Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
I agree that minutes itself won't make players better. There are plenty of examples about players that got minutes right away but never got better and then there are players that played very little in first couple of seasons that still improved and earned their minutes.
Below more examples about all star (or near all star level) players that got around 20 minutes or less in at least their first two seasons:
Peja Stojakovic
Jermaine O'Neil
Tracy McGrady
Rashard Lewis
Hedo Turkoglu
Mehmet Okur
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
David West
Devin Harris
Marcin Gortat
J.J. Redick
Kyle Lowry
Arron Afflalo
DeAndre Jordan
Jeff Teague
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
And even guys like Kobe, Harden, Manu, Paul George and Jimmy Butler did play still less than 30 minutes in their 2nd season.
Wow, good work Hockey and Mikkeman.
So Khans, Can we please put to bed this notion that a young player MUST play 20+ minutes per game early in his career in order to improve and, in some cases, eventually become a star?
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
Huh? So backing up Martin and playing against inferior competition will make Zach play worse? You are basically implying that Zach LaVine is only effective if given 30+ minutes per night against starters. But boy, if we put him up against inferior competition with fewer minutes, than he'll go to hell in a hand basket.....Silliness!
I'll buy that getting playing time - whether it's in the NBA or D-League - is part of a player's improvement. So is coaching. So is practice. So is getting comfortable with the NBA lifestyle and travel. So is diet. So is fitness. So is....it goes on. To simplify it into an arbitrary 20 or more minutes per game rule that you made up doesn't make sense to me. But you won't let go of it, so I give up at this point!
Your theory that playing against second units should give him the opportunity to put up better stats was statistically wrong based on his play last year. He started 40 games and came off the bench 37 and while his minutes doubled between starting and coming off the bench, his overall stats were more than twice as good and his shooting percentages were better in every category except FT shooting which was almost the same. So yes, statistically he played better when he got the extra minutes. Not just the same production level with more minutes and that was as you say yourself against tougher competition. The stats don't back up your theory that he'll play better coming off the bench against lesser competition because he played better as a starter. Hence my comment on backtracking to bench player to earn his way back to the starting lineup where he produced better. Aka playing him in his worse role expecting him to get better just to get back to where he finished this year when he played really well.
Perhaps those star players were given the keys early because they were actually really, really talented! I have a feeling Michael Jordan would have still become a star if he had averaged 18 MPG his first two seasons.
Turning your analogy on its head, I might suggest that the antidote to poor play is to simply give the guy more minutes. After all, how could anyone ever improve without getting the magical 20 MPG you have arbitrarily picked as the right number?
At any rate, here are a few so-so players that played ~ 20 minutes per game or less over their first two seasons:
Steve Nash
Zach Randolph
Al Jefferson
Draymond Green
Paul Millsap
Gerald Wallace
Andrew Bynum
There are others too. Undoubtedly you are right that most star players played more, but that's not because they were force-fed a bunch of minutes in year 2 or 3 of their career. They were actually really skilled players that earned those minutes.
Goran Dragic
Eric Bledsoe
I think the major difference with LaVine is that he's a bigger project than most any player. Big skills on the kid, but very green.
I agree that minutes itself won't make players better. There are plenty of examples about players that got minutes right away but never got better and then there are players that played very little in first couple of seasons that still improved and earned their minutes.
Below more examples about all star (or near all star level) players that got around 20 minutes or less in at least their first two seasons:
Peja Stojakovic
Jermaine O'Neil
Tracy McGrady
Rashard Lewis
Hedo Turkoglu
Mehmet Okur
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
David West
Devin Harris
Marcin Gortat
J.J. Redick
Kyle Lowry
Arron Afflalo
DeAndre Jordan
Jeff Teague
Derrick Favors
Enes Kanter
And even guys like Kobe, Harden, Manu, Paul George and Jimmy Butler did play still less than 30 minutes in their 2nd season.
Wow, good work Hockey and Mikkeman.
