An In-Depth Study: Don Nelson Doesn't Play Rookies....
An In-Depth Study: Don Nelson Doesn't Play Rookies.....
Rookies!?!
The Warriors have undergone a tremendous amount of transformation the past couple of years. We went from an up and coming playoff team only to return back to the familiar lottery faster than Monta Ellis can go on a moped. Gone is the golden buzz-cut of Mully, whom Nellie helped fight alcoholism as a player. In his place is the salt and pepper doo of Larry Riley, Nellie's drinking buddy. The face of the franchise is no longer the bearded smile of Baron Davis and the scowling face of Cap'n Jack but the baby faced trio of Monta Ellis, Anthony Randolph, and Stephen Curry.
That youth and potential has played a large part in turning the fans against the one man who remains at the center of all the success and madness..... Don Nelson. Nellie was a godsend from Maui when he led the Warriors to the playoffs, but due to a losing record and questionable rotations most Warrior fans are praying that Nellie takes the 5 hour trip to Maui on a one-way ticket.
Last season, many Warrior fans questioned why Wright, Randolph, Belinelli, and Morrow sat on the bench while Jackson, Maggette, and Crawford led the Warriors into the lottery. Detractors proposed that if you are going to lose you might as well lose with young players. This mentality only became stronger once Randolph and Morrow flourished with extended minutes late in the season. Detractors repeat that Nelson's distaste for young players stunted their growth because he was reluctant to give them game time. As the losses mounted and the 1st and 2nd year players continued to ride the pine, Warrior fans began to wish for the firing of Don Nelson. Suddenly, the man who led the team to the playoffs for the first time in 12 years was now the last coach many fans would want guiding the youngest team in the NBA.
Could that statement be true of the coach with the 2nd most wins in the NBA, a 3-time Coach of the Year, who only has 9 losing seasons in 30 years of coaching, and has turned around the Bucks, Mavericks, and Warriors (twice)?
I am a firm believer in looking at the past to learn about the future and to answer that question I went back and looked at EVERY 1st year player Don Nelson has coached dating back to 1976 with the Milwaukee Bucks. That's roughly 80 players over 3 decades! I collected and analyzed the players' minutes per game, games started, and games played for their 1st and 2nd seasons along with career achievements such as All*Star appearances, number of NBA seasons, and career minutes per game. Given the data set the results were strongly conclusive: DON NELSON DOESN'T PLAY ROOKIES.......... ONLY IF THEY SUCK!
***WARNING: THIS IS A LONG READ***
STUDY
For this study I used basketball-reference.com as a source for all the data. In an effort to show trends in Nelson's usage of young players I collected the 1st and 2nd year minutes per game, games started, and games played of rookies who broke into the NBA under Nelson. This means 2nd year players who played for a different coach their rookie seasons, but joined Nelson in their 2nd season were omitted. I then collected career milestones (All*Star appearances, career, mpg, and NBA seasons played) to use as a comparison and to define the quality of career the players went on to have. After I broke down the data amongst color-coded tiers and averaged out the 1st and 2nd year mpg, games started and games played to see if any trends emerge. This data is shown in the link to the table posted in the next section.
In calculating the averages I omitted the rookies of the 1994 season where Nelson left the team mid-way into the season as it impossible to determine who controlled the players minutes. Also, the Year 2 averages are calculated using only players who played for Nelson in their second seasons so some players such as Chris Webber, John Starks, and Devin Harris 2nd year numbers are not calculated.
NELSON AND PAST ROOKIES
How did I screw this up?
The spreadsheet can be intimidating to look at but the player lists should be clearly labeled and the color coding can be explained by the table on the right. The table on the right compiles all of the averages of Year 1 (blue), Year 1 without players who would only spend their rookie season in the NBA (green), and Year 2 (purple). It is then followed by the career barometers. This table is what the following section will discuss.
The data shows the average Don Nelson rookie is nearly 23 years old and will play 14 minutes per game, start 11 games, and play in 40 games during their rookie season. For those fortunate enough to play their 2nd season under Nelson the average 2nd year player will play 21 mpg, start 26 games, and play in 62 games. For comparison during the 08/09 season the 64 rookies league wide averaged 12 mpg in 38 games, while the 2nd year players averaged 15 mpg in 40 games. I admit the league wide comparison for one season is a small sample set to compare to but it does show that Don Nelson generally uses rookies and 2nd year players at a same rate if not more so than the league average.
ETA: This is data comparing Nellie's past 30 years vs the past 4 years of MPG and 5 yrs of GP as tracked by NBA.com for those seeking a longer control. Pretty much the same results showing that Nellie is league average in use of rookies in regard to his peers. If someone wants to do a 30 year comparison be my guest.
Rookies:
- Nelson: 40.27 GP/ 14.11 mpg
- League: 42.85 GP/ 13.84 mpgSophomores
-Nelson: 62.75 GP/ 21.11 mpg
-League: 50.67 GP/ 16.99 mpg
When we look at the numbers divided by draft position: Lottery picks, Non-lottery 1st rounders, 2nd rounders or later, and undrafted FA (UDFA) we clearly see that the more "talented" players drafted in the lottery averaged more minutes than the other groups during the rookie seasons and that UDFA average 1 more minute per game than 2nd round or later players. This should be no surprise as lottery picks are considered to be more talented and franchises often play lottery picks more minutes to test out their new toys regardless of performance. However, once a player made it into the 2nd season, Nelson did not hand out playing time based on draft position. The Lottery picks, 1st rounders, and UDFA averaged around 20 mpg and in fact UDFA earned more minutes than 2nd rounders who averaged only 15 mpg in their 2nd seasons. We also see that games played and started are distributed along a downward trend from Lottery picks to UDFA with the exception of 2nd year non-lottery 1st rounders appearing in more games than lottery picks (injuries) and that UDFA had more starts than 2nd rounders or later.
One of the other criticisms of Nelson is that he hates playing young big men and we can see from the data that Nelson did play guards more than forwards and centers. However, this could be correlated to the players' actual talent level as the guards had higher career minutes per game compared to the forwards and centers. It is interesting to note that while the centers averaged less career mpg than the guards or forwards, their careers lasted longer. It just goes to show that you can stick around the NBA for a while just by being tall.
The next 3 levels are where we can see if Nelson truly has a bias against playing rookies and 2nd year players or if use of the rookies reflected their ability to contribute to the team. If Nelson truly has a bias against rookies we should see limited playing time in their 1st and 2nd seasons across the board no matter how the players are sorted.
When looking at the players by dividing up those who ended up appearing in multiple All*Star games, a lone All*Star appearance, and those who were never All*Stars we see that Nelson DOES NOT hate playing rookies. Actually, he has no problem making rookies starters if they had the ability to contribute to the team. Those who ended up playing in multiple All*Star games were instant contributors and starters in their 1st year with averages of 28 mpg, 65 games started, and 72 games played. In the 2nd year Nelson rode these players hard as they averaged 34 mpg and 80 starts in 80 games played. Those who appeared in one All*Star game had to earn Nellie's trust their rookie season in 15 minutes a game, but after one year they became rotation players by averaging about 24 minutes per game, starting 54, and playing in 76. These numbers clearly show that Nelson will play those with the ability to impact the game whether they are a rookie or 2nd year pro.
If you look at a player's career quality based on NBA seasons played we see similar distribution of numbers. Those who ended up having 10 plus seasons in the NBA played more minutes and started and played in more games during their first 2 years compared to those who ended up playing 5-9 years, 2-4 years, and those who were out of the league after their rookie seasons. Those in the 10 year vet tier were almost immediate NBA rotation players with 21 mpg/30gs/64gp Year 1 and a 26 mpg/42gs/74gp in Year 2. Using the third barometer of career quality, career minutes per game, we see that those in the upper tier, 29 mpg or more, were instant starters in their 1st and 2nd years 27mpg/61gs/72gp in Year 1 and 33mpg/72gs/75gp in Year 2.
It is clear that Don Nelson does not play rookies and 2nd year players based on an irrational hatred for them but frankly, because most NBA rookies and 2nd year players are not good enough to help the ballclub. This is evidenced by the fact that no matter what measurement of career quality you choose to use (All*Star appearances, NBA seasons played, and career minutes) the top tier always played more minutes and started more games their 1st and 2nd year compared to those below them.
Another revelation from studying Nelson's history of rookies is how adept a talent evaluator Nelson is. Except for a select few, by a player's second season Nelson was able to determine exactly how useful a player would be to a NBA team. This was shown by the fact that the players' minutes per game tiers matched their career minutes per game tier by their 2nd season. You can verify this by looking at the player list and comparing the colors.
Of all the 70 or so rookies who have retired or played long enough for us to get a firm grasp on their careers Nelson has only over or underplayed (based on mpg tiering) 10 players during their first two seasons in comparison to their career minutes per game tier. They are:
Player - (1st year MPG/2nd year MPG/Career) *- other coach
Underplayed (Players in whose MPG in 1st or 2nd season < tier than career average)
- Alex English - 10.8/18.9/31.9
- Scott Skiles (only rookie year under Nellie) - 15.8/14.9*/28
- John Starks (only rookie year under Nellie) - 8.8/19.2*/27.2
- Larry Robinson - 7.1/6/13.5
- Chris Gatling - 11.3/17.8/19.7
- Devin Harris (only rookie year under Nelson) - 15.4/22.8*/24.4
- Mbenga (only rookie year under Nelson) - 3.9/5.5*/6.1
- Pavel Poedkolzin (only rookie year under Nelson) - 2/18*/4.7
Overplayed (Players in whose MPG in 1st or 2nd season > tier than career average)
- Ernie Grunfeld - 17.3/21.7/18.6
- Andre Spencer - 23.9/12.6/16.1
Upon further inspection of that list you can see that see that even Nelson's "misses" can be cut down. In the underplayed category Harris, Mbenga, and Pavel only had their rookie seasons under Nelson since he stepped away from the sideline. Scott Skiles and John Starks left after one season under Nellie so he was not afforded a second season to see their improvements (you can also argue that Nelson let these talented player get away). Skiles mpg under a different coach in his 2nd year was similar to his rookie season under Nellie, but Starks did settle into his career tier mpg. Larry Robinson was able to improve from the 12th man to garbage time player so I don't really count that as a "miss" and Chris Gatling's 2nd season mpg was actually pretty close to his career average. Looking at the two players Nelson overplayed shows that Grunfeld's career mpg was pretty close to his 1st and 2nd year mpg and that Andre Spencer was overplayed in his rookie season but he fell into his career tier in his second and final season in the NBA.
This leaves out of the 70 or so rookies to play under Nelson only one true "miss" and what a miss it was..... Hall of Famer, Alex English. During his rookie season English was nothing more than a garbage time player. In his second season he was able to work himself into the rotation, but then he bolted to Indiana for his 3rd year until he was traded Denver where he went on to average 25 + ppg until he was 35. So did Nelson hold English back or did something click in English after he left Nelson in Milwaukee? We can't determine that from numbers but in Nelson's defense he has far more hits than this lone strike out.
From the data we see that Nelson does not have a bias when it comes to players and that production is all that matters. If you have talent to help the team win he'll play you whether you are a lottery pick, 1st rounder, 2nd rounder, or UDFA. He also has no problems making a rookie an instant starter as evidenced by Marques Johnson, Mitch Richmond, Tim Hardaway, Billy Owens, Latrell Sprewell, and Chris Webber. Nelson also is a master talent evaluator and can figure out a player's potential by the time they are in their second season in the league. Nelson's value of production regardless of draft position or experience and ability to evaluate NBA talent seems to make Nelson the PERFECT coach for a young team.
NELSON AND THE CURRENT WARRIORS
Nelson's chance to make up for C-Webb.
So what good is all of this info to us Warrior fans? Now that we established that Nelson does not have an irrational hatred/bias for young players we can look at the young players on our roster and put them and their potential in the proper perspective.
We'll start with the lone survivor of the 2006 rookie class, UDFA Kelenna Azubuike. A great indicator of Bukie's potential as an NBA player is that he improved his minutes per game from his rookie year in his second year in regards to tiers. He jumped into the orange tier (19-28.99 mpg) so he likely solidified himself as legit NBA rotation player who will spend 5-9 years in the league. His lack of starts in his 2nd season probably means he'll never sniff an All*Star game but for an UDFA you'd be thrilled just to get a NBA rotation player/spot starter, asking for an All*Star is just getting greedy.
From the 2007 rookie class we have Brandan Wright, CJ Watson, and even though he was recently traded Marco Belinelli.
