Winning with Rookies - A League Study

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 1:34 PM PST Comment 36 comments

For many years I remember NBA coaches indicating in various ways that playing rookies meant losing and coaches just don't like to lose now so that the next coach will win. At the most 1 rookie might play (i.e. Tim Duncan) surrounded by savvy veterans. Otherwise a team blew up the roster and lost miserably. I began to wonder how the Trail Blazers are winning so many games with mega-rookie minutes and if anyone else is able to do that. I looked at the data through Friday, Feb 6, to compare:

Portland this year plays more rookie minutes than any other team except Memphis by a substantial margin. And, Portland is winning far more with substantial rookie minutes than any other team. Here are the top ten teams in rookie minutes as a percentage of team minutes and their records:

Memphis 36% rookie minutes 13-36 record
Portland 30% rookie minutes 30-19 record
Miami 23% rookie minutes 26-22 record
New Jersey 21% rookie minutes 23-27 record
Sacramento 19% rookie minutes 11-40 record
LA Clippers 19% rookie minutes 11-39 record
OKC 16% rookie minutes 12-38 record
Chicago 15% rookie minutes 22-38 record
Milwaukee 14% rookie minutes 24-28 record
Golden State 13% rookie minutes 16-35 record
Charlotte 12% rookie minutes 19-30 record
Indiana 11% rookie minutes 20-31 record
Minnesota 10% rookie minutes 17-31 record
All other teams are below 10% rookie minutes

So it seems that only Portland and Miami have winning records with high rookie minutes. Moderate use of rookies has been successful at Orlando (8%), San Antonio (9%), and Cleveland (6%). No other top-ten teams (by winning percentage) uses even 1% of minutes for rookies. It is small wonder that the league is becoming afraid of Portland. As this group matures and develops it promises to become the team that every team desires - combining youth, talent, culture and a winning mentality. Kevin Pritchard and Nate McMillan and staff have received early praise and, more recently, Coach Nate has heard stinging criticism for the use of players in the games. It looks to me as though we can have our cake and eat it too. We can win with rookies and early-career players and develop them with heavy playing time as well. A point to note: All five teams mentioned in this paragraph are anchored with superstars. Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, LeBron James and Brandon Roy all facilitate the use of rookies while still winning. Only San Antonio has an aging superstar in this group. I begin to think Portland, Miami, Cleveland and Orlando are the future class of the league (assuming they all keep their superstars and healthy as well). Obviously rookies are not the only young players on teams and there is nothing scientific in this study - only food for thought.

For me, personally, It gives me the feeling that I want to stand and applaud this terrific team and organization called the Portland Trail Blazers.

What are your thoughts? Do you see other areas to explore here or other conclusions to draw? Discuss freely....

17 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Additional Data

I played around with wins as a % of rookie minutes, arbitrarily assigning wins to veterans and rookies as a % of minutes played by each. This is crazy because minutes are not the determinative in wins but it does illustrate how much difference there is between Portland and other teams in successful rookie contributions

Portland 9 wins rookies and 21 wins veterans
Miami 6 wins rookies and 20 wins veterans
Memphis 5 wins rookies and 8 wins veterans
New Jersey 5 wins rookies and 18 wins veterans
Chicago 4 wins rookies 19 wins veterans
Charlotte 4 wins rookies 17 wins veterans
Milwaukee 3 wins rookies 21 wins veterans
No other team has more than 2 wins assigned to rookies.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 1:49 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Very interesting!

Although the ideal situation would probably be to bring them along more slowly or at least with more older vets (our veterans aren’t all that experienced)… it goes to show the quality of our players and coaches.

I wonder if any other team has ever done this well with similar rookie PT?

by QuebecBlzrFan on Feb 8, 2009 2:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe part of the thing is that rookies are all different

And ours are better than anyone else’s.

Also, with Portland, the word “veterans” should be used lightly.

".. is gumby an alien?"

by staylost on Feb 8, 2009 2:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed that only Joel and Steve really qualify as veterans but Travis is close and Roy and LaMarcus are playing like veterans,

For the purpose of this study veterans only means non-rookies.

I think we do have a terrific crop of rookies but the blending and teaching is a big part of it as well. We have all observed terrific rookies in the league over the years that score bunches but their teams never seem to be good enough throughout their careers, Coaching and culture deserve major props here in my mind.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, very original!

Funny how there are so many theories in the NBA (other pro sports too) like “you can’t win with rookies” or “you need a dominant center to win” or “you can’t win with Dantoni ball”… then sometimes, due to extenuating circumstances like the injuries to Webster and Blake forcing Nate to use the rookies more than he would normally have done, these theories get challenged and sometimes proven not so infallible.