So Khans, Can we please put to bed this notion that a young player MUST play 20+ minutes per game early in his career in order to improve and, in some cases, eventually become a star?
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
Huh? So backing up Martin and playing against inferior competition will make Zach play worse? You are basically implying that Zach LaVine is only effective if given 30+ minutes per night against starters. But boy, if we put him up against inferior competition with fewer minutes, than he'll go to hell in a hand basket.....Silliness!
I'll buy that getting playing time - whether it's in the NBA or D-League - is part of a player's improvement. So is coaching. So is practice. So is getting comfortable with the NBA lifestyle and travel. So is diet. So is fitness. So is....it goes on. To simplify it into an arbitrary 20 or more minutes per game rule that you made up doesn't make sense to me. But you won't let go of it, so I give up at this point!
Your theory that playing against second units should give him the opportunity to put up better stats was statistically wrong based on his play last year. He started 40 games and came off the bench 37 and while his minutes doubled between starting and coming off the bench, his overall stats were more than twice as good and his shooting percentages were better in every category except FT shooting which was almost the same. So yes, statistically he played better when he got the extra minutes. Not just the same production level with more minutes and that was as you say yourself against tougher competition. The stats don't back up your theory that he'll play better coming off the bench against lesser competition because he played better as a starter. Hence my comment on backtracking to bench player to earn his way back to the starting lineup where he produced better. Aka playing him in his worse role expecting him to get better just to get back to where he finished this year when he played really well.
Start of the year - Super hesitant, was completely lost, every pass he'd make would be back out to the perimeter on the safest possible pass, completely predictable, even when he was getting big minutes with all the injuries
Middle of the year - Minutes were cut with players coming back from injury, but started to play semi-competently.
End of the year - Played with a lot more confidence, attacked the rim more, made less 'wtf' passes/plays, started to show his immense upside. Outside of gaining some muscle, the next step to him becoming a "plus" player is learning to harness his skills in a more efficient and effective manner within the full context of the game. I really hope that part of his game ends up clicking, because if it does, he could be really good. If it doesn't it could always be a "what if" player who can put up some nice stats here and there (see Michael Beasley for a great example of that).
Nemanja Bjelica appears to run the floor well and has an above average handle for a big man. I think those attributes would fit in well with Ricky, add in the fact that he seemed to spot up well from 3pt land and I think he'd be a solid rotational big for our team. I'm much more interested in team players like this than the boom or bust types like Bennett and Payne, especially those two they just seem so flawed when I watched them last year.
Q12543 wrote:
Zgoda, ugh. He's obviously very pro-Okafor and almost touchy about people questioning Flip's logic, who he seems to think is 100% behind taking Okafor #1 if we get the first pick. Then he goes off and casually dismisses Bjelica, the reigning Euroleague MVP.
I'm not necessarily opposed to trading Bjelica, but we'd damn well better get a decent asset in return. And God no, don't trade him to Dallas (something Zgoda threw out there in the broadcast), a team on the verge of having to totally rebuild. If we trade him, PLEASE find an Eastern Conference team! Pretty please!?
Why you are against trading Bjelica to Dallas? That would seem to be perfect place for him. He is versatile enough to come from bench to sub either Parsons or Dirk. Dallas would also have low 1st round pick that they could use to pick a player that Wolves want and then trade that pick for Bjelica (and possibly 2nd round pick).
Mikkeman wrote:
Why you are against trading Bjelica to Dallas? That would seem to be perfect place for him. He is versatile enough to come from bench to sub either Parsons or Dirk. Dallas would also have low 1st round pick that they could use to pick a player that Wolves want and then trade that pick for Bjelica (and possibly 2nd round pick).
Love that idea. There's a story on Yahoo that's saying the Wolves are looking to get back into the 1st round, so your idea would certainly be one way to do that. If they could Flip a 27 year old, unproven Euro for a Tyus Jones - I'd love it. http://www.canishoopus.com/2015/5/18/8619239/should-the-wolves-pursue-tyus-jones
Mikkeman wrote:
Why you are against trading Bjelica to Dallas? That would seem to be perfect place for him. He is versatile enough to come from bench to sub either Parsons or Dirk. Dallas would also have low 1st round pick that they could use to pick a player that Wolves want and then trade that pick for Bjelica (and possibly 2nd round pick).
