The 2012 Rookie Class

[Ruzious]

I think payitforward's point isn't that environment doesn't matter, but rather that good management, good coaching, good players, good people make for good environment. Good teams are the ones that make more good choices. Dynasties are teams that make more good choices over a long period of time.

That I agree with, but it's not at all what I took from pay's post - which seemed to say that a "good player" is going to be good no matter where he plays.

[closg00]

Crowder will most-likely be starting for Dallas.
http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2012/10/2 ... -oklahoma/

[payitforward]

I think payitforward's point isn't that environment doesn't matter, but rather that good management, good coaching, good players, good people make for good environment. Good teams are the ones that make more good choices. Dynasties are teams that make more good choices over a long period of time.

That I agree with, but it's not at all what I took from pay's post - which seemed to say that a "good player" is going to be good no matter where he plays.

So... you'd like to assert the opposite? A good player won't be good if he plays on a bad team? Even though, e.g., we hear people say that rookie Nicholson will be good on a bad team? So... what? He must not be a good player, right? Otherwise, he wouldn't be good on a bad team? So he must be a bad player -- and when you put a bad player on a bad team... he's good! There you go.

Worse, if you put a good player on a good team, and he's good -- that's only because he's on a good team. Like Kawhi Leonard. I mean you take a good player like e.g. LeBron James, and you put him on a bad team, like e.g. the Cavaliers pre-LeBron, and he won't be a good player.

Or... what? Thing is, this is all 100% BS. A "good team" is a team with players who play well. Because they play well, they win games. Because they win games, they're a good team. What does it mean to be a good player -- it means to help your team win more games than some other player: you are better than that other player. What in God's name else could the phrase "good player" mean?

So lets say it this way: if player A is better than player B, then player A helps the team he is on win more games than if instead the team had player B. That is what it means to be "better." If you are "better" than most guys, why then you are "good."

What is complicated about this? And why don't you give me some evidence to the contrary if you have any. I don't think you have any.

[dangermouse]

Finally saw some Davis. He looks like rookie Durant body wise. Boy is he going to be special though, even being undersized bulk-wise he manages to make an impact. I think the Garnett comparison is spot-on, he could even be better than KG eventually. Give it 2-3 years he will be the best PF in the game.

[willbcocks]

I think payitforward's point isn't that environment doesn't matter, but rather that good management, good coaching, good players, good people make for good environment. Good teams are the ones that make more good choices. Dynasties are teams that make more good choices over a long period of time.

That I agree with, but it's not at all what I took from pay's post - which seemed to say that a "good player" is going to be good no matter where he plays.

So... you'd like to assert the opposite? A good player won't be good if he plays on a bad team? Even though, e.g., we hear people say that rookie Nicholson will be good on a bad team? So... what? He must not be a good player, right? Otherwise, he wouldn't be good on a bad team? So he must be a bad player -- and when you put a bad player on a bad team... he's good! There you go.

Worse, if you put a good player on a good team, and he's good -- that's only because he's on a good team. Like Kawhi Leonard. I mean you take a good player like e.g. LeBron James, and you put him on a bad team, like e.g. the Cavaliers pre-LeBron, and he won't be a good player.

Or... what? Thing is, this is all 100% BS. A "good team" is a team with players who play well. Because they play well, they win games. Because they win games, they're a good team. What does it mean to be a good player -- it means to help your team win more games than some other player: you are better than that other player. What in God's name else could the phrase "good player" mean?

So lets say it this way: if player A is better than player B, then player A helps the team he is on win more games than if instead the team had player B. That is what it means to be "better." If you are "better" than most guys, why then you are "good."

What is complicated about this? And why don't you give me some evidence to the contrary if you have any. I don't think you have any.

To be fair, you haven't presented any evidence either about an environment or coach's effect, or lack thereof, on a player. Unless you decide to count righteousness and your own a priori reasoning as evidence.

[Zonkerbl]

Weird conversation. I've always seen the opposite -- marginal players on bad teams looking relatively good because they are made the focal point of the offense by necessity *cough*JORDANCRAWFORD*cough* *cough*BLATCHE*cough*.