Agree with your Kudos to the organization.

by QuebecBlzrFan on Feb 8, 2009 2:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think its important to note...

… that Oden and Rudy are not typical rookies. These are players who would be expected to make major contributions on any team. Also, in general, the teams that play rookies are those that had high draft picks— meaning they were bad the previous year. Portland is an exception to this— having been .500 last year and still adding top notch rookies.

Still an interesting post though.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Feb 8, 2009 2:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good points but no rookie is comfortable in the league

Mostly the adjustments are made much more quickly to stop a successful rookie and the speed and strength of the veterans require continual adjustments. Even at .500 last year we were very young then as well.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would disagree with oden not being a typical rookie

I would say even moreso oden is a rookie. A year of from the game means you basically have to relearn both the mental and muscle memory related side, the latter being something most rookies don’t have to deal with

by ppilot on Feb 8, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, while I love Brandon

He is not Dwyane Wade superstar level at all. Wade flatout carries the Heat (far more often than Brandon carries the Blazers).

by The Graduate on Feb 8, 2009 5:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

And how many times has Wade suffered big time injuries in the NBA?

Not to mention Wade gets some of the most absurd calls in the NBA.

But he is less of a team player, you’re correct, and more of an I’ll do it all by myself player.

".. is gumby an alien?"

by staylost on Feb 8, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what about his dimes?

check out flash’s APG.

he gets teammates in the mix.

by northwestj on Feb 9, 2009 1:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Um, did you see the Knicks game tonight?

by kickbrass on Feb 8, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Brandon does not need to be Wade to be a superstar

He is B-Roy and his team’s record is better than Wade’s. I love Wade. Best player in the Olympic games imo. But both are working well with rookies and keeping their teams in the hunt.

I don’t think I am a homer to see B-Roy’s greatness. He is getting better every month and could well end up (health permitting) as a HOF candidate.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Miami could play

your grandma, my grandma, and Mortimer’s dead grandma alongside a healthy Wade and they would still win some games. Their use of rookies is largely irrelevant.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Feb 8, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, another reason

The success we’ve had with the incredible amount of playing time for rookies is why I am and will continue to be an ardent Nate supporter. We have 31 wins. No western conference team with above 14% has even 14 wins (and Golden State with 13% has only 16). I realize that we are in a bit of a slump, but really you cannot ask for much more. Furthermore, rookies tend to excel more on offense than defense. Watching today’s game, I really don’t think our immediate pick and roll defense is all that bad. We just do not communicate that well in our rotations.

by The Graduate on Feb 8, 2009 5:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Great post.

I think we need to keep front and center some times how good this team is relative to the age and experience of it’s players.

by raoulduke on Feb 8, 2009 7:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

There are a lot of people on the hate-Nate bandwagon.

(or at least a very vocal few.) That we have a 31-19 record and are fighting for a playoff spot is not due to our rookies ability alone. The Coach has done a wonderful job of putting them in a position to succeed. That there haven’t been more failures and lapses in judgment (and losses!) is a testament to Nate’s ability. Could he do better? Could he teach some things better? Does he have flaws? Definitely. But if you’re going to complain about McMillan’s mistakes, you also need to give him credit where credit is due, and our rookies’ performances are where credit is indeed due.

Current Titles:

Official Blazer's Edge Poet Co-Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Official Blazer's Edge Ambassador to the Milwaukee Bucks
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grammar Magister
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grumpy Ol' Curmudgeon
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Jump-Pass Memorial Fanclub

by T Darkstar on Feb 8, 2009 8:41 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Well said

This is not the final exam – only about mid-term and doing well.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 8, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Give Nate some props. He’s done an amazing job.

by Nick Van Excellent on Feb 8, 2009 8:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is really just a subset

of the fact that the Blazers are the youngest team in the league, when you look at who is getting playing time. Rookies have little NBA experience and the least-developed skills, but sophomores and juniors are not a lot farther ahead, and we have four of those: LaMarcus, Brandon, Martell, and Sergio. And Travis and Channing only have one or two more years in the league than those guys. I think a comparison of win-loss records based on minutes played times years in the NBA would show that the Blazers’ success is even more amazing than your rookie-centric fanpost shows them to be.

by MiledAnimal on Feb 8, 2009 10:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bingo

I’m too lazy to run the numbers, but it certainly puts Nat into the COY discussion.

by Corvid on Feb 8, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Try again --Nate, not Nat.

by Corvid on Feb 8, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rookie overhype

Yes the NBA is different than Europe, but Rudy is not a true rookie. This is a guy who has experience as a leader against the best team in the world, something 99% of rookies cannot say.