Love that idea. There's a story on Yahoo that's saying the Wolves are looking to get back into the 1st round, so your idea would certainly be one way to do that. If they could Flip a 27 year old, unproven Euro for a Tyus Jones - I'd love it. http://www.canishoopus.com/2015/5/18/8619239/should-the-wolves-pursue-tyus-jones
Good grief people, the Tyus Jones train is running off the tracks! So the guy who has been playing professional ball at the highest level in Europe for years is the unproven one and Tyus Jones is a lock to become the next....I'm not sure who.
Just because us Americans got to watch Tyus Jones in action over the course of a few weekends in March doesn't make his accomplishments more valid or impactful than a guy who has been honing his craft for years in a much tougher league.
Mikkeman, the reason I don't want to send Bjelica to Dallas is because I'm tired of seeing talent flow to Western Conference teams. I would much rather deal with Eastern Conference teams, who are completely isolated from us in terms of playoff positioning. So the reason you believe he is a great fit in Dallas is exactly why I don't want him there!
Q12543 wrote:
Good grief people, the Tyus Jones train is running off the tracks! So the guy who has been playing professional ball at the highest level in Europe for years is the unproven one and Tyus Jones is a lock to become the next....I'm not sure who.
Just because us Americans got to watch Tyus Jones in action over the course of a few weekends in March doesn't make his accomplishments more valid or impactful than a guy who has been honing his craft for years in a much tougher league.
Mikkeman, the reason I don't want to send Bjelica to Dallas is because I'm tired of seeing talent flow to Western Conference teams. I would much rather deal with Eastern Conference teams, who are completely isolated from us in terms of playoff positioning. So the reason you believe he is a great fit in Dallas is exactly why I don't want him there!
But I think it is much easier to get something valuable from team that would be good place for some player. Dallas is in win now mode as long as Dirk plays, so they might be ready to even trade their 1st pick (after picking player Wolves want and I'm not suggesting to use that pick for Tyus) straight to Bjelica if they think high on him. Getting 27 year old proven Bjelica instead of some rookie straight from college makes sense for them.
I just don't see any team that would be as good fit for Bjelica in eastern conference.
Q12543 wrote:
Good grief people, the Tyus Jones train is running off the tracks! So the guy who has been playing professional ball at the highest level in Europe for years is the unproven one and Tyus Jones is a lock to become the next....I'm not sure who.
Just because us Americans got to watch Tyus Jones in action over the course of a few weekends in March doesn't make his accomplishments more valid or impactful than a guy who has been honing his craft for years in a much tougher league.
Mikkeman, the reason I don't want to send Bjelica to Dallas is because I'm tired of seeing talent flow to Western Conference teams. I would much rather deal with Eastern Conference teams, who are completely isolated from us in terms of playoff positioning. So the reason you believe he is a great fit in Dallas is exactly why I don't want him there!
27 year old "playing at the highest level in Europe" isn't that impressive to me. Trust me on this...if he was that great, he would have been in the NBA a long time ago. I don't think many guys prefer to have Euro careers over the NBA. Adding the Euro guy would just further muddle the current PF mix. If they want to make a move at PF, then go get an established guy - not another question mark. I doubt Euro guy would be much (if any) upgrade to Payne (and Payne's younger by 3 years).
Regarding Tyus Jones - if he's still there at the start of the second round - I'd love to grab him. Not sure why anyone would be down on the him based on what I've seen. To me, he's a perfect late 1st/early second round pick. Young guy with lots of potential upside. And it would be great to have a prospect behind Rubio based on his injury history. And it would force Flip to play LaVine at SG more where he looked much better.
Carlos - Great points on this. We have seen plenty of solid players come over, but we can't expect him to be a star. I would trade him for a pick if we could land one of the following:
