Do players develop?

[Nivek]

zonk: Took a look at just the 2001-2007 time frame, and while there were some differences, the basic analysis doesn't change much. The average PER "improvement" during that time period among the first 30 players selected (210 players) was 0.3 vs. -0.4 for the full sample going back to 1985.

Code: Select all

PICK    IMP
1       2.8
2       1.8
3       2.3
4       2.1
5       3.9
6       0.5
7       1.3
8       0.5
9       1.8
10      0.7
11      1.2
12      0.4
13      -3.3
14      2.2
15      1.1
16      2.3
17      -0.9
18      -1.0
19      -0.6
20      0.2
21      2.8
22      -3.4
23      -0.3
24      -3.2
25      -0.6
26      2.1
27      -0.7
28      -1.9
29      -4.0
30      -2.4

AVG     0.3


This question practically is begging for more thorough analysis. Just don't have the time for anything in-depth right now.

[Wiz99]

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.

.....

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


Not sure why we're arguing about whether players develop after they reach the league. Obviously, some do.

The more interesting question is what proportion of new players will develop? This isn't about which become superstars. Developing solid rotation players is almost as critical to constructing a contending squad. If a team drafts an average of 10 1st round players over 10 years, what's a realistic expectation for GMs, coaches and fans on how many will improve? It must be a low % if Nivek's numbers show an average decline in PER for the 690 players he can track since 1985.

Maybe we are expecting too much from rookies. I'd love to see Nivek's numbers redone to show what % of top 30 draft picks since 1985 improved in PER by 5 pts or more between their 1st and 4th year. My guess is somewhere around 10% across the league.

Or maybe the Wiz are uncommonly bad or unlucky: what % of Wiz/Bullez rooks since 1985 have improved by +5 PER b/w their 1st and 4th season since 1985? Now THAT would really shed some light on whether this franchise is worse than others in developing talent. Have the Wiz had ANY players that developed that much? Maybe Juwan Howard and Rip Hamilton - damn, that was a long time ago!

[tontoz]

One guy who has really surprised me with his improvement is Jeff Teague. I was thinking that this guy might not make it in the NBA at all.

This year is TS% is 10% higher than his rookie year and is PER is 17, up from 11 as a rookie.

[GhostsOfGil]

One guy who has really surprised me with his improvement is Jeff Teague. I was thinking that this guy might not make it in the NBA at all.

This year is TS% is 10% higher than his rookie year and is PER is 17, up from 11 as a rookie.

He really stepped his game up in the playoffs when hinrich was out. I think a lot of people saw this coming

[tontoz]

One guy who has really surprised me with his improvement is Jeff Teague. I was thinking that this guy might not make it in the NBA at all.

This year is TS% is 10% higher than his rookie year and is PER is 17, up from 11 as a rookie.

He really stepped his game up in the playoffs when hinrich was out. I think a lot of people saw this coming

I had watched him the first 2 years during the regular season and he was pretty bad. I thought Rose would kill him.

The big difference in his game now is shooting from 16 feet out. He has made a huge improvement.

[Zonkerbl]

I think what Kevin's analysis is really saying is that some players improve -- but almost an equal number of players' performance actually decreases over time. So if you draft a project player, there's a fifty-fifty chance they'll improve -- or they'll actually get worse, I suppose as opposing team's figure out ways to take away their strengths. Or their bodies break down -- I bet some of the regression is folks who's knees give out on them early in their career.

[Newk Rollins]

It's not obvious to me why NBA players can't develop significantly while players in nearly every other sport develop tremendously.

For instance, in tennis even the greatest players need a couple of years on the tour before they do well. This isn't because they start younger these days, in fact they start later. There is a real trend toward players maturing later. Such as Marty Fish, who has played his best now, near age 30.

In baseball, "prime" years are considered to be mid to late 20's to early 30's. Before that, most players develop in the minor leagues.

Even in swimming, you have situations like Dara Torres setting personal bests at age 42!

And in the NFL, the Redskins have developed players slowly. Running backs are to some extent an exception. But quarterbacks, who are a little similar to point guards in that they have to see a lot of the context in plays, take a very long time. (I know this alone could be a long discussion.)

I understand that raw physical skill matters a lot in the NBA- but you can't tell me it doesn't matter as much or more in football or swimming.