*ahem*

Got something caught in my throat there.

[Nivek]

I think folks might be talking past each other a bit here.

Jordan Crawford, Andray Blatche, Courtney Alexander, ad infinitum weren't/aren't actually "good." They had/have superficially high scoring statistics because SOMEONE has to shoot the ball. Even for guys who aren't much good, the ball goes in sometimes.

However, a player generating "stats" (in this case, meant the way many fans talk about stats: per game points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks) on a bad team doesn't necessarily mean the player is actually "good."

[Zonkerbl]

I guess I'm not buying the argument that a player will play better for the Spurs than he will for the Wizards.

A player might develop more quickly in a good organization than a bad one, sure. But if a player is playing well, right now, a month after coming into the league, environment has nothing to do with it. Crowder is the real deal.

Kwame did not start tearing up the league after he left DC. He is still the same player. Jared Jeffries is the same guy. Shoot, some players have played worse after leaving DC -- Larry Hughes for example.

Yeah, I gotta agree with Kevin. The Wizards have brought in, through the draft or trades, a CRAP TON of lousy players. Yes, the environment here sucks -- but mainly because a ton of flawed or flat out sucky players have come through this franchise. Players here suck because management has chosen to bring in players who suck. Players who go to the Spurs are awesome because the Spurs bring in players who are awesome.

[dandridge 10]

I think a good player is going to be good wherever he plays. However, I think a good player will have a better chance to play better surrounded by better players, if that makes sense. In other words, a good player will have a better chance of maximizing his talents if he is playing with better players.

For me personally, I have always played better basketball when I have played with guys that know how to play the game. For example, I will get a lot more open looks if I play with people who know how to set a good pick or are willing and able to share the ball. I also will get a lot more assists if I play with people that know how to cut to the basket, or roll after a pick is set, etc. Furthermore, if I play with better players, I tend not to force as many things as I do when I play with poorer players. If I end up playing with a bunch of bad players, I end up frustrated and then I trying to do too much, which often leads to bad shots and bad turnovers.

Anyways, I think Leonard is a good player. However, I also think that playing on the Spurs has allowed him to maximize his talent to a certain extent.

[payitforward]

So now we have people saying a good player will play better on a good team, and a good player will play better on a bad team.

What would you regard as empirical evidence for either of these positions?

[dandridge 10]

So now we have people saying a good player will play better on a good team, and a good player will play better on a bad team.

What would you regard as empirical evidence for either of these positions?

Where is all of your empirical evidence? We are stating our opinions, and mine is based on my personal experience. I didn't know we were in a court of law.

[payitforward]

To extend the point in a slightly different direction: either position seems to posit that how "good" a player is, and how well that player plays, are two different things. But, they aren't.

A player is as good as he plays. Not as good as he plays his best game(s), or his worst, but as good as he plays overall over some significant stretch of time (i.e. a large sample to work w/).

The only evidence for the positions some of you seem to want to take would be a significant tendency for players to put up significantly different numbers for different teams they are on -- especially if some of them are good teams and others are bad teams. This would have to be regressed out of the rest of the factors affecting a guy's play (the arc of development and decline, injuries, etc.).

Dave Berri claims to have studied this and concludes that no there is no such significant variation. Doesn't mean no exceptions, of course.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Kevin. The Wizards have brought in, through the draft or trades, a CRAP TON of lousy players. Yes, the environment here sucks -- but mainly because a ton of flawed or flat out sucky players have come through this franchise. Players here suck because management has chosen to bring in players who suck. Players who go to the Spurs are awesome because the Spurs bring in players who are awesome.

Yeah, this is pretty much something I agree with, too. There are the odd exceptions where a guy like Diaw is awful for the Bobcats because he doesn't try and looks much better for the Spurs but even there Diaw wasn't nearly as amazing for the Spurs as he was made out to be. The Spurs tend to sign good players to good contracts. The majority of the rest of the league tends not to do so. It's amazing how quickly an environment can turn around when you bring in good players. The Sonics weren't considered a great environment and it wasn't the sale of the team and moving them to OKC that changed the environment. They changed their management and their new management decided to stop bringing in mediocre or worse players and start bringing in players like Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka and suddenly they have an amazing team environment.

