Nate McMillan may be the secret to the Pritchslap

[mook]

I was just thinking to myself, "What ever happened with Telfair?" and since I'd rather stab tabasco sauce under my eyelids than watch a Minnesota game, I thought I'd look up his stats. Huh. Turned out he had his highest PER as a Blazer in that really, really bad 21 win team. 13.0. Not bad for a third year PG out of high school. (Not worth mother fucking Brandon Roy, but not bad.) He's kind of sucked since, though.

So then I thought, that Jarret Jack seems to be making a name for himself in Indiana. Let's check him out. Hmm. 13.1 PER. But wait--he actually was almost average under Nate at 14.5. That's weird.

Now I was curious.

Zach Randolph: high PER was 22.8 in his last year in Portland. Hasn't broken 20 since.

Ime Udoka: high PER was 12.1 in his one year here. 11.5 and 9.5 in his two years in San Antonio.

Viktor Khryapa: high PER was 11.5 in Portland. Never even got into double digits in Chicago before being cut.

Steve Blake: high PER was 14.5 in two different stints with Portland! Despite bouncing between 4 teams, he never topped 11.0 on any other one.

Former All-Star (lol) Jamaal Magloire: Ok, he sucked at 11.5, but it was still better than his prior year in Milwaukee (11.1). He'd bounce to two other teams after ours, garnering PER's of 1.7 and -1.9 (yes, a negative PER). I'd say Nate did as much as he could with that turd.

Ruben Patterson: Ok, he had a PER of 17.0 in the 45 games he played under Nate in Portland (perhaps the biggest argument ever that PER isn't the be-all-end-all stat), but Ruben actually had a higher PER in Seattle in his second year of 19.3. I guess he wasn't that great of a coach. Wait--who was his coach in Seattle? That's right! Nate Fuckin' McMillan.

Juan Dixon: His high here was 14.6. He had one season over his 7 year career that was higher--15.2 in the prior year in Washington.

Joel Przybilla: Three seasons at right around 15.4. In Milwaukee he once made it to 10.2.

Guys just play as well or better under Nate than they do anywhere else (unless we get them at the end of their career, in which case Nate still gets the most out of them). I wasn't cherry picking players--just going with guys who popped into my head. Feel free to test my theory yourself.

So how does this enable the "Pritchslap"? Other teams don't seem to realize that Nate's really, really good at getting the most out of (often) very little. Aldridge and Roy were stolen from other teams because (at least partially) other teams mistakenly thought guys like Telfair and Khryapa were worth a damn. Pritchard gets the glory, but I think a fair amount of the credit should go to McMillan.

Going forward, I'm feeling even more comfortable in trading assets like Webster and Outlaw. Those are two guys I honestly think have put up the best (or near-best) PER's of their careers. Nate's done what he can with them. It's time to cash in. Maybe you wait on Webster for a midseason trade so teams can see he's recovered.

Bayless and Fernandez, perhaps not so much. I'm a firm believer in buy low, sell high. Nate hasn't had enough time to work with those two. I still feel Fernandez definitely needs to be traded, but right now he's just viewed by other teams as a decent prospect. With another year under Nate, his value will only climb. Bayless still needs another year, perhaps two, before we even really know what we have.

(The one poster here who laments the passing of Sergio Rodriguez and eagerly anticipates his rebirth in Sactown ought to keep this post in mind.)

I said in another thread Nate isn't indispensable. He's not a Jackson or Sloan or Popovich--guys who will never be fired. But he's probably in that next tier right now of really good coaches. And although he's excellent at turning crappy players into somewhat mediocre players, the jury is still out on his ability to manage multiple stars/superstars. But given the data, I like his odds.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Nate runs a highly efficient offense (the most efficient in the league), and since PER is a measurement of efficiency per player, it stands to reason that everyone's PER is higher with Nate, because he's making the players more efficient. One wonders if Roy would be quite as amazing in Minnesota, or if Foye would be considered a steal when paired up with a starting Rudy.

I'm not giving Nate all the credit of course: Roy is a beast, absolutely amazing; it's just that his game completely compliments the efficiency Nate lays out. They're perfect for each other.

As to him being the secret of the Pritchslap: yeah, definitely. Those advanced stats all look great on a Nate team, and it's made Viktor and Ime and Telfair look salvageable to other teams, giving us the ability to steal Aldridge and Roy out from under unsuspecting teams...

