not called.

[truepg]

Frankly, the best course of action for the Clippers is to get a proven, NBA-quality small forward (as in, not Ryan Gomes) and maybe try to swing a trade for CP3 or Dwight if the Hornets or Magic are looking to deal (although that would be a HUGE pipe dream).

Well, at least the No. 1 pick would have made it so much easier.

[Saintsfan]

When is the last time you saw a very young team win the championship in the NBA? I'm honestly looking at the NBA year-by-year champions and I can't see a young team that made it all the way. It had to have been before the '90s, I don't know much about the championship teams before the 90's. But every champion over the past 20 years at least has been a veteran team. Feel free to correct me, I may be forgetting some exceptions.

What's your definition of "very young?" Not sure the average age, but the 2006 Heat won on the back of three-year vet Dwayne Wade. Shaq was there, of course, but he looked to me more like a guy to take fouls and spook Dirk Nowitzki (who was sufficiently spooked) than the Shaq of 2001 to 2003. Udonis Haslem played good minutes on that team, and he was also good.

The general point is good though, however, that experience wins in the NBA. Another truism is that the Clippers always blow it, so I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

EDIT:

Just did some research and on the first point, I was way off:

Interesting, huh?

Very! To me it's more evidence that basketball is a players game, and that you win by recruiting the best players you can. It doesn't matter how old the team is, it's how good the team is. The Bulls seem a good example of this at the moment. Not a hugely experienced bunch but the right mix for each other.

Maybe Lights Out is correct in that the Clippers need something they couldn't get from a reportedly average draft class, and personally I think the Clips are farther away than 1 player, but at the same time, given the lottery results, did the trade with the Cavs make them better? That's questionable.

[Lights Out]

Frankly, the best course of action for the Clippers is to get a proven, NBA-quality small forward (as in, not Ryan Gomes) and maybe try to swing a trade for CP3 or Dwight if the Hornets or Magic are looking to deal (although that would be a HUGE pipe dream).

Well, at least the No. 1 pick would have made it so much easier.

The Clippers have Minnesota's first-round pick in 2012. Considering how bad the T-Wolves suck, that's likely to be a top-3 pick. That's a good trade asset IMO.

[Epiphanic]

That graph is missing the overall trend line of all championship teams. Eyeballing it, it looks like an average age of 27-28 is the sweet spot and has been since the beginning of the graph. If you assume that most professional athletes reach their peak at about 27 years of age and start declining at around 30, that graph makes a lot of sense. Look at the graph above 29. Not that many championship teams. And the ones that are there (60s Celtics, 90s Bulls, 00s Spurs) are part of dynasties. The "one and done" champions look to be younger teams (younger than 29, closer to 27 and younger).

So what does that say about age and championships? I think it suggests that young teams have an advantage over old teams all else being equal. When "old teams" win championships it's more a function of them being part of a dynasty where the core of that team is just better than everyone else.