Do players develop?

[nate33]

This topic came up in the Charlotte game thread and I thought it could use it's own thread:

As I've watch the development of NBA players I've grown to believe that players are what they are as rookies for their entire careers unless they are uber-talents like Rose, Lebron, or Wade. The only real development for NBA players is realizing what they're bad at and catering their games to avoid their weaknesses (I think Young is the best example of this). Take a look at the young talent Washington has ran through here over the years.

Jeffries - Bad shooter coming in, still a bad shooter.
Haywood - No offensive post game coming in, still without a single reliable post move.
Brown - Terrible hands, still has terrible hands.
Hayes - Decent shooter, but couldn't do anything else.
Young - Can't create for others or rebound, still can't create for others or rebound.
DMac - Can't hit a shot to save his life, still can't hit the corner three.
Blatche - Skilled, but lazy and a ball stopper; still skilled, but still lazy and a ball stopper.
McGee - I'll grant you his post-game has improved, but he's basically putting up the same number he did as a rookie on a per minute basis, no substantial statistical improvements.
Wall - Terrible shooter and out of control, still a terrible shooter and out of control.
Booker - Shooting, still shooting

All this being said I seriously doubt Vesely ever develops a jumper or any semblance of a post-game making him a life-long bench player. Hopefully he puts on weight, as nate said, and he becomes Washington’s version of Birdman, otherwise he’ll be out of the league after his rookie deal.

Is no D in HIbachi right? Do players fail to make any significant strides once they hit the NBA other than cater their games to minimize weaknesses? No D posts a compelling list of evidence, but maybe that's just a problem with our organization rather than all young players.

For another take on the subject, I suggest you tune into Fridays NBAToday podcast with David Thorpe. Thorpe believes that most players can develop a lot if they have the right attitude and are put into the right situation. He believes that both McGee and Wall could be all stars if they are put in the right environment. As evidence, he cites Udonis Haslem, who radically transformed his game to be successful at the NBA level.

[Nivek]

Saying that players CAN develop is different than saying that they DO develop. The right attitude and the right actions can help anyone improve. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, for example, both improved skills and added things to their games well into their careers. But, the reality is that other players enter the league, do what they've always and never seriously attempt to improve themselves.

[dobrojim]

it all depends

some develop additional skills or knowledge and become better contributors
over time. In other cases, the league figures them out, takes their strengths
away from them and they're out of the league in a relative heartbeat.

[FAH1223]

They don't develop in Washington DC. But I look around the league and there's plenty of young players who develop every season.

We just have a shiddy organization that needs to clean house and bring in talent evaluators as well as teachers.

[dobrojim]

most generalizations are wrong

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Depends. I look at a player like Chris Singleton and feel pretty good that he will develop a reliable spot up J.

His form is pretty good, he's well-coordinated and seems to be a hard worker.

I don't necessary see the same lump of clay in Vesely. Doesn't seem to have the same basic body mechanics and has already had a couple of years playing at a professional level -- where, frankly, jumpshooting is an even bigger part of the game than it is here -- without adding anything like a decent jumper.

Wall -- will he be able to shoot? Well, his soft free throws make me think that maybe he will.

Mcgee -- Still just too many WTFs to make me a believer that it has a high probability of happening here. OTOH, a bit of humble pie, a change in scenery, some separation from Mamma (if that is possible) and he could very well be a star elsewhere.

[Illuminaire]

Steve Nash improved his FG% and FT% significantly once he reached the NBA, even from his college numbers. He also has a great work ethic and competitive drive. So, going from good to great is certainly possible.

[Nivek]

The anecdotal stuff is interesting, but almost beside the point. For every example of a player who significantly improved after arriving in the NBA, there are examples of guys who didn't. The real answer is that it ultimately depends on the individual. I think that nearly player who enters the NBA has the capacity to improve. Few guys will reach the NBA despite some kind of physical defect that would prevent them from getting better at a particular skill. Maybe some guys reach the league with a learning disability that hinders their ability to internalize the playbook, or affects their on-court decision-making.

But, really player development comes down to how hard a guy is willing to work.

[DCZards]

Of course players can get better, especially young guys who may never have had quality coaching or been in a situation that required that they improve certain aspects of their game.

For example, until they got to the NBA, Wall and Vesely have pretty much been able to excel based on their size and outstanding speed and athleticism. At the NBA level, it's critical that they also shoot well. But, as has been pointed out, the key to a player developing is their own attitude and work ethic.

[Nivek]

Just went back to my draft pick analysis spread sheet and compared rookie PER to 4th year PER for the top 30 picks in every draft (where players have completed at least 4 seasons) since 1985. That's a pool of 690 players. A full table of average improvement by pick is below.

The AVERAGE "improvement" in PER from year one to year 4 was -0.4. In other words, on average this group of 690 players got slightly less productive as measured by PER. That number is affected by some players who weren't in the league by a 4th season.

As you'll see below, biggest "average" improvements were made by top 5 picks. This may be in part a selection bias. Guys taken in the top 5 are perceived on draft day as having the most ability. Teams therefore invest more in those players in terms of coaching, dollars, and playing time.

I could do the same analysis using total PER, which would account for playing time, but the result would be pretty similar. I could also go back and run the numbers for years 2 and 3. Can't go beyond year 4, though because that's where I stopped in my draft pick analysis and I don't have the time to go back and compile a new data set.