Perhaps one conclusion you can draw from the statistics about PER over time is that the NBA may systematically under-emphasizes player development.

The Wizards have an average number of assistant coaches at 6. But particularly if the Leonsis approach is to try to develop young and low-cost players with potential, then it makes sense to spend more on player development than teams like the Celtics, Heat or Mavs. I'm sure the Wizards are long past the let's-throw-Kwame-in-the-water-and-see-if-he-floats era, but I suspect that they could get a very high ROI on an increased investment in development. They need to take an analytical approach in doing this, by measuring and observing what works best in the very unusual context of pro basketball. There are enormous demands from outside for players' time. Players have much more power in the coach-player relationship.

I just cannot accept that it's impossible to improve your shooting or positioning or footwork or dribbling, etc after effort. There's the famous 10,000 hour rule from the book Outliers which says that it takes 10,000 hours to truly master an endeavor, whether it's basketball or violin or tennis. From what I've read about Seraphin, for instance, I doubt he's played 10,000 hours yet. But even people who HAVE logged that many hours are able to improve in every other sport.

[Nivek]

Newk: I don't think anyone is saying NBA players are unable to improve. What we're saying is that many DO NOT improve. There seems to be a sentiment that a team can go from bad to good merely by picking young players and waiting for their inevitable development. That thinking is flawed. Some players get better, some don't.

Why do some players improve and others don't? Some would probably say coaching or organization. Others would say it's about the individual players themselves. I think it's a mix of the two, but I suspect it leans more heavily on the individual players.

The 10,000-hour rule is illustrative, because it's not 10k hours of PLAY, it's 10k hours of PRACTICE. In the music world, practicing is a very different thing than playing. The point of the 10k hours "rule" is that the way humans develop skills is by doing something repeatedly. In music, the standard path for developing a talent is for a student to spend an hour or two per week with a teacher, and then spend several hours per day practicing.

The lesson for developing basketball players is that good coaching/tutoring is a good thing to have, but that the real development is going to happen in those hours away from the coach. The real development comes when the player gets his ass to the gym and spends several hours a day drilling himself over and over again on a certain skill until it's second nature.

I believe that EVERY player who reaches the NBA does so with the capacity to get better. Whether they get better or don't depends largely on how much work they're willing to do.

[Benjammin]

In baseball, "prime" years are considered to be mid to late 20's to early 30's. Before that, most players develop in the minor leagues.

Actually most good statistical analyses I have seen indicate that the "prime" years for a baseball player's production are around 24-28. Truly quality players don't spend that much time in the minor leagues. Most people erroneously believe that in team sports a player's prime is in the late 20s into early 30s when more often it is mid 20s, to at most late 20s.

Baseball is particularly interesting because if you have a five tool player "excels at hitting for average, hitting for power, baserunning skills and speed, throwing ability, and fielding abilities", over time their skills will inevitably erode in some areas, especially defense and speed. But they might compensate somewhat by hitting for more power.

Great players have a breadth of skills to use and even when they decline in one area they are developing in other areas to compensate. Lesser players have fewer skills and frankly often don't work as hard to develop new skills and hone old ones.

[daSwami]

Interesting thread.

I think Gladwell's 10k-hour rule definitely applies here, but of course, that's predicated on an individual having the opportunity to amass those hours. For NBA players, that means finding the time to put in to get those hours. By the time players get to the pro level, most have already (via HS, college, camps, AAU, etc...) put in thousands of hours, so I would guess that its a pretty level playing field for NBA players in terms of how many hours each has dedicated to playing basketball. So it stands to reason that the straight-out-of-high-school draftees will face a longer development arc than those, say, who've spent 4 years playing college ball or professionally overseas. The problem arises in cases (such as Blatche's) where the player never got the opportunity to learn a disciplined approach to extra-curricular skills development. I read somewhere that starting in gradeschool, Lew Alcindor shot 1,000 sky-hooks with each hand every day until he graduated from UCLA. I'm not sure that today's young athletes have the time or discipline to put into improving their games. Plus, I'm sure that alot of their time during the season is spent learning the complexities of the pro schemes so many teams use. (although I get the impression that our young players don't put in as much work as they should in this regard).