As a rookie Brandan Wright played significantly less then the rookie averages of past Nelson lottery picks and forwards. He actually averaged minutes usually afforded to 2nd rounders or UDFA which is not a good sign. In his second season he improved enough to play 17.6 minutes per game but then was hampered by injuries. Despite the injuries, the lack of minutes that Wright did play in the games he was healthy for should be a red flag, especially on a team in need of a power forward. Just based on the numbers of Nelson's past rookies, Wright maybe out of the league after his rookie contract runs out. However, Wright is too skilled at scoring inside for that to actually happen but those expecting an All*Star or a potential starter should temper your expectations for Wright as it looks like he will be a career back up/spot starter. People like to point to Wright's youth, but do you know who were the last two PFs drafted in the lottery that Nelson had on his team for a full season? Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Webber. Both entered the league as 20 year old rookies like Wright, but Webber was an instant starter and Dirk made the leap in his 2nd year. What did Wright manage to do? Nothing. So age should not be used as an excuse for Wright. Who knows, Wright could be Alex English 2.0 but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Who knew the best player from this crop would be an UDFA? Watson parlayed a 10 day contract into spot on the team for his 2nd season where he, like Bukie, jumped into the orange tier. He should stick around the league as a back-up PG. The question is will he be in the Bay for a while or will he be re-uniting with Pietrus and Barnes in Orlando?
While Belinelli is no longer on the team, I'd like to go over his numbers since he was recently traded and due to his summer league performances and Nelson's comments, he gave some Warrior fans misguided hope of greater things to come. Marco had a dramatic improvement in minutes jumping into orange tier and like Bukie and Watson before him Marco looks to be a solid NBA rotation player but he's a long shot to be an All*Star given the lack of starts in his second year. Marco will likely be a rotation player, but he has upside to be an S-Jax like starter. As you can see the Warriors have enough "starters/NBA rotation players" at the wing spots so trading the one you would use the least for a practice body and cash is not a big deal especially considering the potential distractions a la Pietrus in 07-08. Nelson gave Marco a look and saw he didn't have "it."
This brings us to Anthony Randolph and Anthony Morrow aka the only reason I watched the 08-09 Warriors. While we can't plan their exact career arc right now since they're heading into their 2nd season the one thing we'll be able to do after this season is get a firm grasp of their true potential as NBA players as the 2nd year is pretty much the make or break year for Nelson rookies.
As an UDFA Anthony Morrow received playing time Nelson usually grants to 1st round draft picks. This is a testament to the ability of Morrow and Nelson's indifference to draft slot. Aside from Andre Spencer and Renaldo Major every player who played rotation minutes in their rookie year (8) went on to stay in the same tier in their 2nd season (6) or jump into the green tier and became All*Stars (2). So using strictly numbers from this limited sample Morrow has a 20% chance to be bust, a 60% chance to remain a solid rotation player, or a 20% chance to become an All*Star like Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard, players who started in the orange tier and jumped into the green tier in their 2nd years. I'm not saying those are hard cold truths, but at least you can see why the Warriors traded Belinelli and declared it was to clear room for Morrow, because Morrow has the potential to be an All*Star player unlike Belinelli.
Judging from the hype Randolph has been garnering this off-season most would be surprised to find out that using Nelson's history of rookies Randolph's chances of becoming the All*Star, franchise altering starter we've been hoping for is actually less than Morrow's. In his rookie season, Randolph averaged 17.9 minutes which puts him in the blue tier. Of all the Nelson rookies ZERO have gone from blue tier into the green tier in minutes per game which correlated with becoming a legit NBA starter and potential All*Star. There were 22 other rookies who started in the blue tier, 7 played with another coach in their 2nd season and 1 was out of the league after his rookie year. So out of the 14 players who played their rookie and 2nd years under Nelson: 5 remained in the blue tier and 9 improved enough to play in the orange tier (19 mpg - 28.99 mpg). So are our eyes fooling us and are we expecting too much from this young man? Maybe, but there is a glimmer of hope! Aside from the 18 year old Bruno Sundov, Randolph was the youngest rookie at 19 that Nelson has EVER coached. In fact there have been no other 19 year olds under Nelson's watch. That Randolph was able to earn the playing time that he did bodes well for Randolph and the Warriors. Nelson is treading new ground here with the young Randolph, but what better time for Nelson to have a young, All-World talented forward then a time in his career when people think Nelson hates playing young guys? Nelson has already declared Randolph the starter at PF so it's all up to Anthony now.
Now we come to the most recent potential "savior" for the Dubs. While, Stephen Curry has yet to play a minute in the NBA by the time his rookie season is over we should get a good grasp of his talent as he enters the league as a 21 year old rookie. He has the pedigree, experience, and skills that Nelson covets and it's now up to him to put the work into becoming an NBA player. He won't have the excuse of youth that Randolph has or the UDFA expectations of Morrow. He was a lottery pick and the road block to a deal that would have sent Amare to the Bay - so the expectations are great. If Curry averages less than 19 minutes per game this season (orange tier) you can pretty much consider him a long shot to become an All*Star caliber player because as I went over in the paragraph above if you start out in the blue tier your All*Star chances are slim to none. However, Nelson only played Devin Harris 15 mpg as a 21 year old rookie and whiffed on Alex English so he's not infallible. If he is able to average 19-28 mpg then he's on track to be a solid NBA player or potential All*Star. The best thing with Nellie's "tough love" on rookies is it really isolates the stud players. If Curry plays at least 29 minutes per game as a rookie you can pretty much pencil him into multiple NBA All*Star teams as 5 out of the 6 rookies who Nelson made instant starters went on to multiple All*Star games (Webber, Sprewell, Owens - played 10 years but not an All*Star, Hardaway, Richmond, and Marques Johnson). So while Curry's rookie year has yet to begun by the end of it we'll find out whether he's the PG of the future or just a pretender.
CONCLUSION
How long will we have to wait this time? Not long, I hope.
Hopefully after reading this we can put the Nelson "doesn't play rookies" myth to rest. I know after a tough season like last year, people begin to question the coach but as I stated before this is a 3 time coach of the year, who has only had 9 losing seasons in 30 years, and has turned around the post-Kareem Bucks, the Dallas Mavericks, and the Warriors twice. He is the perfect candidate to guide this young team because Nelson does not see draft positions or rookies/veterans, all Nellie sees is production. He runs his franchises under meritocracy. Those who produce, play, simple enough. Coaching a young team this way lets young players know that they have to work to earn their minutes and that nothing will be handed to them. While many see Nelson irrationally keeping rookies to the bench, now that you've read this hopefully you realize that the limited minutes is Nelson teaching these young men what it takes to be an NBA player. In the process only the strong will survive and those who flourish after their rookie seasons under Nellie seem to do so BECAUSE of him and not in spite of him.
So Warrior fans there are plenty of reasons to criticize Nellie (defense, small ball, etc) but he's honestly one of the best coaches to nurture a young team. The jury is still out on Wright, but I'd side with Nellie rather than the court of public opinion. Luckily for us he has already cultivated 2 solid NBA players in Bukie and Watson and has potential All*Stars in Morrow and Randolph. This season is an important one for the Dubs and will speak a lot about the future with so many young players in their formative years. Don't be surprised to hear at the end of next season how great Nellie is again after he gets a fully healthy squad fighting for the playoffs featuring Randolph, Morrow, Bukie, and Watson (?) as key contributors. I won't be and I'm sure Nellie won't either as he spent last year weeding out the weak and laying the foundation for Randolph and Morrow's 2nd year success. Let's go Warriors!
Thanks for sticking with me this long. Hopefully you read this and take a second of your life to "rec" this post. It would be much appreciated! Peace out.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
20 recs |
120 comments
Comments
When Nelly has a rookie big I think he is more likely to take it slow
But Nelly knows his guards so I think Curry will play more then most think. If we wanted a development process we would have taken Jennings. But I have a feeling were trying to win now or the very near future. Not 2-3 years from now.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "Your a rookie"
by dubzfan on Aug 3, 2009 10:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow, you put a lot of work into this. Rec’d. I only have one concern, and it’s pretty minor, but I wonder if the “NBA readiness” of rookies has changed over time. In other words, 30 years ago were rookies coming into the league more or less (or equally) “ready”, in terms of both talent and polish, to contribute as a regular member of the rotation. I only bring this up because you’re comparing the playing time allotted over the last 30 years to the average rookie playing time of this year, and I wonder if that has changed significantly (or even at all) over Nelson’s time in the league. But still, interesting post, and rec’d!
by rjnarayen on Aug 3, 2009 10:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The league wide average last year vs Nelson rookies were pretty much the same.
Doesn’t that mean not much has changed in 30 years?
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 3, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm? If Nelson has played rookies 20 min a game (arbitrary value) over the course of his coaching career, but from 30 years ago to last year the league wide average was 30 min a game (extreme examples, yes, but bear with me) then that would suggest that he has been underplaying rookies. Or am I misunderstanding something?
by rjnarayen on Aug 3, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your assertion would be correct....
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 3, 2009 10:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what better time for Nelson to have a young, All-World talented forward?
Haha, What hole did you pull that out of? Didn’t your hypothesis just indicate it wasn’t likely? Or did I just read all that for nothing?
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 3, 2009 11:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Previous history indicates it isn't likely BUT Randolph is a unique case...
The avg Nelson rookie is nearly 23 years old…. Randolph was 19 years old.
So he maybe on a different time table then the others.
As for young, Al-World forward… every single off-season hype pieces talks about the tools that Randolph has.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 3, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also we have yet to see Randolph's 2nd season...
If he ends up playing over 30 minutes per game this season then watch out.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 3, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Previous history indicates it isn't likely BUT Randolph is a unique case...
Well with a sample selection of exactly zero to go by I’m curious why a guy would ruin a perfectly good scientific analysis with that statement? Maybe he just got lucky with his thoughts up till then?
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 4, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll all see after the 2nd season...
You can’t always go strictly by the numbers…. everyone in the NBA is in awe of Randolph talent but at the same time there are only 2 other players Nelson dogged their rookie years who made All*Star games… Alex English and Devin Harris. So my statement is not so much my idea or assumption Randolph will be a stud, but a way to bridge the gap between Randolph supposed superstar status and what the study found.
Talent does nor equal production. If that were the case every #1 draft pick would be a home run.
If Randolph doesn’t average 30 minutes a game then we’ll have to temper our expectations. If he does then there’s a good chance in Nelson’s eyes Randolph’s talent finally equals production. In almost every case that Nelson has given a 2nd year player 30 minutes per game they had gone on to be an All*Star except for Billy Owens who had a 10 year career as a starter.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 4, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your highlighting AR’s extreme youth as an outlier among your sample lends reason to believe he can buck the trend your own study seems to illustrate …
I too was interested in a comparison of other coaches and their use of rookies, though am inextricably impressed with the work you put into this already …
by hardcore on Aug 4, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morrow will be an all star next year
at least for 3point game.
by bojangles408 on Aug 3, 2009 11:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rookie – Sophomore Game
Stephen Curry
Anthony Randolph
Anthony Morrow
3pt Shootout
Stephen Curry
Team USA 25 Man Invitation
Anthony Randolph
Anthony Morrow
All-Star Consideration
Monta Ellis
Stephen Jackson
Sixth Man Of The Year
Corey Maggette
Most Improved Player
Anthony Randolph
Monta Ellis- 23 ppg 5 asst 5 rebs 2 stls
Get Back to Basketball, your Mopeding too much!
by Sinigang on Aug 3, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3pt Shootout
Hopefully A. Morrow and K. Azabuke are both considered here: Morrow led the league last year and Azabuke was in the top 5.
by toddaverth on Aug 4, 2009 2:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
you have to put Morrow in the 3pt contest and if Andris can step up alittle this year he may have a chance to be an all star with Shaq gone and Yao out for the season.
Die Hard Warrior Fan 4 Life!!!
Golden State Warriors
Ellis/Curry
Jackson/Morrow
Azubukie/Maggette
Randolph/Wright
Andris/Turiaf
PlayOffs??
Living 4 a GSW Championship!!!
by GSW9 on Aug 4, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't realize that about the Beans situation
he can be a all star but what is his competition
Trains , planes, and automoblies,.... better have my donuts!!!!
by dubzero23 on Aug 4, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ive always though this was obvious, thanks for the writeup.
nelson wouldn’t be benching our rookies if they were all wades’ and carmelos’
by HOLDEMUPwuzzBANNED on Aug 3, 2009 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly... but people still think Nellie is holding Wright down!
Face it peeps, Wright will be nothing more than a back up/spot starter.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 3, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Members of the community, I am sorry for the post I am replying to.
I didn’t realize the internet police were on the prowl, warning anyone who dare not to capitalize words at the beginning of a sentence. This is, after all, the internet, and the last thing you would ever want to see is a proper noun with incorrect capitalization or an apostrophe in the wrong place. For these actions, I apologize to members of the community, and I hope this writeup teaches everyone here to make sure they dot their i’s and cross their t’s, because if you don’t, the internet police will find you.