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

I was just thinking to myself, "What ever happened with Telfair?" and since I'd rather stab tabasco sauce under my eyelids than watch a Minnesota game, I thought I'd look up his stats. Huh. Turned out he had his highest PER as a Blazer in that really, really bad 21 win team. 13.0. Not bad for a third year PG out of high school. (Not worth mother fucking Brandon Roy, but not bad.) He's kind of sucked since, though.

So then I thought, that Jarret Jack seems to be making a name for himself in Indiana. Let's check him out. Hmm. 13.1 PER. But wait--he actually was almost average under Nate at 14.5. That's weird.

Now I was curious.

Zach Randolph: high PER was 22.8 in his last year in Portland. Hasn't broken 20 since.

Ime Udoka: high PER was 12.1 in his one year here. 11.5 and 9.5 in his two years in San Antonio.

Viktor Khryapa: high PER was 11.5 in Portland. Never even got into double digits in Chicago before being cut.

Steve Blake: high PER was 14.5 in two different stints with Portland! Despite bouncing between 4 teams, he never topped 11.0 on any other one.

Former All-Star (lol) Jamaal Magloire: Ok, he sucked at 11.5, but it was still better than his prior year in Milwaukee (11.1). He'd bounce to two other teams after ours, garnering PER's of 1.7 and -1.9 (yes, a negative PER). I'd say Nate did as much as he could with that turd.

Ruben Patterson: Ok, he had a PER of 17.0 in the 45 games he played under Nate in Portland (perhaps the biggest argument ever that PER isn't the be-all-end-all stat), but Ruben actually had a higher PER in Seattle in his second year of 19.3. I guess he wasn't that great of a coach. Wait--who was his coach in Seattle? That's right! Nate Fuckin' McMillan.

Juan Dixon: His high here was 14.6. He had one season over his 7 year career that was higher--15.2 in the prior year in Washington.

Joel Przybilla: Three seasons at right around 15.4. In Milwaukee he once made it to 10.2.

Guys just play as well or better under Nate than they do anywhere else (unless we get them at the end of their career, in which case Nate still gets the most out of them). I wasn't cherry picking players--just going with guys who popped into my head. Feel free to test my theory yourself.

So how does this enable the "Pritchslap"? Other teams don't seem to realize that Nate's really, really good at getting the most out of (often) very little. Aldridge and Roy were stolen from other teams because (at least partially) other teams mistakenly thought guys like Telfair and Khryapa were worth a damn. Pritchard gets the glory, but I think a fair amount of the credit should go to McMillan.

Going forward, I'm feeling even more comfortable in trading assets like Webster and Outlaw. Those are two guys I honestly think have put up the best (or near-best) PER's of their careers. Nate's done what he can with them. It's time to cash in. Maybe you wait on Webster for a midseason trade so teams can see he's recovered.

Bayless and Fernandez, perhaps not so much. I'm a firm believer in buy low, sell high. Nate hasn't had enough time to work with those two. I still feel Fernandez definitely needs to be traded, but right now he's just viewed by other teams as a decent prospect. With another year under Nate, his value will only climb. Bayless still needs another year, perhaps two, before we even really know what we have.

(The one poster here who laments the passing of Sergio Rodriguez and eagerly anticipates his rebirth in Sactown ought to keep this post in mind.)

I said in another thread Nate isn't indispensable. He's not a Jackson or Sloan or Popovich--guys who will never be fired. But he's probably in that next tier right now of really good coaches. And although he's excellent at turning crappy players into somewhat mediocre players, the jury is still out on his ability to manage multiple stars/superstars. But given the data, I like his odds.

As his team continues to grow and mature. He will have to continue to adjust himself. Which means being a lil less anal retentive. Loosening up the reigns on them. Becoming more of a players coach rather than what he is today.

I will be interested to see if he can adjust.

 

[andalusian]

Mediocre Man meltdown in 3, ..., 2, ..., 1 ...

 

[mook]

Nate runs a highly efficient offense (the most efficient in the league), and since PER is a measurement of efficiency per player, it stands to reason that everyone's PER is higher with Nate, because he's making the players more efficient.

Not necessarily. It could have been the case that our GM was just really good at acquiring really efficient players, and our coach got the credit for having an efficient team.

My post clearly demonstrates that wasn't the case. Guys were generally much less efficient before they came here, and they were generally much less efficient after they left.

 

[mook]

Mediocre Man meltdown in 3, ..., 2, ..., 1 ...

Heh. I'm counting down too.

I don't know how you really argue with the numbers, though.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Nice find.