The one exception where the Wizards are concerned is that a player seems to become about 398% more likely to be injured the second he dons a Wizards roster.

[dandridge 10]

To extend the point in a slightly different direction: either position seems to posit that how "good" a player is, and how well that player plays, are two different things. But, they aren't.

A player is as good as he plays. Not as good as he plays his best game(s), or his worst, but as good as he plays overall over some significant stretch of time (i.e. a large sample to work w/).

The only evidence for the positions some of you seem to want to take would be a significant tendency for players to put up significantly different numbers for different teams they are on -- especially if some of them are good teams and others are bad teams. This would have to be regressed out of the rest of the factors affecting a guy's play (the arc of development and decline, injuries, etc.).

Dave Berri claims to have studied this and concludes that no there is no such significant variation. Doesn't mean no exceptions, of course.

I think a large part also depends on the type of player we are talking about. A player like Michael Jordan is going to be great no matter where he goes just because he was so versatile and talented. However, lets say we are talking about a player that is not so talented and versatile. For example, let's talk about someone like Mike Miller or Bruce Bowen. Both of these players would likely maximize their talents playing with a team like the Heat or Spurs because those teams had more weapons to space the floor. Put those players on a team that had no offensive weapons and they are not going to do so well.

[dandridge 10]

Another example is John Wall. How many here thinks that John would have played better last year if he was with the Boston Celtics or the Heat instead of the Wizards?

Another example is Rondo. He is a great player. However, put him on a crappy team with a lack of scorers like the Wizards and see how well he does.

[Nivek]

I don't think Wall would have been any better Boston. His turnovers and poor shooting would have hurt them. They might have had enough vets to get him to shoot less often or something, but he would have had the same flaws.

[dandridge 10]

I don't think Wall would have been any better Boston. His turnovers and poor shooting would have hurt them. They might have had enough vets to get him to shoot less often or something, but he would have had the same flaws.

I'm surprised you think that Nivek. Sure he would still have flaws, just like Rondo has flaws. However, having better shooters around would have opened the paint more for him to drive. There would have been a whole lot less pressure for him to score. Having better rebounders would allow him to get on the break more often. There is no way I can prove it, but I am pretty sure Wall would have benefitted from playing in Boston. But, I guess we will agree to disagree.

[tontoz]

Wall would have been much more effective in Boston. Everyone in their starting lineup could hit jumpers. Garnett and Bass were probably better shooters than anyone on the Wizards roster last year other than Young.

Boston was one of the best perimeter shooting teams in the league as well as one of the smartest. In contrast the Wizards were one of the worst shooting teams in the league as well as the dumbest. Much better spacing and teamates who had a clue would have surely made a big difference for Wall.

Just the frustration of playing on a lousy team with a bunch of knuckleheads probably hurt his game.

[payitforward]

Wall would have been...(fill in the blank).

This kind of thing -- for Wall or Leonard or whoever you choose -- is not an empirical statement. It's not a claim made about the world or something that happens in the world. It's a picture in someone's mind, and that's all it is. I could make an opposite statement -- "the Celtics wouldn't put up with Wall's turnovers or his egotism or his (fill in the blanks)." That too would be a picture in my mind, nothing more. Not a claim about the world outside -- in which those things didn't happen.

Put with this statement of the "it stands to reason that x" or "common sense tells you that y" type as other ways of using language that have no relationship w/ statements about the world.

First a player actually does the things he actually does in the situation he actually is in, then you conclude something about him. What you conclude about him, the description of him as a player, isn't some kind of premise you can take away as if it was metaphysics, then wipe all the things that made it so, and go forward to say what would have been had that guy been in a different situation.

This is akin to the GM practices like thinking "we need 'shooting'" -- as if "shooting" was something that existed independent of actual players and *everything* they did on the floor.

[closg00]

This could go in a couple of threads.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-preseason ... surprises/