P.S. I hope this post doesn’t break the rules, it follows the proper rules of grammar and it is also constructive
by HOLDEMUPwuzzBANNED on Aug 3, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot to capatalize "i's."
and for what it is worth, I have a loss of words for what could have possible have been said to you.
by GSW-A's-Fan4life on Aug 4, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My main criticism is that
You say if nelson thinks someone is good then he is automatically amazing…. and if nelson doesn’t like you(which happens alot to players who aren’t bad) then you are bad….. That might be a little offbase.
Morrow is not going to become an all-star simply because Nelson thinks he is good.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 4, 2009 2:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
most would be surprised to find out that using Nelson’s history of rookies Randolph’s chances of becoming the All*Star, franchise altering starter we’ve been hoping for is actually less than Morrow’s
If Curry averages less than 19 minutes per game this season (orange tier) you can pretty much consider him a long shot to become an All*Star caliber player because as I went over in the paragraph above if you start out in the blue tier your All*Star chances are slim to none.
Sorry FLAxless, but this kind of argument is just awful logic: an egregious confusion of correlation and causality. The caveat you give about Randolph’s age doesn’t really mitigate the illogic. When the correlations you’re noting involves the decisions of a specific human being (in this case, a highly erratic and idiosyncratic one) it’s especially bizarre to attribute causality. Which is to say, from a probability standpoint, the number of minutes Randolph, Morrow or Curry played or will play as a rookie has precisely zero effect on their chances of success going forward.
Overall — I dunno, I do appreciate all the hard work, but wouldn’t the point you’re trying to prove (“Nellie doesn’t hate rookies”) be better illustrated with a simple two-column table showing the average minutes per game given to rookies by Nellie and his peers (say the top 25 coaches of the past 20 years in terms of games coached)? Or if the point is more “Nellie doesn’t hate rookies if they’re good,” you could add a third column to indicate the average per minute production (using WP, or PER, or some other basic measure of quality) of said rookies. And maybe a fourth column showing those two figures (minutes alloted / per minute productivity) expressed as a ratio. You could call this ratio “MR” — “Meritocracy Rating.”
I don’t really see the point in delving as deeply as you did into Nellie’s specific substitution patterns without providing any context for comparison. Yes: good young players generally play more minutes than bad young players, generally because they’re good. I think most people had that figured out already. The more interesting question of whether Nellie is more or less of a Meritocrat than other NBA coaches when it comes to rookie PT remains unanswered.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 4, 2009 5:09 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The more interesting question of whether Nellie is more or less of a Meritocrat than other NBA coaches when it comes to rookie PT remains unanswered.
Naw, I think he put that in, nellie was about the same as the other coaches?? All in all I liked his take on it and it seemed like a harmless, humane application of stats???
" I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there's someone there, other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man
Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand."
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 4, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, it wasn’t exactly a scientific study but for something you find on a blog it had a lot of good information that shows a general trend that Nellie plays young guys who are ready to contribute, and has a tendency to be right about the future prospects of these young guys. Overall good post.
by Missing Barry on Aug 4, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Totally harmless, humane, and interesting. I wrote my reply first thing in the am (before coffee) and the tone came out crankier than I intended. I often find myself questioning FLAxless’s methodology and logical steps, but I totally admire his perseverance and effort. I also really appreciate that even when he’s just crunching the numbers, he takes the time to report his conclusions in clear, readable English prose, with good grammar and spelling. And hey, even when he takes some weird logical leaps, he always provokes good, substantive debate.
Anyway, FLAxless: thanks for the hard work and insight and sorry bout the cranky tone. If you have the time to make the “Meritocracy Rating Matrix” I suggested (average rookie minutes played v. average rookie PER, for the Top 25 coaches) I’d love to see it. Heck, if you crunch the data, I’ll make use my Edward Tufte-inspired graphic skillz to make a lovely jpg chart out of it.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 4, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
[Major bonus for mentioning Tufte. Tufte is one of my heros. You might not be able to tell it from my poor formating skills, but he is. ]
I’d like to see a meritocracy index as well, though I am pondering how one goes about factoring in the quality of players ahead in the rotation. High draft choices are usually going to weak teams, meaning that they’re likely to have weaker competition for PT. I guess this is a call for multivariate stats. Spin them around and and see if an axis pops out explaining a good chunk of the variation (and then write it up as if you understood what happened in the multivariate pack in R — it’s what the scientific “pros” do!).
by jae on Aug 4, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha wish I could but that would take a crazy amount of time...
I wish could compare Nellie to his peers but that would take a lot of time for me as I shift through everything manually. If someone could write a script or something pulling all that data together I’d love to go over it and put it into table format.
I would be more determined to do such a thing if Nellie’s own body of work didn’t disprove the myth so handily, IMO.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 4, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally understand. Don’t you wish you had a team of data inputters and script-writers at your disposal at all times? I’ve been itching to do a cute l’il “small-multiples” graphic plotting the Red Sox v. Yankees margin of separation by games (just two simple navy and red curves, separating, coming together, crossing paths, with navy usually ending up on top) over the course of 162 games for all the seasons I’ve been following them (say, since ‘78). But even if it’s just marking down a W or L, who has time to look up and input ±10,000 games’ worth of data?
Meanwhile: as interested in presenting data as you seem to be, you should definitely check out the great Edward Tufte if you haven’t. (His excellent screeds about PowerPoint are a good place to start). As I was reading your post, I kept wondering what Tufte would think of your diary. On the one hand, one of his cardinal rules of presentations (graphic or otherwise) is that they should be “information-rich” — which your diary clearly is. At the same time, I wondered whether you couldn’t condense the information presented into one clean and readable graphic/table, or series of easily comparable graphics/tables, with the bulk of the explanatory verbage made into an appendix of some kind. You clearly spent a great deal of time crunching the numbers, but one can’t always expect the public to spend as much time absorbing as you spent researching. Modern-day stressed-out people need summaries; the challenge is to summarize and elucidate with dumbing down, oversimplifying, or misleading (a la the dreaded Powerpoint).
For fun, here are two little charts I did a couple years back. The data presented is woefully thin, but I worked to make them clear and readable (this would make sense since I’m a graphic designer, not a stats guy). The first is a look at aging patterns among elite shooting guards (using Richmond, Spree, Allen, Drexler, Carter, and MJ, and unfortunately using PER, which I’ve since realized is quite a silly metric) (NB — “average” means average among the sampled players, not among all guards). The second is a humorous two-column comparison of Kobe and Jordan, showing (I hope) how fun a simple, clear table can be when it’s done well.
1.

2.

And what the heck, since I have my flickr page open, here’s Graphic #3 for Olympic Mike…

There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 4, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
1. thx, now I know what my kid was drawing on the wall
2. thx, now I know who’s better between Kobe & MJ
3. no thx, cake is better ;=]
by hardcore on Aug 4, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Little bitch? HAHA thats the best one.
If I don't like it, I don't like it, that don't mean that I'm hatin.
by LighTz707OuT on Aug 5, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few comments, in keeping with this thread
(1) I agree with Sleepy – the relevant measure is not how many minutes players get in their rookie season compared to how many minutes those players get during the rest of their careers, but rather how many minutes players get in their rookie season under Nellie compared to how many minutes players get in their rookie seasons under other coaches.
(2) It is also problematic to compare minutes played in the rookie season to minutes played in subsequent seasons, because minutes played in the rookie season could affect minutes played in subsequent seasons. The whole point of criticizing Nellie for playing rookies less than he should is that playing them less retards their development – which would then have an effect on their skill level in subsequent seasons, and consequently their minutes played in subsequent seasons. A more robust study would measure their playing time as a rookie to their skill level when they are a rookie – as measured by draft pick number, ppg in college, PER in college, or some other measure.
(3) There are really two questions here – (1) whether playing time as a rookie affects development as a player and (2) whether Nellie plays rookies less than other coaches.
by bwiles81 on Aug 5, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks bwiles. You summed up what I was trying to say much more succinctly (and much less crankily) than I.
Perhaps this diary needs a redux — one free from political babbling?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 5, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completely understand where you're coming from...
(1) I wish I had the resources to do such a study but I attempted to show that over Nelson 30 year career his rookie averages were very similar to the numbers rookies and sophomores saw last year. It’s not exact but at the very least it does show that Nellie is in the middle in regards to usage of rookies compared to his peers.
(2) Understood but with Nellie being the constant here and the rookies ability/playing time being the variable it is easy to see that Nellie can spot the “talented/productive” players by there second seasons if not their rookie seasons. Aside from Alex English and Devin Harris (who Nelson didn’t have in his 2nd season) Nelson has played impact players by the time they reach their 2nd season. I understand your point regarding the distribution of minutes affecting future benchmarks, but at the very least we should give Nellie credit for playing rookies who are ready to contribute. As for those who are not ready to contribute right away I can’t think of a study that would show a non-existent/potential outcome in regards to performance.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 5, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few more issues
Don’t mean to be a hater – thanks again for your efforts!
Re: your response to (1): I don’t see any comparison of Nelson with his peers in your study. Comparing Nelson to his peers is the only way to show that “Nellie is in the middle in regards to usage of rookies compared to his peers.”
Re: (2): My point with #2 was to say that if we agree that playing time as a rookie or sophomore affects player development (and I think that pretty much everyone would agree that it does) then your comparison of playing time as a rookie to playing time over the career is simply invalid. This is because the input (playing time as a rookie) has a confounding effect on the observation (playing time over career).
I frankly don’t think that there is a way to determine whether Nellie plays rookies “enough.” The only way to determine this would be to compare how much Nellie plays rookies against how much playing time rookies “should” get. This would require some sort of optimization formula for rookie playing time, which would be fiendishly difficult.
The only thing that could be shown is how much Nellie plays his rookies relative to his peers – but this is also a very large and involved study.
by bwiles81 on Aug 7, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are really two questions here – (1) whether playing time as a rookie affects development as a player and (2) whether Nellie plays rookies less than other coaches.
and he answered them both din’t he? If they are good they play on a nellie team as much as other teams??
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 5, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
masterful destruction of a myth
and yes, a roundabout way of saying, Nelson will play players who are ready. Your assessments of current Warrior’s line up with my expectations (and I’d bet Curry plays 20+mpg, moving him up a tier and a likely solid NBA player).
Thanks for taking the time and explaining your methodology.
by Chris4 on Aug 4, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very nice. A well put together fanpost, with clear prose and much information. I’m sure that reviewers would send it back demanding revisions prior to publication, but it’s real nice. <where’s that thumbs up gif?>
by jae on Aug 4, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
who ever said a picture is worth a thousand words
underestimated a bit
by hardcore on Aug 5, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He deserves better. 
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 4, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post FLax, best one in while, thank you for such an effort
Wow isnt it amazing to find out that there are perhaps some reasons why this coach is considered to be one of the best in the league after all ! We run so many numbers on the players I think you have the start here for some interesting coach number crunching lol !
by Only In Fairfax on Aug 4, 2009 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for one of the best posts I've ever read here.
Seriously thank you.
I want to chime in on the Randolph issue because I think there was a starkly definable line of demarcation of “before he bought into the idea of being coached” and after. We obviously don’t have the data to look at all of Nelson’s rookie population with the same media insight into their specific situations but at least we can intelligently discuss AR’s as a specific case because of the media coverage and AR’s own testimonials as to the positive impact that this coaching staff has had on his overall game and personality.
IMO, Anthony Randolph had two rookie seasons. This isn’t to say this circumstance didn’t occur in one of the other 30 seasons Nelson has coached, I’m just speaking to AR’s specific situation. Randolph had two separate rookie seasons. One before and one after he decided to “give in to the dark side”.
For the “First Season” Oct – Jan AR averaged around 13 minutes per game.
For the “Second Season” Feb – Apr he averaged around 22 minutes per game,
Again, thanks for the post. I’m grateful that you took the time to throw evidence in the face of hyperbole. Regardless of whether or not it is a scientifically sound statistical study, it is the first set of actual data presented in the “Nelson hates rookies” debate and it is now, IMO, in the hands of the other side of this argument to come up with better data to contradict yours.
Well done and many thanks for taking the time and presenting a very logical and well-written post.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 4, 2009 10:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The difference in Randolph’s two “seasons” is even starker when you look at all the DNP-CD’s he racked up in the first half of the year. He basically went from being an awful player who was on the court 15% of the time to a pretty good player who was on the court 45% of the time.