[tontoz]

There seems to be a sentiment that a team can go from bad to good merely by picking young players and waiting for their inevitable development. That thinking is flawed. Some players get better, some don't.

I used to see that every year with Josh Smith. It was always "if he just stops taking long jumpers/stops trying to lead the break/improves his shot/puts on weight" over and over. His shot is marginally better but basically he is the same guy he was several years ago.

It was funny that each season we would read in camp about how Smith had put on 10-15 pounds of muscle and each season he still looks the same.

he is still a good player but those "if only's" never materialized.

[Nivek]

Interesting thread.

I think Gladwell's 10k-hour rule definitely applies here, but of course, that's predicated on an individual having the opportunity to amass those hours. For NBA players, that means finding the time to put in to get those hours. By the time players get to the pro level, most have already (via HS, college, camps, AAU, etc...) put in thousands of hours, so I would guess that its a pretty level playing field for NBA players in terms of how many hours each has dedicated to playing basketball. So it stands to reason that the straight-out-of-high-school draftees will face a longer development arc than those, say, who've spent 4 years playing college ball or professionally overseas. The problem arises in cases (such as Blatche's) where the player never got the opportunity to learn a disciplined approach to extra-curricular skills development. I read somewhere that starting in gradeschool, Lew Alcindor shot 1,000 sky-hooks with each hand every day until he graduated from UCLA. I'm not sure that today's young athletes have the time or discipline to put into improving their games. Plus, I'm sure that alot of their time during the season is spent learning the complexities of the pro schemes so many teams use. (although I get the impression that our young players don't put in as much work as they should in this regard).

I don't agree that most NBA players have put in similar hours of PRACTICE. I'd agree they've played a similar number of hours through AAU, camps, high school ball, etc. Athleticism is one thing that will separate players who have put in similar amounts of time -- though "athleticism" is part genetics and part work (lifting, running, jumping, etc.). But, where the real separation comes is with those guys who will do what Alcindor did at UCLA. Or what Kobe did after he got to the NBA with his famous 6-6-6 schedule (6 hours a day, 6 days a week, 6 months a year). (For those who don't want to do the math, that's a 1,080 hours of practice and working out that Kobe puts in during the offseason.)

And, I don't agree that players nowadays have less time available than players of previous generations. They may SPEND less time practicing because of video games, Internet, whatever. But there's not much stopping a kid who wants to get better from going to the gym and working on some moves or a jumper or ball-handling. Or from doing push-ups and sit-ups to get stronger. Or from studying game film on the Internet.

[manifested]

This is a fascinating thread and I wanted to put in my two cents. I know there are exceptions to this (as there are to most approaches) but I think it's generally true as regards to ball skills.

To take the example of a different sport, potential elite players in European soccer are chosen at very young ages (11-12 years old) evaluated largely on the basis of their skill and touch on the ball (exceptions are made for goalkeepers, but even central defenders at the top levels are good on the ball these days). Most of these players flame out or end up in lower divisions, but the ones who mentally and/or physically add to this basic skill are the ones who become world class players. The reasoning is that if you don't display high level touch and skill by your pre-teen years, it's difficult to develop later on. Players can improve on it even as they get older, but very rarely is there a case where someone who has poor/sub-par touch as a teenager improve enough to be a passable English Premier Level player later on. Where players typically improve their skill as they get older is by adding levels of complexity: moves, physical improvement, tricks as well as all the other mental aspects of the game; but the basic skill of how your foot interacts with the ball is pretty ingrained.

Basketball is obviously different because of the emphasis on size, but I think some skills in basketball, particularly non-bigman skills, are similar because we're talking about highly refined motor skills (dribbling, shooting in particular) where you might be able to do things like add a new crossover variant or a turnaround or extend the range on your jumpshot, but generally, you're working off a base level skill that's been ingrained in you from thousands of hours of time with the ball. Even if someone tries to change that, the tendency is to go to what feels familiar.

Basketball, more than most other American sports, is building complexity on those basic skills and motions. But because size is such an important factor in the game, sometimes GMs have to choose one or the other. And basketball players don't usually get taller once they hit 18.

[tontoz]

i wonder how many hours Ray Allen has spent practicing his shot.

