Nature vs. Nurture

by trk on May 18, 2008 1:08 PM PDT

Last year the Blazers managed to win 41 games in the Western Conference despite having the 3rd youngest team in NBA history. This should be considered a very impressive achievement, so it is reasonable to think that the Blazers are an exceptionally talented team.

However, at the start of the season the Blazers roster didn’t look that impressive. Many “experts” were predicting that they would only be able to win about 20 games. How did the Blazers end up doing so much better than expected? Roy, Aldridge, Outlaw, and Webster all improved significantly, which isn’t really that surprising considering how young they are. Przybilla was also much better than last year, and somehow managed to stay healthy almost the entire season. But perhaps the most surprising thing was that the 3 new players we acquired over the summer (Jones, Blake, and Frye) all played significantly better than they played the previous year when they were on different teams.

So the question is, are these all very talented players that would have done well regardless of which team they played on? Or has Portland’s combination of chemistry, culture, and coaching helped them to improve more and be more effective than they would be on a different team?

Poll

Nature vs Nurture

Nature. The Blazers were sucsessful because they have talent.

4 votes

Nurture. Chemisty, culture, and coaching have helped the Blazers become better players.

28 votes

A little of both

57 votes

Neither, they just got lucky this year

1 votes

90 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The press underestimated our players

They knocked us for trading Zbo when we had Aldridge who is also pretty good and in need of playing time.

Roy was given room to make calls and run the team, something he couldn’t do when playing with the black hole.

Everyone else showed improvement because they’re young and getting better.

jones provided some veteran guidance.

Nate is actually a good coach.

Here's to being hated. Come on #1 pick!

by ratbastird on May 18, 2008 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Good points these

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on May 18, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions

It has to be a little of both.

There’s no way we thrive if the talent is terrible.
There’s no way we thrive if the culture is terrible.

We thrived, therefore both must have been there. My logic is infallible, unlike your silly human emotions.

All in all, the experts who expected a twenty win season were not well acquainted with the team. But the realistic expectation would have been in the low 30’s, knowing what we had talentwise. We knew our guys would be good, but they were, and are, still very young.

I credit Nate and the coaching staff for winning in the low forties instead of the low thirties. They really had our young guys playing like veterans, as is evidenced by our record in games which we were behind going into the third quarter – absolutely amazing for a veteran team, much less the youngest team in the NBA.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 18, 2008 1:35 PM PDT reply actions

I Credit Blazers Edge

I heard all the players came here the day after a game to see who had a “what the $#&$” diary written about them. They knew they would have to bring their A game the next game, because Nate said if they got three “what the $#&$” diaries written about them in a week, Nate would bench them.

PS. Did you know if you use the @ symbol in your cuss words twice, it messes up your post?

Hello, I am tominhawaii, think of me as the irritating tobacco ads of Blazer's Edge.

by tominhawaii on May 18, 2008 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Every armchair psychologist

knows that development is a mix of nature and nuture!—be it your child or your favorite basketball team. I really don’t have that much to add to Mr. Darkstar’s solid post above…I will opine, however, that I think our success this year was more tied to our culture than our talent. The whole really was greater than the sum of our parts this year: the polar opposite of our talented-but-psychotic teams of the late 90’s and early 00’s.

How does one say the 00’s? “In the double zeros”?

by BlazersOrBust on May 18, 2008 2:00 PM PDT reply actions

Oughts

by Diesel10 on May 18, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Go back to Europe!!!

lol…..and take your Zed with ya

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 18, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Both are needed

The common consensus would be that a team with lots of young players would suffer for lack of experience and that development for each individual would be hampered for lack of guidance. But lets say for the sake of discussion that Sergio were a member of the Spurs instead of the Blazers. With lots of veteran leadership around to act as mentors it is possible that Sergio would be further along in his development than he is currently in Portland. And the Spurs would improve as a team because of the growing contribution that Sergio would be able to make. But the improvement of the team from year to year would not be that dramatic since it is mostly made of players who have reached their potential.

The remarkable thing about the Blazers is that so many young players are making progress from month to month and year to year and the combined effect for the whole team is more dramatic even though the individual progress may be hampered by the lack of veteran leadership. While many other predominately young teams have spent years adrift the Blazers appear to be headed in a positive direction. That is a testament to the KP culture, the coaches and the character of the players themselves. I imagine it would not be a big surprise to Blazer fans if the team, even without Greg or Rudy, were to make another big jump in the standings again next season.

by bbfred on May 18, 2008 3:16 PM PDT reply actions

More nurture

Everyone who makes the NBA is talented, I mean who puts a player on their roster and says “geez, I wish he had more talent…but at least he has impeccable body language on the bench.”

But not everyone in the NBA has success, which is why I think it was coaching/chemistry/fuzzy warm feelings.

I doubt that Nate wanted jump shooting bigs, BUT thats what he had with LMA and Frye so he adjusted the offense to suit their strengths (while at least TRYING to coach them into being low-post presence). Its no coincidence that Frye struggled early as he was expected to play on the block, but once adjustments were made he had some moments where he really shined.

by Devenex on May 18, 2008 6:57 PM PDT reply actions