Nellie deserves a lot of credit for this transition, but sometimes I think we risk giving Randolph too little credit for it, as well. Randolph was a genuine enigma going into the draft, with a lot of people thinking he had real star potential and a lot of people thinking he’d never be an NBA-quality player. Randolph spent half a year proving the pessimists right and then, almost overnight, started proving the optimists right instead. I’ve never seen anything quite like it, and while good coaching is part of the equation, you have to respect Randolph’s ability — and willingness — to change his game so quickly.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's part of the approach...
Both share equal praise in the handling of the situation.
Nelson showed Randolph what he needed to do in order to become a better player and to his credit Randolph didn’t sulk, whine, or give up (not much or publicly at least) and has proceeded full force into becoming a better player.
To all those who still hold out hope of Wright becoming a beast – where are all the articles stating he has been working out like a madman to add 15 pounds of muscle? Is that coincidence or just media/PR oversight?
Randolph and Morrow have put in tons of work over the summer and a far as we know there is very little heard about Wright.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 6, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wright has been back in Chapel Hill working on his degree. I doubt very much that he’s doing nothing and the facilities for training are equal to anything he’d have available to him here and competition he’ll get there in practice is on par with anything he’d see in the summer leagues. There’s a regular cohort of former Tar Heels who run workouts and games there all summer long.
Wright isn’t as interesting a story as Randolph at this point. I wouldn’t take the lack of media coverage to mean that he’s doing nothing.
by jae on Aug 6, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed...
Using the media as a barometer is not the perfect source or is it the definitive source of info but it sure does help some.
The lack of info/stories on Wright is not a negative right now or does it cause me to worry, but the positive stories regarding Randolph are nothing but good news, especially for such a young player.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 6, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? Do we really have to get back to the typical, meaningless filler the media spews? Now it’s 15 pounds of muscle? First it was 20, then 10, now 15. I can’t keep up.
by Missing Barry on Aug 6, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't matter the exact pounds...
The point is the dude has been working hard in the gym and on the basketball court.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 6, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you say so. I bet if you read the paper of every single NBA city, you’d be able to find at least one article touting how a couple of their young players are really working hard, too. It’s the typical offseason filler when they have nothing else to write. I’m not saying Randolph hasn’t been working hard – I’m saying most of the NBA works really hard, when I see the improvement with my eyes against NBA players I’ll buy into the hype.
by Missing Barry on Aug 6, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
However, I’d be more inclined to say with all the positive media attention Randolph has been getting I’d be suprised if we don’t see any tangible improvement.
Also, if I were to bet I think in relation to his peers Randolph is probably in the upper tier in regards to work ethic and compared to the rest of the NBA he’s probably about where most vets are at so he’d be in the above average tier. From the sounds of it Randolph is seriously committed to the weight room and it’s only this past season that Stephen Jackson began to work out and he’s 30 years old.
Like I mentioned above these media fluff pieces or lack of are not enough to condemn a player or anoint someone as the next superstar, but the presence of them are only positive signs. Aside from Tim K most reporters don’t make up stories so I’m just happy to hear Randolph is working.
The thing that impresses me the most about Randolph is the maturity and perspective he has in his game and place in the NBA right now as evidence by all the quotes and interviews he’s conducted. After he scored 42 he was pissed he only grabbed 3 rebound b/c during the season he knows he needs to rebound and defend. That’s what you want to hear from a young guy.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 6, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that as long as we’re getting fluff pieces, what we’ve been hearing about Randolph is what we’d hope to hear. He’s not getting in trouble, reports are he’s working hard and seems to have the right attitude – even if it’s exaggerated/overblown, at least it’s positive. I have high hopes for Randolph, and I expect to see an improved version when the season starts. I just like to remind myself (and everyone else) there’s a possibility things don’t work out how we hope. Some people seem to think it’s basically a given that he becomes an All-Star…
by Missing Barry on Aug 9, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know that in Chicago,
Aaron Gray had “dropped 30 pounds”. Someone else “added 20 pounds of muscle in three weeks” or something. You know, theoretically impossible amounts + such.
They played just as you’d expect next year – crappily when you talk about the crappy players and well when you talk about the good ones. Randolph will be fine but none of these messages will be worth much. :P
Vinny Del Negro: Possibly the most unintentionally irritating last name in the history of last names [Hint: I can't for the life of me pronounce it correctly].
-Brandon Jennings: PG of the future!
by Prevenge on Aug 8, 2009 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: respect Randolph’s ability — and willingness — to change his game so quickly.
Absolutely. I think it speaks volumes about the guy’s mental and physical skill set. He’s 19 and figured it out already. The circumstances turned out to be different than what he was used to so he changed his approach.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 6, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you FLAxwless
I really appreciate the hard work that went into this. The end product came out really well.
In journal terms it’s a definite “revise and re-submit” like JAE was saying. That’s quite an achievement.
Nice work. Now if only we could get all those Nellie haters and bashers to actually read it. (I won’t name names.)
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!"
by Atma Brother ONE on Aug 4, 2009 11:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey man...
…I read it. I enjoyed it greatly, and it was very illuminating. Assuming I’m considered a hater or basher. I’d say basher, hater is too aggressive for my taste.
by Zack Vank on Aug 5, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The political conversation above is too threaded, so I’m just going to comment down here. That conversation is such a big example of why I hate politics and call 97% of the population retarded. Each side has these ideologies they view everything through – for instance, you get the idea of “big government” vs. “small government”. The truth is, each side wants the type of government they believe in – conservatives are often ok with large military expenditures, generally want the government to do things like stop abortion and gay marriage, and want lower taxes and less government services. Liberals generally advocate higher taxes + more services, less government intervention into those two issues (abortion + gay marriage) and lower military expenditures. Calling either of them “small” or “big” government is just stupid. Reagan and Bush increased government deficits, but so has Obama. Clinton reduced them, but so did Eisenhower.
Unfortunately, most people are too caught up in the ideology they were raised on (or somehow came into) to actually think critically about different issues. They’re so focused on making their beliefs match what they’re told they should match, that they forget each individual issue is a different situation, and needs to be looked at on its own. It also seems the people with the strongest opinions tend to be the ones looking to play the blame game the most, and they almost always decide who to blame first, and look for the reasons to blame them second. That’s an easy way to get caught up in the BS political pundits thrive on – after all, they’re in the business of gaining viewers, not thinking critically about issues and informing the public – and almost every person who cares about politics seems to have these symptoms. It’s sad. I don’t see how someone can look at politicians and the public and care one way or another…
by Missing Barry on Aug 5, 2009 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I've come to...
….support general election ballots by law featuring an option for “vote of no confidence,” or something similar. It’ll never happen, because the government wouldn’t want to give a statistically qualified voice to such a disdain, but the results of such numbers could be very illuminating, and implement serious change.
I myself am by no means a partisan (in that I don’t adhere to the platform of a particular party), and while my political stances on major “issues of the day” tends to be quite left, I find it similarly dishonest to put the horse before the cart when forming one’s opinions. If somebody presents you with an argument that runs contrary to your political beliefs, the responsible function is to consider the full context of the remark, and argue if you have a logical reason to do so. If you find your motive for argument is purely emotion without a logical base, it’s irresponsible to continue without further reflection, in which case you may have to admit you’re wrong, which nobody likes doing. So, even though I’m much more politically minded than it seems like you are (by which I mean the “game” of U.S. politics), I’m wholly sympathetic and mostly in agreement with you.
by Zack Vank on Aug 5, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“support general election ballots by law featuring an option for "vote of no confidence," or something similar. "
I take this to mean you’re lawfully required to vote? Ha, it’s funny what politics will do to someone’s opinion. I never vote, don’t plan to, think voting’s stupid and don’t understand why anyone does (one vote does not matter, after all)…yet oddly enough, I’m in favor of a law requiring everyone to vote as well. Australia does it….
by Missing Barry on Aug 5, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, um. Basketball?
Seriously, minor sidetracks can be interesting, but the political change here has stifled what was a really interesting FLAxless fanpost.
There are other, more appropriate places.
by jae on Aug 5, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stuff. I guess I’d agree with Sleepy that this walkthrough doesn’t prove as much as it purports to — the fact that Nellie doesn’t underplay rookies overall does not mean that his evaluation of young players is infallible. Nellie has a decided bias towards shooters and versatile offensive skill guys, which is one of the big reasons he overplayed Rob Kurz (a bad player) and underplayed Wright (a pretty good player).
Nellie does play rookies that he thinks can contribute — he’s always been more aggressive about that than most coaches, and I think that’s a good thing. But no analysis, whether statistical, video-based, phrenological or whatever, is going to show that Brandan Wright is actually a terrible player, and that Nellie has been right to keep him on the bench as much as he has. Wright is pretty good. Nellie has flat-out missed the boat on him thus far, and it’s hurt us.
by onlxn on Aug 5, 2009 9:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re:
I guess I’d agree with Sleepy that this walkthrough doesn’t prove as much as it purports to — the fact that Nellie doesn’t underplay rookies overall does not mean that his evaluation of young players is infallible.
I see your point about the conclusions . . . For me this post just proves that the particular criticism that he does not play rookies is hyperbolic nonsense.
Is he infallible? Nobody is, but for some reason, every mistake he’s ever made is magnified and thrown back in his face (no matter how many decades have passed since said mistake) and then somehow vulcanized as some sort of absolute and doomed-to-be-repeated personality flaw. What other basketball coach get’s this type of unsubstantiated scrutiny and spiteful criticism?
Nellie has a decided bias towards shooters and versatile offensive skill guys, which is one of the big reasons he overplayed Rob Kurz (a bad player) and underplayed Wright (a pretty good player).
Kurz played at least 15 minutes only 11 times last season. Of those 11 games Wright was either injured or played more minutes than Kurz except for one game in which Kurz played 3 more minutes than Wright. Considering all of the injuries in the front court (BW & AB) as well as the AR disciplining, I don’t think Kurz was overplayed.
I’m guessing by “versatile” you mean 3pt shooting because Wright has a mid-range shot and scores down low. Kurz isn’t “versatile” on offense, he’s a good jump shooter. He’s less versatile than Wright.
Nellie does play rookies that he thinks can contribute
The people in the media and here who make enough derogatory and uninformed claims about Nelson’s treatment of rookies dispute or completely ignore this fact. The mere existence of this post is a small step towards pulling the Don Nelson discussion away from conspiracy theories based on viral misconceptions.
Wright is pretty good. Nellie has flat-out missed the boat on him thus far, and it’s hurt us.
Wright’s minutes per game increased every month last year up to 20 mpg in February before shutting it down for the year. That seems like a positive trend and a developing trust rather than missing the boat.
As far as minutes next year: Is he better than AR and Biedrins? I’d say no. He should be the back up PF and Turiaf is the backup C and their minutes will likely be dictated by nightly match-ups not because they think Wright is terrible.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 5, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow....I was just about to post a similar rebuttal!
I even had the Wright and Kurz game log open going through the minutes they played!
Again in no way I am saying that any of those predictions are 100% correct or that Nellie will be 100% correct but at the very least the Nelson haters should given Nelson the benefit of the doubt in regards to his handling of rookies. He does not bench rookies out of an irrational bias, but he just plays players who are ready to contribute to the team.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 5, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In light of...
…this analysis, as I alluded to before, I will publicly admit to having been wrong regarding Nelson’s treatment of rookies. I could make an argument insofar as the human element is concerned (I still maintain, for example, that there are inherent irrationalities in the standard to which he holds different players), but the rookie issue seems empirically settled to me, or at least to the point where I couldn’t offer much rebuttal.
by Zack Vank on Aug 5, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I still maintain, for example, that there are inherent irrationalities in the standard to which he holds different players
I think there is an inherent irrationality to holding different people, with different personalities, with different skill-levels, different levels of locker-room clout, different contracts and different amounts of leverage against the coach and the franchise to the same standards.
The NBA today is not a place where the chain of command is enforceable so a smart coach has to use more finesse to implement his game plan. Since it’s can’t work as a dictatorship, you have to do some things you may not want to do in order to serve your greater agenda.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 5, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hopeful...
…that Wright will get a fair shake as a backup. If Randolph becomes what we hope, it’s hard to argue that the backup PF spot is a premium position on the team. having a strong backup when your key piece is out is a very functionally useful sort of depth.
by Zack Vank on Aug 5, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he infallible? Nobody is, but for some reason, every mistake he’s ever made is magnified and thrown back in his face (no matter how many decades have passed since said mistake) and then somehow vulcanized as some sort of absolute and doomed-to-be-repeated personality flaw. What other basketball coach get’s this type of unsubstantiated scrutiny and spiteful criticism?
Most coaches get vast amounts of crap from local sports reporters and online fans, and the Warriors’ previous coaches were certainly treated no more kindly than Nellie has been. I think there’s a bit of a selection bias at play — we all marvel at the amount Nellie gets criticized partly because he’s the only coach we consistently read commentary about.