I remember reading when he was filming He Got Game he was shooting on an outdoor court and one of the cameramen says to him "Hey, you're pretty good. I didn't realize you could actually play."

[manifested]

Sorry, part of my previous post got cut off and I lost it. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that I'm pessimistic that players who don't display shooting aptitude from some part of the court (even if it's just shooting foul shots) can develop it later on. They can improve upon what they already do, but building a new skill is extremely difficult. A player like Vesely who is a poor shooter from all parts of the floor except at the rim is unlikely to develop that skill in the NBA at age 21. The exception might be if his shooting problems are mental which I think might be possible for Vesely because his form looks much better than his percentages.

[daSwami]

Is there any data available on whether the D-league is actually fulfilling its charge of developing players. I.e., how many players are there that were sent to the D league, who showed significant improvement upon returning to the NBA? - I mean, relative to the alternatives (i.e., playing overseas, 'And-One', working out independently, etc...). I can point to guys like Brandon Jennings and John Lucas as examples of players who benefitted from playing overseas, but am hard-pressed to name a D-league success story (I'm sure there are some.)

[Jazzfan12]

Kevin Durant went from a -8 adjusted plus or minus player in his first two years to a +18 adjusted plus or minus player in his third year. The Thunder went from a 20 win team to a 50 win team off his improvement alone but his box score stats weren't significantly better. Using PER is critically flawed because players know how to put up numbers off raw talent when they enter the league but don't know how to exist in an offense or play team defense.

[Benjammin]

Kevin Durant went from a -8 adjusted plus or minus player in his first two years to a +18 adjusted plus or minus player in his third year. The Thunder went from a 20 win team to a 50 win team off his improvement alone but his box score stats weren't significantly better. Using PER is critically flawed because players know how to put up numbers off raw talent when they enter the league but don't know how to exist in an offense or play team defense.

It's ironic you're using a player who was already playing at a high level who further improved his game. While using PER has significant flaws, there is also the tendency to try and find "intangibles" to describe a player's improvement. The most basic answer to the question is "SOME" players develop, and some of those players develop significantly. The more interesting answer is that the percentage of players who truly develop and improve and the degree of that improvement is surprisingly small and infrequent.

[penbeast0]

To quote a couple of people. First, this is one of the most interesting and intelligent threads I've read in a while. Keep it up

. . .

3. This probably does vary, at the margins, based on club. I'd guess that it's as much peer influence as coach or organizational direction, though.

And, to quote another poster with some additional emphasis . . . We're REALLY screwed.

[nate33]

Nivek posted this in another thread and I thought it would add to this discussion:

Vesely is right at the fault line in the Great Player Development Debate. I did an article about this a couple years ago. Talked to a bunch of NBA folks about player development. There are some who think the way to develop players is to force-feed them minutes. Throw 'em out there, let them get experience, let them learn on the fly and learn what it takes to compete at the NBA level.

Others argued that the problem with the "sink or swim" approach is that some guys just sink. If they're just not ready to compete in the NBA, they're overwhelmed, they lose confidence, and the team ends up getting basically nothing from a player that might have been useful if he'd been allowed to develop in a "safer" environment.

The second group suggests trying to put players in situations where they have a chance to succeed so they can learn while not having their psyche wrecked. My feeling is that the "right" approach depends on the player. Some guys have the confidence/arrogance to be thrown into situations where they're overmatched and just not be bothered by it. They'll fight their ass off, work hard to get better, and do a better job next time. Others need to be brought along more slowly if they're going to be useful down the road.

Hard to say which type of person Vesely is without actually knowing him. Based on seeing him play, he seems more like the latter type -- someone who will struggle long-term in a "sink or swim" scenario. But that's just a feeling -- I don't know the guy at all.

What is your sense on how the other Wizards fall in this construct?

I get the sense that Jordan Crawford is definitely a "let him swim" type of player. I don't see his confidence waning. Booker looks to be in this group too. Both guys would probably develop just fine if they are forcefed minutes (with appropriate benchings when they play stupid or out of control).

McGee is definitely in the "needs a safe environment to develop" category. I'm a little worried that Wall is in that category too. He just doesn't exude the confidence that one wants to see in a star player and team leader.

I don't know about Vesely, Seraphin or Mack.