1. Portland has 4 rookies to play and injuries. Batum only got the playing time he is because Martell went out. Bayless only started getting playing time when Roy went out. Oden is a number 1 pick, so obvioulsy he is seeing playing time, and I already mentioned Rudy.

2. Most teams don’t have 4 rookies, let alone a team in a position to be good. Only Portland drafted 2 guys 2 years ago who didn’t play until this year. It only makes sense that we play more rookies.

2b. Plenty of teams could win this much with 4 rookies. They just don’t have the opportunity to like we do. Put Batum/Bayless/Rudy/Oden with Mo Wiliams and Lebron James and let them play 30% of the minutes. Cleveland would have a way better record than Portland does. This works with a lot of other teams as well.

Portland is just in a unique situation that you rarely see in the NBA. A .500 level ballclub who gets 4 solid rookies the next year. Two of these were because a .350 level ballclub drafted them, one was because this was a deep draft, and the fourth was because KP is a genius. Add in injuries to key positions that our rookies play and there you have it.

by Zaig on Feb 9, 2009 1:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

You seem to raise a picky point to discredit an accomplishment of unusual magnitude

1. Is a player who played overseas not a rookie? How about players with college experience? Are they likewise not rookies? Tim Duncan and Brandon Roy come to mind as players who stayed in school 4 years and came much more polished to the NBA than a one and done player. Should Tim and Brandon give back their rookie of the year awards? What about Pau Gasol? If it were so easy why have so few foreign players accomplished it as rookies?

By NBA definition a rookie is a first year player in the NBA. That is the definition I used.

2. Your memory is likely better than mine but I cannot recall any other team winning 60% of their games with 3 or 4 rookies in the rotation using 30% of the minutes. Could you provide some examples?

3. There are actually 3 teams this year with 4 rookies – Portland, Memphis and Golden State. There are 5 others with 3 rookies – LAC, New Jersey, OKC, Sacramento and San Antonio. The point of the study is not the number of rookies but the % of minutes used by rookies and the records from that usage.

4. The conclusion I reached is that the management has done and outstanding job in acquiring new talent (which you seem to agree to) and the coaching staff has been exceptional in blending all that new talent into a winning team. The big deal is not about over hyping of rookies but about the blending together of this young talent successfully.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 9, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry - I did not intend this reply to sound combative

If one of our readers has access to Elias Sports Bureau I would be fascinated to know if Portland is historic in this year’s accomplishments.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 9, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't sound combatitive

You bring up good points and I agree that us winning with our rookies is impressive.

However, NO other team in NBA history has been given this kind of opportunity. A .500 ballclub adding the draft picks I mentioned above is just unheard of.

1. We had an injury to a first pick so instead of adding a first pick to our crappy team, we added him to our .500 team.
2. We had a 27 pick that is by all rights a top 10 pick. Luckily for us KP was patient.
3. KP stole Bayless and Batum, adding another top 10 draft pick and another sleeper to our squad.

Add that too…

1. The growth of Roy/Blake/Przy
2. The fact that we were decent last year

And that is why we can win with 4 rookies. When you look at it this way, it isn’t too shocking, even if it’s never happened.

by Zaig on Feb 9, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your points are valid as well

Part of my intrigue here is the unusual nature of this team in a historical perspective. No matter what the factors are in achieving the record, kudos are still deserved to all.

I do not think the Nate haters are seeing this perspective. This is still a year to grow and learn to win and learn how not to lose. Sometimes it takes losing to get there.

Thanks for the feedback.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 9, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's an accomplishment, but not as big as some make it out to be.

1. Like I said. Rudy is unique in that he got to play against the best in the world right before coming to the NBA. Even other international players typically don’t do that. Also, I think an argument you should have used is the age of our rookies sans Rudy. Oden/Bayless each only had 1 year of college and Batum was 19, the equivelant of one year in college.

I am not disagreeing with your definition, just explaining why we are able to do this.

2. You missed the point. Of course no other team has done this well with four rookies. But no other team has ever gone .500 the year before and then added a number 1 pick to their team. The only other number 1 pick to not play his entire rookie year was David Robinson and trust me, the Spurs did not go .500 that year.
My point was that with these 4 rookies taking up 30% of the team, there are a LOT of teams that would be doing as well/better than us.

3. Unfortunately Memphis is terrible so adding rookies won’t help. Warriors also butchered their decent team from last year. I guess I will use the Spurs as my example.
Let’s say that Manu/Parker/Duncan stay healthy, but the Spurs have a lot of other injuries so their rookies are forced to play 30% of their minutes. Do you think this team wins less than 50 games? Not a chance. I guess my point is just that we’re the only good team that’s ever been in a position to play this many rookies this many minutes.