That said, you could argue that Nellie gets more crap than other legendary coaches do. He certainly gets more crap than Phil Jackson… I don’t know that he gets any more than Larry Brown does, and I’d probably take Larry Brown’s body of work over Nellie’s. But you could argue that Nellie gets a degree of criticism that his track record doesn’t warrant. If so, why? I’d list five reasons.
1) No titles or Finals appearances. Fairly or not (I’d argue largely not, given the middling talent he’s often had to work with), this is the main thing that dogs him.
2) An unorthodox style. Outside-of-the-box thinking is — again, fairly or not — more often criticized than conventional coaching. On a similar note…
3) His commitment to offense over defense. In terms of SportsCenter highlights and player salaries, offense has all the cachet. But in terms of fans and journalists wanting to sound knowledgeable, the cachet is very much on the defensive side. If you want to seem like a savvy fan who really understands the game, you talk up defense. Nellie’s teams are known more for their high-flying offense than their defense. Therefore, a fan who wants to look like he’s in the know will trash that style of play, whether or not it’s effective.
4) His occasional problems with players. The blowup with Webber really can not be overstated — that was a destructive moment for this franchise, one for which Nellie deserves a fair amount of blame. Last year’s problems with Al didn’t do us any favors, either. Over a long career, most coaches will have occasional issues with players. But I think it’s fair to say that Nellie has had more than his share.
5) His occasional problems with the media. Frankly, I don’t understand why Don Nelson isn’t a media darling — his teams are entertaining, and so is he. He gives more interesting, quirky and (sometimes) candid interviews than most coaches in pro sports. Having said that, he has ruffled a lot of feathers on the media side by refusing access and spreading misinformation. If you do that, you’re going to get people rooting against you.
So there are five reasons he gets a lot of crap, and most of them are at least partly unfair. I wouldn’t entirely disagree that he gets a raw deal.
But there’s a sixth reason he gets a lot of crap these days.
6) He coached badly last season. Nellie’s my favorite coach of all time, and I’m glad he’s our guy. But I watched over sixty of our games last year, and I saw a coach on autopilot, stubbornly sticking to strategies that weren’t working, overplaying certain players (Crawford, Jack) and underplaying others (Biedrins, Turiaf, Wright), and forswearing defensive coaching to a degree that is literally without precedent. He was a very good coach in the two seasons previous… he was a downright bad coach last year.
There are three common rebuttals to the idea that he coached badly.
a) “He handled Randolph well.” I agree that he did. I don’t think that smart handling of one young player makes a season.
b) “We were too injured to compete.” This ignores the composition of our team — that our sixth through tenth players aren’t much worse than our first through fifth. Yes, Monta’s absence hurt a lot, enough so that Nellie can’t reasonably be blamed for our missing the playoffs. But injuries and all, this was not a roster that was destined to lose 53 games. We had, if not great talent, more talent than that.
c) “It’s Nellie — the guy has 1300 career wins. I think he knows more about basketball than you do.” Well, I think he does, too. I think Nellie’s a great coach. But his twenty-eight previous seasons of good coaching don’t magically make his twenty-ninth a good season just because. Woody Allen’s of thirty years don’t make “Hollywood Ending” a good movie; Chris Webber wasn’t a 2008 asset because he’d been a 1994 asset. Each year brings new challenges and new response to those challenges, and should be judged by those and those alone. Nellie’s ‘08-’09 coaching job was a bad one, and the 1280 wins he’d amassed beforehand don’t change that one whit.
It’s just something that the pro-Nellie folks (a crowd in which I include myself, in many ways) would do well to remember. Some people hate on Nellie because he’s never won a ring or because they’re mad about Webber or because it’s the cool thing to do. But some people criticize Nellie because they think he did his job badly last year. You may think differently, and I’d love to hear why, but I hope it’s not predicated simply on his being Nellie. Talented people turn in bad performances sometimes.
I don’t think Kurz was overplayed.
I don’t think he was overplayed to a huge degree, and I actually don’t think his playing over Wright was ever an issue. To the degree that I think Kurz played too much, I think he actually played too much over Biedrins and Turiaf, neither of whom received as many minutes as they could’ve when healthy. (By season’s end, of course, everyone was so injured that Kurz playing heavy minutes was understandable.)
I don’t bring up Kurz because a crappy guy playing 442 minutes is a tragedy. I bring it up because Kurz is a Nellie guy, a guy Nellie pushed hard to keep around when Mullin and others thought he was useless. Nellie kept him around, and used him a bit, and he was pretty useless, with some of the worst plus-minus numbers anywhere in basketball. To me, that’s Nellie picking by type, not by merit. Kurz, as a shooter, gets more of a chance than is necessary; Wright, as a (relative) non-shooter, gets less of a chance than he should.
I’m guessing by "versatile" you mean 3pt shooting because Wright has a mid-range shot and scores down low. Kurz isn’t "versatile" on offense, he’s a good jump shooter. He’s less versatile than Wright.
Yeah, I phrased that confusingly — my bad. Nellie tends to like two types of players: shooters, and guys who can do a bunch of different things offensively. Kurz fits into the first category; Wright fits into neither.
Wright’s minutes per game increased every month last year up to 20 mpg in February before shutting it down for the year. That seems like a positive trend and a developing trust rather than missing the boat.
I wouldn’t call it a systematic increase so much as random noise around the 18-minute mark: 16.6 minutes in November, 18.1 in December, 15.0 in his two January games and 20.6 in February. Wright’s healthy per-game minutes are actually lower than that, because Nellie flat-out didn’t play him in three games when he was available. Also, the per-month averages understate the degree to which Nellie was jerking Wright around: going through his minutes game by game, you see sequences like 34, 17, 0, 8, 10 and 12, 7, 30, 8, 16 and 18, 20, 31, 8, 20. That’s not putting a young player in a position to succeed. Neither is starting him and then pulling him for the game in the second quarter because he made a defensive mistake, this on the worst defensive team in basketball. Nellie did that more than once.
Look, I get tired of harping on the Wright thing, but the idea that Nellie is just bringing him along slowly just doesn’t hold water. We badly needed a power forward for most of last year. We had a guy on our bench who played well whenever we brought him in — he’d played well whenever we brought him in in his rookie year, as well. Nellie used him sparingly, and yanked him more quickly than any other Warrior, despite his outplaying most of them. He talked the guy down in the press. He used an injured Corey Maggette at power forward, nuking the season, instead of giving Wright an extended chance to play.
As far as minutes next year: Is he better than AR and Biedrins? I’d say no.
I’d agree. Brandan Wright is not an All-Star in the making. Randolph’s ahead of him now, and should be.
He should be the back up PF and Turiaf is the backup C and their minutes will likely be dictated by nightly match-ups not because they think Wright is terrible.
I don’t think Wright will be a Warrior come the fall, and I do think it’s because Nellie doesn’t think he’s useful. If Nellie was clear-headedly giving minutes to his best players based on nightly matchups last year, Wright would’ve played 28 minutes a game, at least until Randolph became somebody. He didn’t.
Nellie doesn’t value the guy. It’s a failing on his part… not a huge one, but a real one.
by onlxn on Aug 5, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Nellie gets a degree of criticism that his track record doesn’t warrant. If so, why?
I agree most with the reasons you state. I didn’t want to state my assumptions as to why the media reacts that way, but they pretty much mimic yours. That said, it doesn’t excuse the media for misreporting the facts or making accusations that they have no proof of (like what’s going on in Nelson’s head).
A couple points of contention on this:
4) His occasional problems with players. The blowup with Webber really can not be overstated — that was a destructive moment for this franchise, one for which Nellie deserves a fair amount of blame. Last year’s problems with Al didn’t do us any favors, either. Over a long career, most coaches will have occasional issues with players. But I think it’s fair to say that Nellie has had more than his share.
I agree that this is a factor in why he is so harshly criticized, but I disagree with your sub-points. The Blow-up with Weber HAS been overstated. It happened 15 years ago. He admitted that he should have handled it differently. He’s adjusted pretty well. This is exactly what I meant by "every mistake he’s ever made is magnified and thrown back in his face (no matter how many decades have passed since said mistake) and then somehow vulcanized as some sort of absolute and doomed-to-be-repeated personality flaw." How many Webber incidents has he had this century?
As far as Harrington goes, what exactly was he supposed to do? He gave Al a green light and as many minutes as he wanted. What else did he want? IMO, he was being a baby. Nelson said that Al thought he was better than he was and I tend to agree. How did that hurt the franchise? Harrington would have been playing in front of Randolph and Wright at PF. That would have fed the flames of "Nelson doesn’t play young big men". I think getting rid of Al served two purposes: It got rid of a personality issue and it cleared room at the PF for Randolph, who I think will be better than Harrington and, Wright who you want to see play more. At the end of the day, the Warriors would be looking at one more year of Harrington at $10m but they now have Law and Claxton’s expiring as well as minutes for Wright and Randolph.
6) He coached badly last season.
I think this is a matter of opinion and we were judging him on different criteria. You’re criticizing his process based on what you observed, I’m looking at: "What were his objectives for the year once Baron and Monta were out and there was no hope of having a winning season, and did he accomplish them? This is what I saw his goals as:
1. Develop the young players: I think he did that with Morrow, Randolph, C.J. Watson and Azubuike.
2. Evaluate the rest roster to see who fits in with the type of style he wants to play: No Crawford. No Harrington. No Belinelli. Figured out how to use Turiaf as an offensive initiator as needed. Learned Biedrins is what he is (which is really good but will likely never be a star). We’ll get to Wright. Got Maggette to come off the bench without complaining which makes a huge difference when Maggette is on your team.
You say tomato, I say: Mission Accomplished!
I couldn’t resist . . . I agree with your other points and sub-points, just not the sub-points for 4 and 6.
To the degree that I think Kurz played too much, I think he actually played too much over Biedrins and Turiaf, neither of whom received as many minutes as they could’ve when healthy. (By season’s end, of course, everyone was so injured that Kurz playing heavy minutes was understandable.)
Biedrins and Turiaf both played career highs in minutes last year. They are both foul-prone as well. He took minutes primarily from the insubordinate version of Randolph and then filled in for injuries.
I don’t bring up Kurz because a crappy guy playing 442 minutes is a tragedy. I bring it up because Kurz is a Nellie guy, a guy Nellie pushed hard to keep around when Mullin and others thought he was useless. Nellie kept him around, and used him a bit, and he was pretty useless, with some of the worst plus-minus numbers anywhere in basketball. To me, that’s Nellie picking by type, not by merit. Kurz, as a shooter, gets more of a chance than is necessary; Wright, as a (relative) non-shooter, gets less of a chance than he should.
This goes back to making assertions based on what we assume is going on inside Nelson’s head. He didn’t play all that much. He didn’t take playing time from Wright. I don’t understand the issue with Kurz. Nobody thinks he’s an NBA rotation-level player. The plus/minus supports that. He was an emergency measure that was only used when AR wasn’t following directions or when absolutely necessary.
Also, the per-month averages understate the degree to which Nellie was jerking Wright around: going through his minutes game by game, you see sequences like 34, 17, 0, 8, 10 and 12, 7, 30, 8, 16 and 18, 20, 31, 8, 20. That’s not putting a young player in a position to succeed. Neither is starting him and then pulling him for the game in the second quarter because he made a defensive mistake, this on the worst defensive team in basketball. Nellie did that more than once.
If you don’t force a young player to learn good habits when you have the leverage of team options on his contract and playing time prior to his first big payday, he’ll never learn. I don’t think giving him the same treatment as the other rookies is "jerking him around". It’s trying to develop your young talent.
I only looked at the averages per month because ESPN summarizes them for us. I could have said "his numbers increased from 9.9 to 17.9 from year 1 to year 2. I don’t think looking for sub-trends in random 5-game clusters means he was being jerked around either. What about November 3 – 11? When he played 10, 32, 21, 24 & 34 minutes? What does that tell us? Nothing, right?
He’s treating Wright the way he treats all young players or players that he has leverage over. He wants Wright to do more than he does and it’s also not his fault that every time Wright seems to be hitting his stride and playing well he gets hurt (it seemed like that based on watching the games last year). I was particularly excited right before he dislocated his shoulder (which was the epitome of a freak injury).
Anyways, good stuff from you as always. We agree more than we don’t and I think we both like Wright and see that he brings things to the table that nobody else on the roster does. Regardless, he the 3rd or 4th man in a 4 big man rotation, so he’s not looking at 30+ minutes per game unless he outplays AR and/or Andris which is going to be difficult because those are the two best rebounders on a poor rebounding team.