Doesn't really surprise me either. I just don't get the over-the-top hatred of Nate.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Not necessarily. It could have been the case that our GM was just really good at acquiring really efficient players, and our coach got the credit for having an efficient team.

My post clearly demonstrates that wasn't the case. Guys were generally much less efficient before they came here, and they were generally much less efficient after they left.

I agree with this completely, because this is what I was trying to say.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That's a good post. I need to chew on it a bit. I think, gut-feeling-wise, I have issues with it but you laid it out pretty well.

 

[bluefrog]

Good post. A good PER definitely helps the Pritchslaps.

 

[handiman]

Not necessarily. It could have been the case that our GM was just really good at acquiring really efficient players, and our coach got the credit for having an efficient team.

My post clearly demonstrates that wasn't the case. Guys were generally much less efficient before they came here, and they were generally much less efficient after they left.

But it still could be the case that Pritchard acquired efficient players who played in less efficient systems before and after. To disprove that, I think you would need to do a team by team comparison.

 

[illmatic99]

This is a fair analysis, but I find some flaws in it. There is far too much emphasis on PER being the only judge of a player's success, especially when the differences for these players (on POR and off) is so marginal. Jack, Bassy, Vik, Magloire, etc are all either crappy players or below average prospects. Joel and Blake are obviously having decent seasons now because they are in their respective primes and are finally in a comfortable role with their team for the first time in their careers. Even so, the PER gain is slight.

Until this happens with a legit prospect who bombed with another team only to break out in POR (or vice versa), I'll reserve judgment.

Sergio should reveal a bit about this theory this upcoming season once he usurps Beno's starting spot and beats out Tyreke Evans.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

But it still could be the case that Pritchard acquired efficient players who played in less efficient systems before and after. To disprove that, I think you would need to do a team by team comparison.

Ah but, Telfair and Kryapha were Nash pickups, and Zach was a Whitsett pickup. In their cases, I think you can safely say Nate was making the best use of his tools at hand.

 

[mook]

But it still could be the case that Pritchard acquired efficient players who played in less efficient systems before and after. To disprove that, I think you would need to do a team by team comparison.

Hmm. That's an interesting point. Two obvious counterpoints off the top of my head are Udoka and Blake.

Udoka saw his PER drop despite moving to a really great coach in San Antonio.

Blake played on a Denver squad with 9 guys on their squad with PER's over 15. That's a really efficient collection of talent there. Yet Blake's own PER dropped quite a bit.

 

[Further]

Very interesting post. Thanks for the work

I think we can drop Joel and other players who came young and then grew with Nate from your analysis because young players should improve with time. But, the players that leave the Blazers and then play worse is very telling, especially when they are young like Telfair and VK.

Nate is very good at getting players to concentrate on a few aspects of their game and improve immensely in those areas. Batum last year being asked to just play D and shoot a 3 from time to time. Oden being asked to rebound and play D. Neither of those guys were asked to do anything above their current ability which really helps the player 1) gain confidence in themselves 2) become effecient 3) not overload on learning, and more.

Nate is also very good at getting players to play as a team. With a real quality supporting cast, each player is better able to play to the best of their abilities.

Where Nate needs to improve is with the x's and O's. Also, even though I just listed as a benefit that he does not ask too much of his players, I think he needs to be able to assess each player separately and at least let certain players open up their games even if it results in more mistakes. But overall, I think Nate is a good coach and he is certainly a good teacher.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I think one thing we forget about Nate is that he's been growing some too. His approach has evolved over the last three or four years, and there's no reason to believe it won't keep growing. He'll always have some weaknesses, but I think he's the type to learn and grow too, which is why he's good at getting others to learn and grow.

 

[mook]

Until this happens with a legit prospect who bombed with another team only to break out in POR (or vice versa), I'll reserve judgment.

Well, Randolph did really well here (by the standards of PER, at least--his last year he was at 22.8) and didn't exactly bomb but did do much worse (3 and 4 PER point drop in New York and Clippers) after leaving.

 

[mook]

Ok, I just thought up an exception: Channing Frye. Had a PER of 18.1 as a rookie and never got above 14.8 here.

I really think he'll continue to prove to be an exception, too. He just didn't seem motivated here. Having Aldridge in front of him and Outlaw competing for even backup minutes seem to really dispirit the guy.

In a free flowing offense like Phoenix and without a lot of competition for minutes at the 4/5, I expect him to bounce back.

 

[Further]

Ok, I just thought up an exception: Channing Frye. Had a PER of 18.1 as a rookie and never got above 14.8 here.

I really think he'll continue to prove to be an exception, too. He just didn't seem motivated here. Having Aldridge in front of him and Outlaw competing for even backup minutes seem to really dispirit the guy.

In a free flowing offense like Phoenix and without a lot of competition for minutes at the 4/5, I expect him to bounce back.

If there is an exception, I hope it is Frye, I really like that guy.

 

[Mediocre Man]

No meltdown

Nate's offense is efficient. Not so much because of the offense he runs, but because of the offensive rebounders he has on the floor, and the pace that he plays. I also wonder though, if it might have a little to do with Brandon as well.


Jack, had his highest PER as a Blazer, but also his lowest. His lowest was the year before Brandon Roy got here, while his highest was with Roy.

Zach Randolph also had his highest PER when Roy got here. Zach had his lowest PER in Portland too....Nate's first year, and the year before Roy got here.

Ime Udoka had his highest PER along side Brandon Roy as well.

Veeektor's PER was never anything to write home to the Motherland about, but it's not surprising he had his highest PER when given consistent minutes.

Steve Blake has played better under Nate's slow pace than anywhere else. Although he has never reached average status anywhere.


You left out Jamaal Magloire's 14.70, 16.62 and 12.91 in his three seasons before the year he got to Portland. Also that he too played with Brandon Roy in his one year here.

Ruben Patterson had his highest PER the year after he left Portland. Hollinger's PER stats, that I found anyway, don't go back 02'

Juan Dixon had his best PER year under Nate, and also one of his lowest PER's

Joel had his highest PER 15.58 for the Blazers the year before Nate got here. Nate has coaches Joel to PER's of 15.32, 7.43, 12.10 and 15.46. Mixed bag at best.



So while Nate certainly seems to get a lot out of his players, it seems most players you mentioned had their best year with Portland when Roy was here.

Travis has had his best PER years once Roy got here. Mind you, it's only a years differnce, but I think it could easily be as much Roy as Nate.

Rashard Lewis has had his best PER years after he left Nate as well.

 

[andalusian]

Nate's offense is efficient. Not so much because of the offense he runs, but because of the offensive rebounders he has on the floor, and the pace that he plays. I also wonder though, if it might have a little to do with Brandon as well.

Portland was not a great offensive rebounding team until this year.

Jack, had his highest PER as a Blazer, but also his lowest. His lowest was the year before Brandon Roy got here, while his highest was with Roy.

To be fair, he was a rookie the year before Roy got here.

Zach Randolph also had his highest PER when Roy got here. Zach had his lowest PER in Portland too....Nate's first year, and the year before Roy got here.

To be fair, this was also his first year out of MF inactivity...

Ime Udoka had his highest PER along side Brandon Roy as well.

Once would assume that playing next to a ball-hog like Timmy Duncan is not good, eh?

Rashard Lewis has had his best PER years after he left Nate as well.

Actually, Lewis had just one year with a slightly higher PER - the year after Nate left - but of course the rest of the team did much worse - When Lewis moved to Orlando and again got to play for a winning basketball team - his PER dropped. I would argue that Nate (who got his 2nd best PER out of him on a 52 wins team) again maximized his talent... you will see that while his PER under Nate was 20 and it was 20.7 the next year - under Nate his win-score was actually higher...

 

[crandc]

Very interesting post. And it may also explain why so many Blazers fans radically overvalue some of the marginal players on the team (I am not talking about Roy, LMA, Oden, Aldridge). We heard, from numerous posters, that Khryapa and Monia would be stars in Chicago, that Bassy would be the starting point guard on a playoff team, that Patterson would be a star, even Qyntel Wood, god help us, would be a star elsewhere. None of that happened. The only ex Blazer in recent years to have a significant impact on a new team was Sheed, and he was pre-Nate/KP. Jack was OK but nothing special last year. Damn near everyone else the Blazers let go ran from mediocre to sucks. We'll see about Sergio.

 

[mook]

No meltdown

Nah, we're just kidding.

Andalusian covered some points I was going to make (and came up with a few I hadn't thought of. Always nice when somebody comes along and makes your argument for you better than you could've.)

I also wonder though, if it might have a little to do with Brandon as well.

If it's true for Roy, it should be true for other great playmakers.