4. Management owns. Our 4 rookies were drafted 1,9,27 (LOL Rudy at 27) and… I forget Batum. Adding those high of draft picks to a .500 ballclub + the natural growth of our players (Roy/Przy/Blake) is why we are winning so much.

by Zaig on Feb 9, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points maybe it isn't as special as it seems but its still very impressive

Have to have four good picks (even if it is in 2 successive years), Management still needs balls to have 4 rooks on the roster with the added hopes that come along with having a .500 club and coaches and players have to be commended for improving although injuries force several players to take on bigger roles than they would normal be expected to take on.

A very unique set of circumstances but well done.

by QuebecBlzrFan on Feb 9, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

An insane combination of circumstances that not only allows a .500 team to get 3 top 10 caliber picks and a sleeper pick, AND the injuries that would give playing time to the 2 guys who normally wouldn’t get it both happened to occur.

by Zaig on Feb 9, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This begs the question...

what should we expect from our rookies?

(which naturally begs the question: what should we expect from the other guys?)

One of the most intriguing things, to me, about the Blazers is just how hard they are to evaluate. We can talk about “potential” and “ceilings” but not every player reaches their full potential or hits their projected ceiling, and that doesn’t mean they’re a failure or a big disappointment.

It takes about 5-6 years in the NBA to really know what you ought to be able to expect from a guy. And our guys that have played that long, I know what to expect (Pryz: warrior mentality, solid defense & rebounding, no offense. Outlaw: flashy plays, sometimes great offense, sometimes terrible shots, occasional rebounding, not much defense. Blake: 3 point shot, solid ball distribution, about average perimeter defense.)

But then there are all the other guys. It’s crazy that there are really 9 guys on this team who are not known commodities.

—Brandon scored 50, once. Can he score 40 ten times? Next year? Maybe. I don’t know.
—Sometimes LMA shows up on defense and in the post, sometimes he settles for long fadeaways. Will he become a solid post and defensive presence? Next year? Maybe. Or will he forever be known as the soft Amar’e? I don’t know.

—Oden strings 3 solid games together, then disappears for 3. Will he overcome his foul trouble and confidence issues to average a double double? Can he average 3 blocks a game next year? Maybe. But he could also be the next Kwame Brown. I don’t know.

—Sergio just hit 4 big 3s. He’s never done that before. Can he become reliable from behind the arc? Next year? Maybe. Or maybe it was just a one game fluke. I don’t know.

—Batum can hit the 3 pretty well, but he’s also shown some promise lately slashing to the hoop. Can he polish that part of his game and become a reliable 10-15 point guy? Next year? (Year after?) Maybe. Or maybe he stays timid on offense and never amounts to more than a 7th or 8th man. I don’t know.

—Bayless hits long shots in practice, but in games, mostly just drives to the hoop. Will his shot come in games? Maybe. Or maybe his height disadvantage and ~~shoot~~drive-first mentality gets the best of him, and he never really amounts to much. I don’t know.

—Rudy clearly knows he needs to be able to do more off the dribble, and has been working on that part of his game. Will he ever be a real off the dribble threat, or will he always just be the guy who hits at least one 3 pointer every game? I don’t know.

by LicketyBrindle on Feb 9, 2009 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent points all

Your perspective seems to bring further light onto the job Coach Nate does each game to adjust for each of those variables (even changing within games).

Bayless might need more time to get acclimated before his long-range shot dials in. I don’t think his height is his issue. More likely just the knowledge he won’t be jerked at the first missed shot. Perhaps it is also that Coach wants him to attack the rim every time. Chris Paul shot 28% from 3 his rookie year and now has settled into a steady 36-37% guy with a steady 3FGA rate. Nate Robinson, by contrast has declined in his 3-point accuracy each year but has increased his attempts.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 9, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

btw -

this is the kind of post that makes fans of other teams think we Blazers fans are all smug and self-congratulatory, or whatever.

just saying.

by LicketyBrindle on Feb 9, 2009 4:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Don't know where that is coming from but it is the type of analysis rarely found outside of BE

I want to write for those who want to read and think and not to impress fans from other teams.

whoo, Katy bar the door! - Maurice Lucas anticipating Greg Oden's development

by lee3022 on Feb 9, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

as you should.

i’m just often surprised by how we’re perceived by other fans. it’s just made me think about how things look to someone from outside, which is maybe a waste of effort. Really, I didn’t mean to demean your analysis which was interesting and thought provoking. apologies.

by LicketyBrindle on Feb 9, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs