Does lack of post-season experience matter? Basketball Prospectus says no

[Minstrel]

When the Phoenix Suns lost at Dallas Sunday, the Portland Trail Blazers clinched their first playoff appearance since the 2002-03 season, ending the NBA's longest active postseason drought. Because the youthful Blazers have built by drafting and developing their own talent, most of their players will be making their first playoff appearance. In fact, of Portland's rotation players, just two, starters Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla, have ever played in the postseason, and even they have combined for just 14 career playoff games.

Add in deep reserves Shavlik Randolph and Michael Ruffin and the Blazers' active roster--not including veteran center Raef LaFrentz, who has not played all season due to a shoulder injury and is not with the team--has combined for 35 career playoff games and 489 minutes in the postseason. Only one team in the past 14 seasons, the 1996-97 Los Angeles Clippers, has been less experienced going into the NBA's second season.
[pre]
Player G Min

Blake 9 197
Przybilla 5 35
Randolph 2 4
Ruffin 19 253
-------------------
Total 35 489
[/pre]
To put that in some perspective, last year the "inexperienced" team in the Western Conference was the New Orleans Hornets, who reached the playoffs for the first time as a group and had star guard Chris Paul making his postseason debut. Still, thanks in large part to veteran forward Peja Stojakovic, the Hornets combined for 194 playoff games and more than 4,500 minutes. Stojakovic himself had played in 59 postseason games, more than the Blazers' entire roster has.

If columnists could doubt the Hornets' playoff credentials, they're bound to question Portland because of the team's lack of experience. Is that a legitimate reason to write off the Blazers' chances? To help answer that question, I turned to historical data provided by Justin Kubatko of the indispensable Basketball-Reference.com.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=635

 

[MARIS61]

Only going back 14 years sounds like "convenient manipulation" of stats to support a premise.

How about going back to the Blazer's inception? We were a pretty raw team the first time we won the Title, and had never been in the playoffs as a team before that.

 

[alex42083]

I don't think post-season experience matters as much as some NBA experts will make it out to be as a weakness of ours. Sure, it'd be nice to have a veteran who's been there before, but once we get into the game, all those things get thrown out.

We might see a little nerves in the first quarter of Game 1, but after that, we'll be fine I feel like.

 

[BlazersBlood]

I think it all comes down to leadership. We have Roy and McMillan. I'm comfortable with those guys leading our team and keeping the team calm and confident.

 

[mook]

lol. Michael Ruffin is our "playoff veteran."

That's awesome.

 

[mook]

Anyway, it seems silly to me to factor in playoff minutes for guys like Ruffin and Raef. Those guys won't matter at all.

The playoffs are all about how well your best players perform. A serious analysis of this would have to at least filter it down to playoff experience of your top 5 MPG players. If you just looked at that, between Blake and Przybilla there are 212 minutes of playoff experience. Not a ton, but there are probably other squads with less.

 

[crandc]

I think experience is a factor. The intensity and pressure is up and of course in the playoffs you don't get easy games against OKC.

But I think the very close race in the West means that essentially the Blazers have been playing "playoff basketball" for about the last month or so. They know that one loss can drop a team from 4 to 7. There are no "unimportant" games.

So I think experience will be less of a factor than it might have been in a year when the seedings were pretty much settled early on. The Blazers are being playoff tested right now.

 

[LittleAlex]

I think experience is a factor. The intensity and pressure is up and of course in the playoffs you don't get easy games against OKC.

But I think the very close race in the West means that essentially the Blazers have been playing "playoff basketball" for about the last month or so. They know that one loss can drop a team from 4 to 7. There are no "unimportant" games.

So I think experience will be less of a factor than it might have been in a year when the seedings were pretty much settled early on. The Blazers are being playoff tested right now.

This is truth.

In the last month every single game has been a Must Win game and Portland has managed with them just fine. If teams want to assume Portland will fold under the pressure of the playoffs then they are in for a rude awakening.

 

[tlongII]

Experience may be a factor in game 1, but that's about it. I think playoff experience is seriously overrated. You're either good enough, or you're not.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Only going back 14 years sounds like "convenient manipulation" of stats to support a premise.

How about going back to the Blazer's inception? We were a pretty raw team the first time we won the Title, and had never been in the playoffs as a team before that.

Hmmm. Do I trust MARIS or a highly respected statistician and analyst like Kevin Pelton? Tough call.

 

[hasoos]

So how much experience did the Blazers have when they knocked Utah out of the playoffs back when Grant, Wallace and Sabonis were here? The important thing is that Portland is built for playoff basketball. Paint domination. Physicality. That is what wins in the playoffs.

 

[Rodolfo]

lol. Michael Ruffin is our "playoff veteran."

That's awesome.

Maybe this is the trade that KP had intended on all along. Playoff vet?