Let's test this theory out on another player who unarguably makes his teammates better: LeBron James. Do teammates of his tend to see career highs in PER?
I'll pick a few guys at random who have longer careers on his current team and see:

Ilgauskas: His PER highs prior to LeBron were 19.4 and 19.7. He was 19.7 the year before LeBron was drafted. Since LeBron, he's had PER's of 20.2, 19.5, 21.9, 18, 18.7, 18. Maybe LeBron boosted his PER a little. (Of course, he was finally healthy too.)

Mo Williams: His career high (to that point) was 17.0. After moving to Cleveland, it's 17.2.

Wally Sczerbiak: Career high: 17.2. LeBron high: 12.1. But yeah, he's pretty broken down. So let's just look at the four seasons before he went to Cleveland: 17.1, 17.7, 14.8, 13.9. If there was a "LeBron Bump" in his PER, I don't see it.

Ben Wallace: It's not fair to really compare him in his prime. But the full year before in Chicago his PER was 14.8. The half year in Chicago he was 11.8. He's sat at 12 ever since joining Cleveland.

From this small sample, it's pretty hard to argue that guys playing next to LeBron saw much of a PER bump. Feel free to make your own case, though.

But if you choose not to, it's pretty hard to make the case that Roy artificially raised the PER of so many players when it doesn't seem LeBron was able to.

You left out Jamaal Magloire's 14.70, 16.62 and 12.91 in his three seasons before the year he got to Portland.

I think everybody knows that Magloire was once worth a damn. I'm not trying to argue Nate somehow made Magloire suddenly want to play like he did in 2001. Magloire clearly didn't give a fuck about anything by the time he came here. I wasn't cherry picking, I just didn't think it was fair to compare a Magloire-who-cared to the utter piece of shit we happened to get.

However, you're wrong about one thing. In the season before he came to Portland his PER was 11.1. He stopped caring then. He continued to not care when he got here. When he left, he again continued to not care and put up those dreadful PER's for two more teams.

Ruben Patterson had his highest PER the year after he left Portland. Hollinger's PER stats, that I found anyway, don't go back 02'

Mine do:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/patteru01.html
His best was under Nate in Seattle.
I'll grant you, though, that he did have one good PER season in Milwaukee before getting garbage minutes on the Clippers and then being out of the league. That seems more to me like Ruben Patterson smelling his own demise and trying one last stab at relevance. But you can argue it's a blemish on Nate's career if you want.

Anyway, I'm interested in how you explain away Khryapa and Telfair. I notice you don't seem to address them. Surprising, given that those are probably the most stark examples (IMO) of McMillan somehow making something out of garbage.

 

[mook]

Very interesting post. And it may also explain why so many Blazers fans radically overvalue some of the marginal players on the team (I am not talking about Roy, LMA, Oden, Aldridge). We heard, from numerous posters, that Khryapa and Monia would be stars in Chicago, that Bassy would be the starting point guard on a playoff team, that Patterson would be a star, even Qyntel Wood, god help us, would be a star elsewhere. None of that happened. The only ex Blazer in recent years to have a significant impact on a new team was Sheed, and he was pre-Nate/KP. Jack was OK but nothing special last year. Damn near everyone else the Blazers let go ran from mediocre to sucks. We'll see about Sergio.

I didn't argue any of those chumps would be stars, but I certainly didn't think they'd be chumps. I was pretty guilty of overvaluing our players myself, in retrospect.

The thing is that an example like Jermaine O'Neal is so striking, so painful, that us fans tend to live in constant dread of it ever happening again. What we don't think about very often is how badly so many of the guys we dump do after we dump them. Mediocre players who turn out bad don't make headlines. Bad players who turn out to be All-Stars do.

The result is we tend to overvalue what we've got. When you've got a pretty good coach, it's even easier.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Nah, we're just kidding.

Andalusian covered some points I was going to make (and came up with a few I hadn't thought of. Always nice when somebody comes along and makes your argument for you better than you could've.)

If it's true for Roy, it should be true for other great playmakers.

Let's test this theory out on another player who unarguably makes his teammates better: LeBron James. Do teammates of his tend to see career highs in PER?
I'll pick a few guys at random who have longer careers on his current team and see:

Ilgauskas: His PER highs prior to LeBron were 19.4 and 19.7. He was 19.7 the year before LeBron was drafted. Since LeBron, he's had PER's of 20.2, 19.5, 21.9, 18, 18.7, 18. Maybe LeBron boosted his PER a little. (Of course, he was finally healthy too.)

Mo Williams: His career high (to that point) was 17.0. After moving to Cleveland, it's 17.2.

