You can't plan to get lucky

There are probably many more important things in my life I could be writing about, but something the Sports Guy wrote has been sticking in my craw all day. From his pity party column on ESPN bemoaning the Celtics' lack of lottery luck this year:

Ever since the summer of '86, for nearly 21 years and counting, the Celtics have been wildly, comically, irrationally unlucky. ... Maybe we didn't fully realize the ramifications of losing a potential franchise player (Tim Duncan) in '97, but we certainly realize them now. We're back to Square 1. We're sentenced to another decade of quick-fix plans, risky trades and dumb free agent signings.

That final sentence contradicts everything before it. Luck has nothing to do with systemic poor planning. And if you really understood the ramifications of losing Tim Duncan, you wouldn't be repeating the mistakes of the past.

Now, while I enjoy Simmons because he writes about the things fans actually care about*, this time, in his despair, he's taken the lazy journalist's deterministic approach to the draft lottery. I've seen so many damn articles recently look back on the Spurs' titles as foregone conclusions. Duncan = titles. Simple as that. Not only is this incorrect, it's downright foolish as a model for how to construct a better NBA team. It's a common mistake, I guess, to conclude that what eventually did happen was, from the start, pre-destined to happen. We all know this is not true in the dispassionate analysis, but sports is obviously a passionate subject.

Now, of course luck plays a role. The Celtics have had two truly, tragically unlucky things happen to them: the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. But Lewis died 14 years ago. And, analyzing it in the coldest terms, losing the productivity of one excellent player 14 years ago is no excuse for a franchise in shambles today.

Consider the Spurs. Consider Duncan the ideal building block for a title team. Now consider all of the things that seem lucky, but were not. It wasn't luck that the Spurs began scouting Europe sooner and better than anyone else, which led to picking Tony Parker at the end of the first round and Manu Ginobili in the second. It isn't luck that they actually manage salary cap space. It isn't luck that they have a system and philosophy for both winning games and putting together a team. It was luck that they got David Robinson. It was luck that they got Tim Duncan. It was also lucky that David Robinson was the kind of guy to convince Duncan to stay in San Antonio even as Orlando nearly lured him away years ago (whereas he might've jumped ship from a poorly run Boston team).

But as GM R.C. Buford recently told USA today, the key is to rely on luck as little as possible:

We know what we are looking for (hard-working, high-character, team-oriented, mentally tough, coachable and unselfish players), and the important component of it is knowing what works and what doesn't work — and that qualifies your risk.

It's that last phrase that gets right to it. There is luck involved in every decision, but when you have a plan and a system to implement that plan, you quickly reduce your risk of failure.

In this case, Boston planned to rely on luck, so they came into the offseason with a 60 percent chance of failure (as far as the fans are concerned), borne entirely by ping pong balls. It's not smart to against the house. Simmons, as a gambler, knows this.

Now, about those Spurs titles: There's a reason our role players -- a vastly undervalued component of championship NBA teams, just ask the Cavs -- always fit together with the stars like gears in a machine. It's because the Spurs know what they need from each of their parts, and then they go get the players who can fill those roles. And they get them cheap. That, in turn, makes those players easier to move if management miscalculates -- like with Nick Van Exel or Rasho Nesterovic. The system also makes it easier to overcome small strokes of bad luck. Can't get Luis Scola of his Euro-league contract? The Spurs just nab Fabricio Oberto and Francisco Elson for relative pennies.

In the end, this is why the team adapts so well even as the league becomes smaller and faster. It's also why they beat so many different types of teams. They have a system -- on offense and defense and substitution patterns and Popovich's guaranteed time-out at the 6-minute mark of the first quarter, etc. -- that works, and they stick to it. Just like Detroit does. And just like Utah is trying to do.

But, really, the most grating thing about these poor-me discussions is that they ignore every counterexample. For every Tim Duncan, there is a Kevin Garnett -- an ideal building block piled high with shit. For every Tim Duncan, there is also a Steve Nash -- unheralded out of college but hugely effective. There's just no saying how a player would have panned out in a different situation.

The Celtics and their fans, though, have convinced themselves they needed a savior, and only Oden or Durant would do. Just as they convinced themselves that Duncan would have brought several rings to Boston. But there's really no way to say. What we do know is that Boston is a franchise that squandered one entire draft despite having three first-round picks; that passed on Brandon Roy simply to dump a contract; that gave huge money to Antoine Walker and Vin Baker, among others; that did nothing to coherently build around Paul Pierce (not a bad building block, there); and that just extended the contract of a coach who is about as consistent as an Andris Biedrins free throw -- or, in other words, the opposite of Greg Popovich.

Yep, in spite of all that, it's just no good, rotten luck that their team sucks. Forget all the marquee players on the market this summer, all the chances to build anew -- this franchise is toast. Us Spurs fans just don't know how lucky we've got it.

*For instance, he was the only prominent writer who called out the officiating in last year's Miami-Dallas series for the abomination it was. While everyone eles wrote about the Mavs' "collapose" or the majest of D-Wade (at the line), Simmons was the only one not trumpeting the league line, not writing like he was protecting his access to the league.