I always wondered how much text and blockquoting an argument between you and I would generate . . . I should have taken the over.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 5, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
BLOCKQUOTE PARTYYYY
I agree that this is a factor in why he is so harshly criticized, but I disagree with your sub-points. The Blow-up with Weber HAS been overstated. It happened 15 years ago. He admitted that he should have handled it differently. He’s adjusted pretty well. This is exactly what I meant by “every mistake he’s ever made is magnified and thrown back in his face (no matter how many decades have passed since said mistake) and then somehow vulcanized as some sort of absolute and doomed-to-be-repeated personality flaw.” How many Webber incidents has he had this century?
Just the Al one, and that was with a non-essential player… I think Nellie’s been okay on this front lately. But this is a coach whose issues with a player — a star player, a #1 pick, the most promising player we’ve had in maybe twenty years — partly caused a team to lose that player and promptly fall apart. Moreover, that team was this team. I don’t think that defines his career, nor should it, but at the same time, it’d be strange if that never came up. People still talk about Larry Brown’s problems with Iverson whenever the Bobcats come up, still talk about Jerry Sloan’s issues with Kirilenko and other guys. Coaches’ mistakes are long-remembered. It may not be fair, but it’s not something that Nellie gets worse than others.
As far as Harrington goes, what exactly was he supposed to do? He gave Al a green light and as many minutes as he wanted. What else did he want? IMO, he was being a baby. Nelson said that Al thought he was better than he was and I tend to agree. How did that hurt the franchise?
Trading for Crawford hurt the franchise, by making a bad team worse… we were very lucky to move him for the expirings we did. That we traded for Crawford is not Nellie’s fault (entirely — he did lobby for the trade), but that we had to trade Al with zero leverage is partly Nellie’s fault.
Al thinks he’s better than is — I agree. So do 70% of NBA players. That’s a variable that a coach has to deal with — a coach has to handle a collection of egomaniacs in ways that will keep them happy. Talking to the media about how your players think they’re better than they are is not a great way to do that. I don’t think it’s a big deal that Nellie alienated Al, and a lot of it’s Al fault, but come on… Al’s not a psycho, not a bad guy, not a guy that’s had issues over the course of his career. Coaches are supposed to handle players. Nellie didn’t handle Al.
I think getting rid of Al served two purposes: It got rid of a personality issue and it cleared room at the PF for Randolph, who I think will be better than Harrington and, Wright who you want to see play more. At the end of the day, the Warriors would be looking at one more year of Harrington at $10m but they now have Law and Claxton’s expiring as well as minutes for Wright and Randolph.
Getting rid of Al served a third purpose: tanking an entire NBA season. It left Nellie with no power forwards that he was willing to play, and led us to a suicidal smallball approach that put the season out of reach by Thanksgiving. Say what you will about Al — he ain’t great — but he was a power forward that Nellie was willing to play, and that made him useful.
I don’t have a problem with moving Al. He’s not a great player, and his value to us lay in his ‘10 expiring deal. But I do have a problem with trading from a position of weakness, and thanks to the Nellie-Al issues, that’s what we did.
I think this is a matter of opinion and we were judging him on different criteria. You’re criticizing his process based on what you observed, I’m looking at: “What were his objectives for the year once Baron and Monta were out and there was no hope of having a winning season, and did he accomplish them?”
I don’t think this is an unreasonable way to look at his goals, but the idea that there was no hope of having a winning season in November strikes me as misguided. Don’t get me wrong — I didn’t love our chances. But that’s too early to punt on a season unless your talent level is completely unacceptable, and I don’t think ours was.
This is what I saw his goals as:
1. Develop the young players: I think he did that with Morrow, Randolph, C.J. Watson and Azubuike.
I’d agree that all four of these guys got a fair shake, but let’s not forget that most of them weren’t playing much when the team was fairly healthy… Stephen Jackson got 40 minutes a night when his hand was so injured he couldn’t do anything. I think Nellie did a great job bringing Randolph along, and I liked that he was willing to give Morrow a real shot, but really, a lot of this was just reacting to injuries, not brilliant coaching. If you’re dressing eight, you’re obviously going to give some young guys a chance.
I’d also add two big caveats to the idea that he developed the young players: the obvious one that he didn’t give Wright a real chance even when our power forward position was wide open, and the fact that he didn’t teach these guys a lick of defense. The Blazers were younger than we are and defended well… age does not excuse everything. Our roster is young, athletic and good-attitude — you could teach them to play at least passable defense, if you try. Nellie didn’t.
2. Evaluate the rest roster to see who fits in with the type of style he wants to play: No Crawford. No Harrington. No Belinelli. Figured out how to use Turiaf as an offensive initiator as needed. Learned Biedrins is what he is (which is really good but will likely never be a star). We’ll get to Wright. Got Maggette to come off the bench without complaining which makes a huge difference when Maggette is on your team.
1) I’m delighted that Nellie decided he didn’t like Crawford, but I wish he’d decided that before playing him 39 minutes a night and sinking our season. I can somewhat forgive Nellie starting Crawford, as most of his previous coaches have also, but on a team as guard-heavy as ours, he didn’t have to give him more minutes per night than Lebron friggin’ James.
2) I have no beef with Nellie’s handling of Marco. I don’t think the guy deserved rotation minutes here. Best of luck to him.
3) Turiaf has always been a good passer, but yeah, I’d say Nellie did a solid job of using his passing.
4) The fact that Andris Biedrins will never be a “star” doesn’t mean you have to cap him at 30 minutes a night when your team is undersized and badly needs rebounding. Biedrins is a good player. It’s not a big deal, but Nellie is still underplaying the guy a bit.
5) We’ll get to Wright.
6) Maggette off the bench was fine. Really Maggette getting his legs back was the key, not coming off the bench. But this was fine.
You say tomato, I say: Mission Accomplished!
I think we disagree on when the mission should have become something other than “make the playoffs”. And Nellie didn’t transition into “play the kids” mode till February. In November and December, he wasn’t evaluating young talent… he was sending an injured Jack out there for 40 minutes a night and starting Maggette at the four over and over, against all logic and evidence.
I think Nellie did some good things last year. He coached Randolph quite well. He gave Morrow more of a chance to contribute than a lot of coaches would’ve. His “drive and kick” offensive shift in January bore some fruit.
But the goal, for a couple months, really was to win. Nellie did several things that made that much, much harder. As I see it, he failed to accomplish his primary mission.
This goes back to making assertions based on what we assume is going on inside Nelson’s head. He didn’t play all that much. He didn’t take playing time from Wright. I don’t understand the issue with Kurz. Nobody thinks he’s an NBA rotation-level player. The plus/minus supports that. He was an emergency measure that was only used when AR wasn’t following directions or when absolutely necessary.
There’s not much of an issue with Kurz… I brought him up more as a stylistic comparison to Wright than as a coaching issue himself. But Rob Kurz is a guy that Nellie liked and campaigned to keep — Nellie has said as much. We cut Richard Hendrix, for instance, to keep the guy… I don’t know that Richard Hendrix will ever be a useful NBA player, but I think he was worth a look over Kurz. Was Hendrix a jerk or something? Possible. But I suspect that Nellie preferred Kurz because he could shoot. And that, to me, illustrates the fact that while Nellie is not biased against rookies, he is biased against certain types of players.
If you don’t force a young player to learn good habits when you have the leverage of team options on his contract and playing time prior to his first big payday, he’ll never learn. I don’t think giving him the same treatment as the other rookies is “jerking him around”. It’s trying to develop your young talent.
If Wright was getting the same treatment as the other young players, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But other guys made countless mistakes and didn’t get pulled for them. How often did CJ go the wrong way on a pick-and-roll? How often was Randolph allowed to play through big mistakes? (Nellie kept a tight leash on Randolph for a couple months, yes, but it wasn’t predicated on mistakes… it was predicated on effort level.)
Wright worked hard and played well. But he got pulled just about every time he made a big mistake, often for the duration of a game. The only other young guy that got treated like that was Marco. Nellie’s treatment of these young guys differed greatly, and if you’re one of the guys who isn’t given any margin for error, you’re going to be frustrated about it.
I only looked at the averages per month because ESPN summarizes them for us. I could have said "his numbers increased from 9.9 to 17.9 from year 1 to year 2. I don’t think looking for sub-trends in random 5-game clusters means he was being jerked around either. What about November 3 – 11? When he played 10, 32, 21, 24 & 34 minutes? What does that tell us? Nothing, right?
Next to nothing, yes. I was just refuting the suggestion that there was a steadily increasing number of minutes for Wright as he proved himself. Wright’s minutes were all over the place, all season, as they had been, rare as they were, his rookie season.
More to the point, if you’re looking at Wright from a contractual level (probably smart), aren’t you incentivized to use him now, while he’s ours? He played well last year; hell, he played well his rookie year, too. Until Randolph blossomed, we were comically undersized and needed some efficient scoring and defense around the basket. Wright’s defense is far from perfect, but it’s far from the worst on the team… he changes shots and is high-effort. If Wright didn’t merit a chance last year, when would he ever?
He’s treating Wright the way he treats all young players or players that he has leverage over.
No, he isn’t.
Anthony Morrow’s my favorite Warrior. I think he could be a very good player, and I’m glad that Nellie played him. But Morrow made a number of defensive mistakes. He lost track of his man, he fouled at silly times, he didn’t help in time. Nellie generally kept him out there, anyway. Same goes for Azubuike, CJ and Randolph. And I’m okay with that. We were the worst defensive team in the league, after all… you can live with some gaffes.
But Wright wasn’t allowed to play through his gaffes. He was coached in a draconian way that other young guys weren’t. I have no beef with draconian coaching, but if you’re going to do it, you have to do it to everyone. Playing favorites will just lead to unhappy players. And while I don’t care so much that he did it to Marco, whose utility to us was marginal, I do care that he did it to a gifted young player who was, for much of the season, our best option at power forward.
He wants Wright to do more than he does and it’s also not his fault that every time Wright seems to be hitting his stride and playing well he gets hurt (it seemed like that based on watching the games last year). I was particularly excited right before he dislocated his shoulder (which was the epitome of a freak injury).
Wright’s shoulder is a definite concern, one that may change his outlook considerably. And it’s a big reason that I’m glad Randolph has emerged as a superior option.
Anyways, good stuff from you as always. We agree more than we don’t and I think we both like Wright and see that he brings things to the table that nobody else on the roster does. Regardless, he the 3rd or 4th man in a 4 big man rotation, so he’s not looking at 30+ minutes per game unless he outplays AR and/or Andris which is going to be difficult because those are the two best rebounders on a poor rebounding team.
I don’t care if he gets 30 minutes a game — as you say, he’s not likely to deserve them on a team with AR and Andris. I’d love to see him get 18-20 minutes every night, minutes that he gets even if he makes a mistake or two, assuming his effort and production remain high. Randolph fouls often enough so that it’s not out of the question. But really, next season isn’t even my beef. My beef is last season, the year we needed him and didn’t really give him a chance.
by onlxn on Aug 5, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The thing about a blockquote party is that the longer they go the longer they get. Sounds like a bad country song . . .
Trading for Crawford hurt the franchise, by making a bad team worse… we were very lucky to move him for the expirings we did. That we traded for Crawford is not Nellie’s fault (entirely — he did lobby for the trade), but that we had to trade Al with zero leverage is partly Nellie’s fault.
Al thinks he’s better than is — I agree. So do 70% of NBA players. That’s a variable that a coach has to deal with — a coach has to handle a collection of egomaniacs in ways that will keep them happy. Talking to the media about how your players think they’re better than they are is not a great way to do that. I don’t think it’s a big deal that Nellie alienated Al, and a lot of it’s Al fault, but come on… Al’s not a psycho, not a bad guy, not a guy that’s had issues over the course of his career. Coaches are supposed to handle players. Nellie didn’t handle Al.
The thing that bothered me most about the Crawford trade was the fact that Al was an expiring and a more valuable trade chip than Crawford. The problem, and you blame Nelson for this, is that they had to move Harrington. I agree that Nelson could have avoided it but I think long-term it worked out ok since Al would have taken minutes from Randolph and Wright. Was this his plan? I can’t imagine so but I also don’t know what’s going on in Nelson’s head any more than the media does.
Here’s some speculation for you that is completely my inference and could be wayyyy off base: I don’t think that Nelson didn’t have Al in his long-term plans and Al probably sensed this. Al was a $10m 3pt shooter who didn’t rebound that well at the PF. So I think Nelson was likely unwilling to give Al the same leeway that he gave Baron, Maggette and Jackson. In fact, if you really want to go all conspiratorial, you could say that because Harrington was a Mullin guy (former teammates & he tried to sign Al as a FA) Nelson almost had to ice him out for Mullin to be willing to trade him. Who knows how much that situation (which started before last year) led to Mullin’s demise. I think it all worked out for the best regardless of what anyone’s intentions were so I’m happy. There are minutes for AR and BW. Mullin is gone. Crawford was moved for expirings.
