RealGM

Obviously we're all thinking a lot about the future development of young Hayward and Favors. I've created another topic about Gordon's quest to top the 10.0 PER mark, and the historic (or lack thereof) precedents in place for players who have failed to make that mark. I've also touched on Favors and his performance in the context of history as well.

That got me thinking, and there's a trend in place that I think deserves to be mentioned. The Jazz have had 3 true blue dominant players in their history. Three guys who have at one time in their careers been named among the best 10 players in the league. Karl, John, Deron. What do those three have in common?

All three were slow starters. For those who hate Hollinger, PER can be a very annoying tool that is often misused and over analyzed. But what it DOES do is offer a shorthand for comparison that is very, very valuable. Generally speaking, the higher a player's rookie PER, the better the chances are that he becomes a star. Players in the 15-17 range as rookies often develop into 20+ PER players in their primes (which is the benchmark for stardom, generally speaking). Players over 17 almost always become 20+ guys. Players over 20 as rookies are almost always dominant players when they develop their full powers. This has been done only 17 times (qualified for at least 40 GP and 20mpg) in the last 30 years and just Terry Cummings and Clark Kellog accompished it without eventually becoming a top 10 NBA player at some time in their career. Check it: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... der_by=per

The point? This stuff works. There is a high correlation between the performance of PER at a young age and future development. So for a young player, the lower their PER, the higher the odds are stacked that they will not eventually become a very good/great player.

That's where my comparison comes in. Rarely do you see a great player start his career with a rookie season of less than 15.0. It does not happen very often. If a player is destined for greatness, they are almost always at least good right out of the gate. Three notable exceptions? Deron, Karl, John.

Rookie PERs:

Deron: 12.4
John: 13.3
Karl: 13.7


Those are respectable numbers for most rookies. Just not for ones that are destined to eventually be regarded as the best player at their position. Even in their break out second seasons this trio was still not more than just "good".

2nd year PERs:

Deron: 17.1
John: 17.0
Karl: 18.0

It wasn't until their 3rd or 4th years that they really hit their strides and assumed their places among the top 3 in PER for their position:

3rd/4th season PERs:

Deron: 20.8/21.1
John: 19.0/23.2
Karl: 20.7/24.4


Of course, most players take time to hit their strides, but you see a very steep growth curve with Jazz players that is abnormal compared to the league. For comparison, here are a few other PER marks from similar greats of these player's eras:

Barkley: 18.3/22.4/25.1
McHale: 16.4/16.9/17.6
Isaiah: 14.5/18.9/20.9
Kidd: 15.1/17.8/16.9
Paul:22.1/22.0/28.3
Rose: 16.0/18.6/23.5



Notice that not one of those players has a rookie PER that is as low as any of the Jazz' greats. And while they all display some sort of developmental jumps, only Isiah's are in line with the massive leaps in both the 2nd and 3rd seasons that the Jazz players saw. Of course, John, Karl and Deron aren't the only exceptions here. Payton had two miserable seasons of 13is PER to begin his career before he figured out how to shoot the ball. Mark Price posted a rookie PER in the 11s before his stroke kicked in and took him into the 20s. So it will happen at times.

So what's the relevance? Well, as most know, Hayward posted a rookie PER in the high 10s and Favors just missed getting to 14. Not a good sign for either if we hope for them to become star caliber guys. Of course, I don't expect Hayward to reach that level. But for Favors, having a PER of less than 14 is worrisome, considering that the only two big men that I can find post-merger who were below 14 as rookies and developed into superstars were Dirk Nowitzki and.....Karl Malone.

Considering that the fate of our franchise is heavily dependent upon these two guys becoming high quality players, it is a significant comfort to know that there is a track record with our franchise guys getting off to a slow start.

Most of the time, top-level rookies get lots of minutes on bad teams their first year. That's never really been the case with the Jazz, and it didn't happen for Favors in NJ or Utah either. Hayward's playing time was all over the place, especially under Sloan.

Once favors came to Utah, he posted a per of 16.8 which according to your stats means he's likely to end up over 20 very soon. If I'm not mistaken per doesn't do much for defense, however according to locke's numbers, favors allowed opposing bigs to shoot 40% on him with the jazz which is right where Dwight averages.

Basically, we've got a freak on our hands.

where does pistol pete rank? (wasn't he ever a top 10 in the league?) and for curiosity, dantley and eaton?

MeestR wrote:where does pistol pete rank? (wasn't he ever a top 10 in the league?) and for curiosity, dantley and eaton?

Pistol played in the era before TOs were tracked and before the adoption of the 3 point line. So his PER number is highly effected by both of those facts. Still, basketball reference had him at 17.8 in his rookie season, which is exceptional. However, PER is not kind to him as he was a high volume, low efficiency scorer who didn't do a whole let else. But if he had had the extra point from his long heaves, that would have changed quite a bit. He only got above 20 in PER for two seasons, and that just narrowly. I don't believe he was ever considered top 10 by people in the know, but he was certainly one of the most popular figures in the sport and won a scoring title.


As for Eaton, he was almost entirely a defensive player and his PER reflected that. He never sniffed 15, let alone 20.

Dantley was not a Jazz draftee. He was taken by the Buffalo Braves. In an ironical twist of fate, the pick used to select him was originally a New Orleans Jazz pick that was traded 4 different times, before ending up with Buffalo. He was then traded by Buffalo after an excellent rookie season (18.3 PER) to Indy and from Indy to the Lakers before being traded from the Lakers to the Jazz, where he broke out and became the dominant scorer that we're familiar with. So, he is another example of a player who became a top 10 (or at least borderline top 10) player after immediate success as a rookie.

Also...Pistol Pete was not drafted by the Jazz, either. But then you probably know that.

Bat wrote:Once favors came to Utah, he posted a per of 16.8 which according to your stats means he's likely to end up over 20 very soon. If I'm not mistaken per doesn't do much for defense, however according to locke's numbers, favors allowed opposing bigs to shoot 40% on him with the jazz which is right where Dwight averages.

Basically, we've got a freak on our hands.

Absolutely, but by then he had had the benefit of nearly 2/3 an NBA season. Since we can't compare him against the final 1/3 of rookie campaigns by all the other players, the only thing we have to go from is his final number.

By way of comparison, I'm sure that Monroe's PER was close to 20 for the final 2 months. He was shooting over 60% TS, blocking shots and getting steals...all without the terrible foul rate that dragged Favors' PER down all season.

So while its easy to think that Favors season long PER had he been with the Jazz all season would have been nearer the 15 or 16 mark, we have nothing to go from but the final numbers. Which say what they say. Other players throughout history have had mitigating circumstances, be they injury issues, playing time issues, or--in this case--off the court issues that were a distraction (one could say of Dirk, for example, that he was overcoming a language barrier and getting acclimated to an entirely new way of life). Over the course of 30 years those things even themselves out. The numbers are just a guideline that give you and indication of probability. They don't guarantee anything one way or another, but they should help us in setting our expectation levels.

Neon Black wrote:Most of the time, top-level rookies get lots of minutes on bad teams their first year. That's never really been the case with the Jazz, and it didn't happen for Favors in NJ or Utah either. Hayward's playing time was all over the place, especially under Sloan.

That's the thing about PER. It matters not. Its a per-minute based tool that only takes into account production and production alone. And your point is actually an indictment on Favors. If he was that good, why wasn't he forcing NJ--a terrible team on their way to another high lottery pick--to play him more minutes? All the players you're referencing sure did.

erudite23 wrote:

Neon Black wrote:Most of the time, top-level rookies get lots of minutes on bad teams their first year. That's never really been the case with the Jazz, and it didn't happen for Favors in NJ or Utah either. Hayward's playing time was all over the place, especially under Sloan.

That's the thing about PER. It matters not. Its a per-minute based tool that only takes into account production and production alone. And your point is actually an indictment on Favors. If he was that good, why wasn't he forcing NJ--a terrible team on their way to another high lottery pick--to play him more minutes? All the players you're referencing sure did.

What players am I referencing?

Why wasn't he getting more minutes? Humphries and Lopez. And in Utah, Jefferson and Millsap. Add to that a coach not fond of playing rookies in the first place. I could use your very argument against Deron his rookie year - if he was that good, why didn't he "force" Utah--a terrible team on their way to another high lottery pick--to play him more minutes?

erudite23 wrote: I've also touched on Favors

While I can't argue against rookie PER's equating/projecting a young players future in the NBA, I do feel like Hayward and Favors are much better players than their overall rookie season PER's suggest.

Hayward had a rough start to his rookie year to say the least....everything from the refs screwing him big time on defense to Deron losing his cool at him on national television....I feel like the second half of the year is a much more accurate representation of the kind of player he will be. I would be very interested to see what his PER was after the all star break in comparison to his pre-all star PER. I also feel like Favors was in a horrible situation in NJ, it's clear that he played much, much better once he got here to Utah.

I kinda like these numbers based arguments. They are fun.

So, as Jazz men, Hayward couldn't crack 10 and Favors was nearly 17? That right? Something like that?

The thing is, my eyeballs tell me that Hayward was our 2nd best player at the end of the year once he finally got starter minutes.

Better than Favors.

Second only to Millsap who I thought was pretty amazing.


So, I'm going to put my eyeballs up against Erudite's and Hollinger's stats. I got my money on Hayward being our 2nd best player next year. Maybe 1st best if Corbin utilizes him as the distributor and runs Harris off screens without the ball as I'd do were I coaching.

jazzfan1971 wrote:I kinda like these numbers based arguments. They are fun.

So, as Jazz men, Hayward couldn't crack 10 and Favors was nearly 17? That right? Something like that?

The thing is, my eyeballs tell me that Hayward was our 2nd best player at the end of the year once he finally got starter minutes.

Better than Favors.

Second only to Millsap who I thought was pretty amazing.


So, I'm going to put my eyeballs up against Erudite's and Hollinger's stats. I got my money on Hayward being our 2nd best player next year. Maybe 1st best if Corbin utilizes him as the distributor and runs Harris off screens without the ball as I'd do were I coaching.

Favors only neared 17 on the Jazz, as a whole on the year he was a lot lower. And yeah, I agree with some of what you've said about Hayward. I don't know if he'll be our second best player next year...I think you give Flava-Fave and G-spot until their 3rd year to really begin to be amazing.

Magic fan here (not trolling) I just wanna see would you guys do a trade of Al Jefferson for Nelson JJ and Anderson?

I don't think that covers many of the Jazz needs really.

Devin Harris > Jameer

All of our PF's > Anderson

And while JJ and Anderson may give us some much needed shooting, we lose our inside post presence, and if you look at the Memphis model, low post scorers in the mold of Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph may start to stand out in the league.