Wally Sczerbiak: Career high: 17.2. LeBron high: 12.1. But yeah, he's pretty broken down. So let's just look at the four seasons before he went to Cleveland: 17.1, 17.7, 14.8, 13.9. If there was a "LeBron Bump" in his PER, I don't see it.

Ben Wallace: It's not fair to really compare him in his prime. But the full year before in Chicago his PER was 14.8. The half year in Chicago he was 11.8. He's sat at 12 ever since joining Cleveland.

From this small sample, it's pretty hard to argue that guys playing next to LeBron saw much of a PER bump. Feel free to make your own case, though.

But if you choose not to, it's pretty hard to make the case that Roy artificially raised the PER of so many players when it doesn't seem LeBron was able to.

I think everybody knows that Magloire was once worth a damn. I'm not trying to argue Nate somehow made Magloire suddenly want to play like he did in 2001. Magloire clearly didn't give a fuck about anything by the time he came here. I wasn't cherry picking, I just didn't think it was fair to compare a Magloire-who-cared to the utter piece of shit we happened to get.

However, you're wrong about one thing. In the season before he came to Portland his PER was 11.1. He stopped caring then. He continued to not care when he got here. When he left, he again continued to not care and put up those dreadful PER's for two more teams.

Mine do:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/patteru01.html
His best was under Nate in Seattle.
I'll grant you, though, that he did have one good PER season in Milwaukee before getting garbage minutes on the Clippers and then being out of the league. That seems more to me like Ruben Patterson smelling his own demise and trying one last stab at relevance. But you can argue it's a blemish on Nate's career if you want.

Anyway, I'm interested in how you explain away Khryapa and Telfair. I notice you don't seem to address them. Surprising, given that those are probably the most stark examples (IMO) of McMillan somehow making something out of garbage.

I explained Viktor. While Nate certainly could have had something to do with it, it was also the year he played the most consistant minutes.

Telfair played his best year under Nate. He was still almost two full points under the league average for a player. However, if you look at his stats, did Nate really make him better?

2005-2006 (13.02 PER) vs 2007-2008 (10.58 PER)
FG% .394 vs .401
asst/TO 2.1 vs 3.2

To me those are big numbers for a PG that is not a 3pt shooter. Telfair shot better, had a better assist to TO ratio and his usage was higher under Nate. So did he really play better under Nate?


Was Mike Brown the coach for those years in Cleveland?


I guess my problem with the original post is the "Nate is "excellent at turning crappy players into somewhat mediocre players". Nate might turn them into players with a little better efficiency, but that is because of our slow pace. Players Nate has had haven't been marginally worse or better in other places. Some have done poorly and well under Nate. I don't think it's a stretch to say Mike Brown is a bad coach. I mean Cleveland was talking about replacing him, and he had just won coach of the year. Lebron however has a really high PER. So to me, it's on the player more than the coach.

Players playing for Nate should always have a slightly larger PER because of the slow pace period.


Also, I wonder what the difference is between Hollinger's PER and basketball ref's PER? They have been different in the past when I have looked for things.

 

[barfo]

James Jones would seem to fit your theory too, mook.

barfo

 

[Mediocre Man]

James Jones would seem to fit your theory too, mook.

barfo

13.51 in Portland and a 13.22 in Phoenix

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So just to play devil's advoacte:

The year Pritchard "pritchslapped" for Roy . . . Roy wasn't considered all that great and the overall draft was considered a weak draft. Maybe the deal happened not so much because of Telfair's PER as much as other organizations not thinking highly of Roy.

I think the jury is still out on the Pritchslap of Jack and the #13 pick for Bayless

I'm not sure a Zach for Frye trade can be labeled a pritchslap. The fact Blazer later picked up Rudy late in the draft as part of the trade might be considered a pritchslap, but that had little to do with Zach and his PERS.

So I see only one pritchslap where KP used the talent on the team (Roy for Telfair)

Overall, I would be shocked if scouts relied so heavly on PERS v. what they know about the player on and off the court . . . and more so, I have heard many times that trades are often made more because of the contracts than the talent involved.

That's it . . . enjoyed the original post and think it has some intersting ideas . . . but thought I would throw out some thoughts.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

What about Viktor and Tyrus Thomas for LMA?

 

[tlongII]

Dude, you lost me as soon as you were talking about how Telfair wasn't that bad. We could have had Al Jefferson. I still rue that day. One of the most idiotic draft picks I've ever witnessed.