Getting rid of Al served a third purpose: tanking an entire NBA season. It left Nellie with no power forwards that he was willing to play, and led us to a suicidal smallball approach that put the season out of reach by Thanksgiving. Say what you will about Al — he ain’t great — but he was a power forward that Nellie was willing to play, and that made him useful.
Based on what I said above, clearly I disagree with this statement. Baron leaving, Monta’s injury "tanked" the season. This team had no point guard. The only decision-maker it had was a turnover-prone Jackson. Ill-timed injuries to C.J. Watson, Wright and Bellinelli did not help either. I can’t see a healthy 3pt specialist who plays the PF and who isn’t a playmaker is the death-nail in the coffin. That season was doomed for many reasons. Al was the makeup on the corpse not Nelson’s murder weapon.
I’d agree that all four of these guys got a fair shake, but let’s not forget that most of them weren’t playing much when the team was fairly healthy… Stephen Jackson got 40 minutes a night when his hand was so injured he couldn’t do anything. I think Nellie did a great job bringing Randolph along, and I liked that he was willing to give Morrow a real shot, but really, a lot of this was just reacting to injuries, not brilliant coaching. If you’re dressing eight, you’re obviously going to give some young guys a chance.
Again you’re looking at the process as well as guessing at what he would have done had circumstances been different. I’m looking at the results, which to me, is the important thing. I don’t think it was "brilliant" coaching, but he reacted well to the circumstances (injuries and so forth) and made the best out of it. Would he have found a way to work Morrow in had there not been injuries? We don’t know but the fact that he was willing to bench a well-liked, good citizen with a two year player option in Crawford to get Morrow minutes at least suggests that he might have.
I’d also add two big caveats to the idea that he developed the young players: the obvious one that he didn’t give Wright a real chance even when our power forward position was wide open.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. There is no good evidence to support either side to the other side’s satisfaction. You want him to play around 20 minutes, which is what he ended up averaging in the last month after a steady increase but you are dissatisfied with the consistency of the distribution of minutes. So, we’re at an impasse.
The Blazers were younger than we are and defended well… age does not excuse everything. Our roster is young, athletic and good-attitude — you could teach them to play at least passable defense, if you try. Nellie didn’t.
Hey! Wasn’t that Keith Smart’s job?!? Just kidding. I think we both know that Nelson let’s Keith Smart do his own thing to the extent that Nelson approves of what he’s doing. Same goes for Larry Riley. Yah, they sucked at defense. It was hard to watch. He’s not a defense-first coach but his schemes are complicated on defense. Lots of switching and going for steals. They just need to defend well enough to prevent the other team from scoring as much as they do, which is typically a lot. We’ll see next year how they develop. Belinelli got better, Morrow got better (albeit still bad) and I think Randolph is already a decent defender at age 19. He’ll be an excellent Nelson defender IMO.
I think we disagree on when the mission should have become something other than "make the playoffs". And Nellie didn’t transition into "play the kids" mode till February. In November and December, he wasn’t evaluating young talent… he was sending an injured Jack out there for 40 minutes a night and starting Maggette at the four over and over, against all logic and evidence.
Again, process versus results. I don’t think you just "play the kids". What’s the point of playing them if they keep making the same mistakes? They learned, they eventually got into the game and every one of them was a legitimate NBA player by the end of the year. I don’t see why we’re criticizing how he did it. What more could we have reasonably expected from a player development standpoint?
As far as "make the playoffs" goes, there is no way you make the playoffs with no point guard, a 2nd tier shooting guard (considering Jackson a 3) , two rookie power forwards and no star players. If on opening night your best players were Biedrins and Jackson you are not making the playoffs.
There’s not much of an issue with Kurz… I brought him up more as a stylistic comparison to Wright than as a coaching issue himself. But Rob Kurz is a guy that Nellie liked and campaigned to keep — Nellie has said as much. We cut Richard Hendrix, for instance, to keep the guy… I don’t know that Richard Hendrix will ever be a useful NBA player, but I think he was worth a look over Kurz. Was Hendrix a jerk or something? Possible. But I suspect that Nellie preferred Kurz because he could shoot. And that, to me, illustrates the fact that while Nellie is not biased against rookies, he is biased against certain types of players.
Neither of us know anything about Richard Hendrix’s ability to succeed at the NBA level. We do know that Rob Kurz can at least shoot well and not mess up the flow of the offense. I don’t see a basis for saying that he is biased against anything except players who aren’t good for his system. Which makes sense to me since that’s the system they’d be playing in.
If Wright was getting the same treatment as the other young players, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But other guys made countless mistakes and didn’t get pulled for them. How often did CJ go the wrong way on a pick-and-roll? How often was Randolph allowed to play through big mistakes? (Nellie kept a tight leash on Randolph for a couple months, yes, but it wasn’t predicated on mistakes… it was predicated on effort level.)
Watson was the only viable semi-point guard. He had no choice until Belinelli started to play defense in December and then he got hurt. You criticized him earlier for how many minutes he gave to Crawford, but there weren’t many options.
Randolph was pulled for his attitude and his mistakes like turnovers or running down the floor and pulling up for a 17’ jumper when he couldn’t hit that shot.
As far as the equal treatment issue is concerned, I stated that poorly. What I meant is that, because of the leverage Nelson has over players who are in their rookie-scale years, he has the freedom to push whichever buttons he thinks will get what he wants out of each individual. I think (hope) he’s harder on Wright because Wright has the athleticism to be a good defender and a unique offensive polish. Maybe Wright only responds to getting yanked out of the game. Who knows, but I don’t worry about fairness since no two players are equal and the team should expect different things from each player based on the position they play and their individual skill-sets.
Wright worked hard and played well. But he got pulled just about every time he made a big mistake, often for the duration of a game. The only other young guy that got treated like that was Marco. Nellie’s treatment of these young guys differed greatly, and if you’re one of the guys who isn’t given any margin for error, you’re going to be frustrated about it.
Regarding Wright, we just remember last season differently. What I saw was increasing playing time torpedoed by ill-timed injuries. I like Wright a lot and hope they use him he’s got a lot of unique skills and he’s really fun to watch when he’s being assertive. His hook shot is impossible to stop. I like it when he shoots, it lowers my stress level.
Party on . . .
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 6, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Time to wrap this puppy up, and I agree with most of what you say here. I’ll just hit a couple points:
I don’t think that Nelson didn’t have Al in his long-term plans and Al probably sensed this.
Sounds right to me.
That season was doomed for many reasons. Al was the makeup on the corpse not Nelson’s murder weapon.
Agreed… I don’t think Al’s departure is the reason we had a bad season. But part of the reason we had a bad season was an excess of smallball, a strategy Nellie resorted to when Al left. Al is a middling power forward, but he’s certainly a better one than Corey Maggette.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. There is no good evidence to support either side to the other side’s satisfaction. You want him to play around 20 minutes, which is what he ended up averaging in the last month after a steady increase but you are dissatisfied with the consistency of the distribution of minutes.
Regarding Brandan Wright’s playing time, I have two different opinions.
Next year, it’s hard to argue for him playing more than 20 minutes a game. Randolph shows more potential, and unless and until that changes, he should be ahead of Wright in line.
Last year, however, Wright should have been at the front of line till February or so. I’m not arguing that Wright should’ve played 20 minutes a game last year… I’m arguing that he should’ve played 30-35 minutes a game last year. We should’ve handed him the starting power forward job until he proved he couldn’t handle it. It would’ve made the team better, it would’ve improved his trade value, and it obviously would’ve been good for him.
The obvious response is, “Maybe he couldn’t have handled it.” Maybe. But all the evidence — the time he’s spent on NBA courts thus far — is that he could. At the very least, it would’ve been worth finding out.
As far as “make the playoffs” goes, there is no way you make the playoffs with no point guard, a 2nd tier shooting guard (considering Jackson a 3) , two rookie power forwards and no star players. If on opening night your best players were Biedrins and Jackson you are not making the playoffs.
I think Maggette’s a bit better than Jackson, but your point stands. Was the non-Monta roster playoff-level? Almost certainly not. But it wasn’t 53-loss bad, either. The Knicks won three games more than we did with a roster that can’t hold a candle to ours. Lee and Biedrins are pretty close in value, but who would you rather have, Jack/Maggette/Wright/Turiaf/Azubuike/Morrow or Robinson/Chandler/Harrington/Duhon/Q/Jefferies?
I’m not saying a better coaching job would’ve gotten us into the playoffs. But it would’ve made last year less ugly. We underachieved by a good bit. For this season, I’m happy that we did, because it netted us Curry. But I watched most of last year’s games, and it was damn depressing, more depressing than it had to be. And Nellie’s poor coaching was part of the reason why.
People who get hung up on our lack of a point guard seem to miss the point that our offense was credible last year, slightly above average, in fact. We didn’t lose because we didn’t have a point guard… we lost because we were the worst defensive team in the league and the second-worst rebounding team in the league. We were destined to be poor in those areas, but Nellie’s defensive apathy and refusal to play two big men made both problems much, much worse.
I think (hope) he’s harder on Wright because Wright has the athleticism to be a good defender and a unique offensive polish. Maybe Wright only responds to getting yanked out of the game.
I hope that’s true… we can’t know. We do know Wright grew frustrated to the point that he talked to Al about Nellie in midseason, and that he was visibly angry more than once when called to the bench, having to be talked down by Keith Smart at one point. Does that prove that Nellie’s mishandling him? No. But I can’t say I have much faith that Nellie’s just trying to bring out his potential properly.
I don’t think Nellie’s stupid… I think he realizes that Wright brings good things to the table. I just think that Nellie’s not okay with the idea of having two non-shooters on the floor, even if the rebounding and defensive benefits would be big. I’m even sympathetic to that. But when you’ve lost six in a row starting a banged-up Corey Maggette at the four, isn’t it worth giving an extremely productive young power forward a shot, even if it means shifting your pacing around a little?
Nellie is a far more versatile and adaptable coach than he’s often given credit for — over the course of his career, he’s been good at shifting strategies based on the talent at hand. But like any coach, he has certain inflexibilities, and for the first half of last year, it hurt us. He insisted on giving an injured Jack heavy minutes when it wasn’t working; he insisting on starting Maggette at the four when it wasn’t working. He spent weeks and weeks pushing strategies that were demonstrably bad, rather than resort to a bigger, more traditional lineup that had a better chance of success. In those weeks, our season went down the toilet, far quickly and more emphatically than it had to.
He did some bad, stubborn coaching for a couple months. I don’t think that makes him a jerk or an idiot, and I don’t think we’d have made the playoffs simply if he’d have coached better. But the guy makes five million dollars a year — it’s fair to expect him to wring as many wins as possible out of a team, especially early on, when anything’s possible. Nellie didn’t do that. Let’s hope he does next year.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two corrections:
1) “pacing” should be “spacing”
2) this was supposed to be short
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Consider this “puppy” wrapped-up. A pleasure doing business with you.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 6, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edit: The sentence:
6) He coached badly last season.was intended to be blockquoted.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 5, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I rec'd this post....
This deserves a rec as it covers EVERYTHING else aside from his treatment of rookies that Nelson SHOULD get flack for.
I like you agree that most of it is BS or heavily biased against Nelson but there were 3 things last year that really pissed me off about Nelson:
(1) His reliance on small ball to close games.
(2) Riding S-Jax so hard.
(3) His reliance on small ball to close games.
I think all the issues everyone had with Nelson’s coaching had to do with the points above. S-Jax is a versatile offensive player and a defensive beast WHEN used in moderation. Even S-Jax himself admitted that there are times Nellie should ignore Jacks pleas to stay in the game and give him rest. If he is able to limit Jack’s minutes the Warriors and Jackson will be better for it.
I believe it is Nelson’s preference to attack (offense) instead of defend that leads him to choose small-ball over a traditional line-up (even once Randolph emerged). There were numerous games where the traditional lineup gave the Dubs the lead but in crunch time Nellie would sub in Watson for a big and then it was game over. Hopefully with the emergence of Randolph, Nellie will be able to play a more traditional line up to close games.
Given all the injuries and young players Nelson had on the roster last season, I’d like to give him a free pass in regards to his substitution patterns. If his reliance on small ball cotinues even after Randolph has proven himself capable then it’s time to find a new coach. In the past Nellie could use small ball because our best players were guards but now he has: Biedrins, Randolph, and Turiaf as a 3 man PF/C rotation and Wright picking up minutes when he can. If he still sticks to a smaller line up to close the game he’s just being stubborn.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 5, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he still sticks to a smaller line up to close the game he’s just being stubborn.
Nellie’s always been stubborn, that’s why he ran off webber and couldn’t get along with cuban.