Code: Select all

PICK    IMP
1       2.3
2       2.4
3       1.6
4       2.3
5       2.5
6       -1.1
7       -0.7
8       1.2
9       1.5
10      0.8
11      1.0
12      0.2
13      -0.5
14      -1.0
15      -0.4
16      -0.9
17      -0.3
18      -2.3
19      -0.1
20      -0.5
21      0.8
22      -3.3
23      -1.3
24      -2.4
25      -1.5
26      -2.5
27      -1.3
28      -4.0
29      -1.1
30      -2.1

AVG     -0.4


[Liverbird]

Code: Select all

PICK    IMP
1       2.3
2       2.4
3       1.6
4       2.3
5       2.5
6       -1.1 <---
7       -0.7
8       1.2
9       1.5
10      0.8
11      1.0
12      0.2
13      -0.5
14      -1.0
15      -0.4
16      -0.9
17      -0.3
18      -2.3
19      -0.1
20      -0.5
21      0.8
22      -3.3
23      -1.3
24      -2.4
25      -1.5
26      -2.5
27      -1.3
28      -4.0
29      -1.1
30      -2.1

AVG     -0.4


We're screwed

It would be interesting to do a team by team analysis to look at the organization as a whole from either a scouting perspective or a player development perspective.

[nate33]

Wow! Mind-blowing numbers there, though it's probably not quite as bad as Nivek's numbers indicate. If nothing else, rookies achieve their PER while playing limited minutes against backups in garbage time. 4 year players are presumably doing it for extended minutes against starters and the Scouting Report.

[Illuminaire]

I'm also not sure how good a stat PER is for this kind of analysis, since more playing time + more shot attempts will translate into a higher PER, even without any player improvement at all.

[Benjammin]

That's a depressing and sobering thought. But not really surprising to me. At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, some statistical analysis of a previous generation of players would be interesting.

[Nivek]

PER has its limitations. It has a couple advantages for this purpose. First, it's a per minute stat. And second, it's already collected in my spreadsheet so I don't have to go back and do a bunch of looking up and data entry.

I don't have usage data in my spreadsheet, so shooting more could be a factor.

I'm not sure about nate's theory that players are posting stats against subs when they're rookies and then starters by year 4. That's not likely true of the top 5 picks, who averaged 30+ minutes per game as rookies. It could be true of latter picks.

And, it's also worth keeping in mind that players can be "better" in the sense that they're better defenders, better screen-setters, better teammates, better at running the floor, better at filling a necessary role, while their PER remains about the same or gets worse. However, in general, PER does a pretty good job with approximate value.

[tontoz]

I think it is safe to assume that most young players don't improve as much as their fans think they will. The amount of improvement many of us are projecting on some of our young guys probably isn't realistic.

[MDStar]

Nivek,

That's awesome analysis! You never seem to amaze me with the amount of and type of information to give out to us regular folks. I always look forward to you posts.

[nate33]

And, it's also worth keeping in mind that players can be "better" in the sense that they're better defenders, better screen-setters, better teammates, better at running the floor, better at filling a necessary role, while their PER remains about the same or gets worse. However, in general, PER does a pretty good job with approximate value.

Another good point. Rookies may jack up shots a lot because they're used to be stars in college. This volume shooting helps the PER stat but hurts the team. As they mature, they learn to shoot more judiciously and focus on whatever niche helps the team win. Shane Battier had his best PER scores during his 2nd and 3rd year, but was a better player in later years.

This also applies to shot blockers. Many rookies with height and athleticism block a ton of shots, but become better defenders as they focus more on position defense and less on highlight plays. Brendan Haywood posted his highest blocks per minute in his rookie season, but was a much better defender 5 years later.

[keynote]

Good stuff, all:

Kev: the lack of improvement from middle first r ound picks (14-18) is worth noting. I'd argue that mid-level picks are either experienced players w/ limited upside (which, by definition, means that we don't see much room for improvement) or else coin-toss projects who are far from a sure thing.

It doesn't surprise me that the top picks improve the most. They may have more of the organization's resources funneled their way, but they also (usually) have sufficient drive/motor to produce enough to merit a high pick in the first place.

Still: why was Patrick able to build a superstar-level offensive game almost from scratch in the NBA? Mutombo, in comparison, averaged almost 17 ppg as a rookie; after that, he never scored more than 14 ppg/year for the rest of his career (although, to be fair, he did increase his FG%). Mutombo entered the league with the ability to score at a solid clip; why didn't he build on that foundation and develop into a 22, 12, and 3 player? I always blamed DEN for turning him into a defensive specialist as opposed to a true two-way threat; was I wrong?

Of course, given the Wizards' current talent pool, I'm equally interested in understanding how role players develop. Oakley wasn't dead-eye from 18 ft coming out of college, was he? Was PJ Brown? Jumper-challenged guards like Mark Jackson developed their Js over time - but how many seasons did it take? Cal Cheaney had classic shooting mechanics; why couldn't he extend his range out to 3?

Lastly: how can we track growth in BBall IQ - our team's biggest deficiency? Do we have any examples of players who have truly grown from clueless knuckleheads into savvy vets? Players can improve their FT%, but can they improve their instincts? I'm drawing a distinction between inexperience and knuckleheadedness. Kyrie Irving may make rookie mistakes, but he clearly has an innate feel for the game that other more seasoned pros lack. Anyway, I'd love to hear about BBall IQ improvement success stories.

Interesting thread. As fans, we expect/demand players to improve. We assume that hard work/repetition will automatically yield fruit. And while there are some players who would probably dominate, but for their lack of work ethic (e.g., Blatche, Diaw), it's harder to understand why a hard-working player simply can't improve their J/foul shot/post-moves/whatever. And, it's extremely difficult to understand why a talented player who has a full-time job as a basketball player can't master defensive rotations, etc. - and why he doesn't get better at it over time.

[dobrojim]

Cal Cheaney actually shot worse in successive years over the
early part of his career but late in his career became a better
threat from 3. That's my recollection anyway.