He doesn’t want to admit that “his” smallball doesn’t work as well as most guys bigball . He keeps forcing the issue in hopes that the law of averages will one day give him a win so he can say he was right, he don’t realize what we all already know ,that it wouldn’t prove anything if smallball did work once or twice over the course of a lifetime.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 5, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: couldn’t get along with cuban.
Cuban refused to extend Nash, letting him go to Phoenix and then insisted on giving a huge contract to Dampier. That’d piss me off too.
I presponded to the rest of your post in the mass of text above.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 5, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this study really, really needed a control, as stated by numerous other posters.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 12:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Eh I dunno about “really, really needed a control”. It’s not a scientific study or anything. It wouldn’t be fit for an academic journal without a substantial amount more work, but for a blog post, I think it had enough facts and good information for us to at least make some reasonable conclusions – if a rookie is ready to contribute, there’s a very, very good chance Don Nelson will play them.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is probably totally unfair of me, but I realized rather early on in the fanpost that there was no mention or usage of a control group (i.e. how frequently other coaches play their rookies), and as a result I simply skimmed the article. Of course, I never did find it.
Usage of control groups is so important to studies that I’m not going to give time to a boatload of statistics unless they can show me something. “Don Nelson doesn’t play rookies” isn’t proved by whether he plays rookies 5 mpg or 25 mpg unless you put those numbers into context.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For comparison during the 08/09 season the 64 rookies league wide averaged 12 mpg in 38 games, while the 2nd year players averaged 15 mpg in 40 games.
It’s there for at least one year. If you don’t think that is a typical year you can look up some more?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a good start, but it should probably be expanded to past years, too. But even then that sort of a stat is so broad that I don’t think you can draw any real conclusions from it. That’s lumping in the #1 overall pick with undrafted FAs, so the only real way is to come up with some way to adequately compare rookies of one type on one team with similar guys on other teams.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get how that's not enough control for ya?
I know it’s a one year thing but compared to the whole 30 year career of Nelson it looks like he’s plays rookie about the same amount as the average NBA coach.
Also regarding this quote…..
That’s lumping in the #1 overall pick with undrafted FAs, so the only real way is to come up with some way to adequately compare rookies of one type on one team with similar guys on other teams.
It’s goes both ways. I’m pretty sure Don Nelson had #1 overall draft picks (Webber) and UDFA (too many to list) factored into his 30 year average. So it’s an even comparison in regards to averages aside from length of time. Just the fact that Nelson’s 30 year averaged was similar to the 08-09 season shows that Nellie over the course of his career played players to the 08-09 average as Skeptic mentioned I don’t think last year was an atypical year in regards to rookie playing time.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t use one season and expect it to be relevant to 30 years of the NBA. Expansion, rules changes, and many other factors make comparing 08-09 to 78-79 absurd. Not to mention the fact that the 2008-09 rookie class is widely regarded as one of the best in history, meaning that we would naturally expect their minutes played to be greater than other recent draft classes.
The best way to do this, in my opinion, would be to track average minutes for all rookies every season, then graph those against the average minutes for rookies who played under Don Nelson. You could follow the trends and see if he has a tendency one way or the other. Perhaps there would be too much noise in the signal, but it would be a good place to start if you’re trying to show one way or the other.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about 5 years of data?
NBA.com splits stats for rookies/sophmores only dates back to the 04-05 season for GP and 05-06 season for MPG.
I will add this to original article for those who haven’t read it yet.
Rookies:
-GP: Nelson: 40.27
-MPG Nelson: 14.11
-GP: Last 5 seasons league wide: 42.85
-MPG Last 4 seasons: 13.84Sophomores
-GP: Nelson: 62.75
-MPG Nelson: 21.11
-GP: Last 5 seasons league wide: 50.67
-MPG Last 4 seasons: 16.99
Looking at the past 5 years shows that the only thing that Nelson is below average in comparing his 80 or so rookies/sophs vs the 250 or so players that entered the league over the last 5 years is GP with a difference of -2. He is a bit under but not a crazy amount that would cause concern.
I wish we had the data easily accessible for all 30 seasons, but the NBA game hasn’t changed that much IMO that looking back 5 vs 30 years would change the results.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dating back to 98-99, the average rookie (N = and this includes guys who were 10-day contract call ups) appeared in 40.13 games and logged an average of 17.6 mpg.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, starting to look like Nellie does play the rooks just a bit less than average, no? Can you take this back another 20 years?
p.s. does a DNP-CD count as 0 or get thrown out?
Thank you for clarifying the manner and quality of the thinking behind your analysis. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 12, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
logged an average of 17.6 mpg.
That’s a lot higher than I would have guessed, that means they played about 1/3 the minutes available at their position?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that number should be clarified somewhat. If simply take the number of player-games (games in which a player received at least 1 second of PT) and divide the sum of minutes by that, it’s 17.6. If you count players as individual units and take the average of their mpgs, it’s closer to 13 mpg. The difference is that players with low minute totals also tend to have more DNPs.
Example of this difference with two players.
One played 80 games and logged 2400 minutes (30mpg), the other plays 20 games and logs 200 minutes (10mpg). The average based on player-games for the two is 2600 total minutes divided by 100 player/games = 26mpg.
The average considering both players as equal representations of a ‘rookie mpg average’ is the average of 30 and 10, or 20mpg. The former better reflects how many minutes are logged by rookies, but the latter better reflects how much any given rookie is likely to play.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is how I get my numbers...
Well, that number should be clarified somewhat. If simply take the number of player-games (games in which a player received at least 1 second of PT) and divide the sum of minutes by that, it’s 17.6. If you count players as individual units and take the average of their mpgs, it’s closer to 13 mpg. The difference is that players with low minute totals also tend to have more DNPs.
So At least dating back to 1999 it shows Nellie is average when it compares to usage of rookies.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s fine. I can see arguments for both numbers, just so long as it’s explicit what we’re actually comparing.
It doesn’t look like Nellie is really much different from the league as a whole though. When he’s got good rookies, he uses them. When he doesn’t, they sit.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yah wasn't promoting one number over another...
… just wanted to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
That explains it well.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
control group
Thanks for that, Dash. Those two words could have saved me a whole lot of babbling.
Thank you for clarifying the manner and quality of the thinking behind your analysis. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 12, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Much like how Missing Barry is an expert in the field of economics and you are an expert in pretty much everything else, I am a professional scientist so a study without such a group instantly sends up red flags for me.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it should, like I said it’s not scientific quality, but that doesn’t mean the statistics he gave us can’t tell us something. You’re right in that it doesn’t prove Nelson treats rookies equally to the rest of the NBA, but after my reading of the article, it does seem to at least put to rest the notion that Nelson hates rookies and won’t play them at all. Maybe he discriminates against rookies and they have to do more to get PT, but if they’re good enough, I think this shows pretty clearly that they will at least get some PT. One of the biggest things I see is it puts some of the completely irrational “Curry’s a rookie so he’ll get 5 minutes per game under Nelson” arguments to rest…
*And I wouldn’t call myself an expert in economics, it’s not like I have a PHD, I’m just a professional in economics.
by Missing Barry on Aug 12, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you’ve demonstrated your expertise well enough in other threads for you to be labeled an “expert,” at least relative to the GSoM population at large.
There’s a problem with interpreting “Don Nelson doesn’t play rookies.” The first level definition is “if he plays rookies at all, that statement is false.” Obviously this is not what the author was going for, so what’s the second-level definition? “Don Nelson plays rookies less than…” what? Other coaches, obviously (at least to me).
Now if the post were addressed specifically to claims that Nelson never played rookies more than 20 minutes per game (or some arbitrary threshold) that would be rather easily proven. But the question as stated is so open-ended that I think it requires it to be put into context.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now if the post were addressed specifically to claims that Nelson never played rookies more than 20 minutes per game (or some arbitrary threshold) that would be rather easily proven.
Of course, were it science, you’d also avoid throwing around the “prove” word. Science cannot prove something. I can reject the null hypothesis. Yes, in layman’s terms they can be functionally the same thing, but so long as we’re working on getting this back to the reviewers…
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you prefer I had used the word “shown”? I’m not sure you what you have me use here.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a semantic issue. Science is a conditional proposition. You cannot prove anything. You can reject a hypothesis or disprove a hypothesis, but strictly speaking in science the opposite of disprove is not prove. In science, there is always the possibility of more conflicting data changing a conclusion.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I don’t even understand how this is science. Are you saying that it’s possible to reject the conclusion of one number being larger than another number?
Is your argument that there’s always going to be some uncertainty in the collection of any set of data, not matter how mindless, so you can never say anything with virtual certainty?
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying that it’s possible to reject the conclusion of one number being larger than another number?
Haha, yeah 3 beers might be less than 2 beers so to play it safe you better give me one of yours?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the “Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle”. By the very nature of drinking, one cannot actually be certain of how much one has had to drink.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, sarcasm evaporates into the ether of the net. Since there was talk about “submitting to reviewers” and “resubmit with revisions” I was playing the science hand.
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s OK, I don’t really get the humor of the PhDs at my work, either.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying we’re not the most, uh, “comically gifted” lot?
by jae on Aug 12, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I can say is that the so-called “jokes” in one of the big chemistry magazines (Might have been C&EN, not sure) were pretty much the worst jokes I have ever heard in my entire life.
There were jokes which consisted of two people using mass spectrometry acronyms to hold a conversation. It had me longing for fart jokes, to be frank.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 12, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not the most, uh, "comically gifted" lot?
In the case of jokes does that stand for Pull’dHoutDeass?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 13, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are an expert in pretty much everything else
LOL. What, like putdowns, silly pix, bad one-liners, and tired emoticons? ;-P
Thank you for clarifying the manner and quality of the thinking behind your analysis. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 12, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait… Are you guys talking basketball??
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 12, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shut up ya big dummy!

Thank you for clarifying the manner and quality of the thinking behind your analysis. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 12, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are an expert in pretty much everything else
wait a minute , that triped my sarcasm detector ?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edited the Original Article to Add:
ETA: This is data comparing Nellie’s past 30 years vs the past 4 years of MPG and 5 yrs of GP as tracked by NBA.com. For those seeking a longer control. Pretty much the same results showing that Nellie is league average in use of rookies in regard to his peers.
Rookies:
- Nelson: 40.27 GP/ 14.11 mpg
- League: 42.85 GP/ 13.84 mpgSophomores
-Nelson: 62.75 GP/ 21.11 mpg
-League: 50.67 GP/ 16.99 mpg
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is data comparing Nellie’s past 30 years vs the past 4 years of MPG and 5 yrs of GP
Which is probably pretty representative of the other years I’d imagine?
Even looks like if they make it thru the first year nellie gives em more time the the other coaches give em?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 12, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say Yes and Yes.
Not sure what more everyone else needs.
Does Nelson Hate playing rookies?
NO…
Over his 30 year career his rookies and sophomores play at a similar level to the league average meaning Nellie is in the middle of the pack in his use of rookies. He will play rookies who are able to make significant contributions to the club and most impact players do this by their 2nd year. If you haven’t logged significant minutes in your 2nd year you are pretty much going to be a bench player. The myth that Nellie rookies don’t play is due to the fact that MOST NBA rookies are busts (just take a look at the number of starters each draft produces and numbers of busts) and not because Nelson has an irrational hatred for them.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Aug 12, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolph is CLEARLY a top 5 player in the 2008 draft, yet he only gets 17.9 mpg. UNACCEPTABLE
RANK Name Team GP Min
1 O.J. Mayo MEM 82 38.1
2 Derrick Rose CHI 81 37.0
3 Eric Gordon LAC 78 34.3
4 Russell Westbrook OKC 82 32.5
5 Mario Chalmers MIA 82 32.0
6 Marc Gasol MEM 82 30.7
7 Brook Lopez NJ 82 30.5
8 Jason Thompson SAC 82 28.1
9 D.J. Augustin CHA 72 26.5
10 Luc Richard Mbah a Moute MIL 82 25.8
11 Rudy Fernandez POR 78 25.6
12 Kevin Love MIN 81 25.3
13 Courtney Lee ORL 77 25.2
14 Michael Beasley MIA 81 24.8
15 Brandon Rush IND 75 24.0
16 Anthony Morrow GS 67 22.6
17 Kyle Weaver OKC 56 20.8
18 Ryan Anderson NJ 66 19.9
19 Darrell Arthur MEM 76 19.3
20 D.J. White OKC 7 18.5
21 Nicolas Batum POR 79 18.4
22 Anthony Randolph GS 63 17.9
We were a 29 win team, Randolph being 22ND among rookies in MPG with 19 DNPs last year. Ugh…
by Bob on Aug 21, 2009 4:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















