Nate McMillan may be the secret to the Pritchslap

[The_Lillard_King]

What about Viktor and Tyrus Thomas for LMA?

That's true . . . that could be considered a trade of talent that would classify as a pritchslap.

The way I see though, that trade wasn't about Viktor and that Bulls wanting ViKtor (because Nate made him look good). To me that was a trade of evaluating talent and the Bulls wanted Thomas and the Blazers wanted Aldridge. They swapped postions and threw in Vicktor . . . but if Aldrdige was the Bulls top guy, they don't make the trade.

I guess what I am saying is I attribute the pritchslapping more due to KP (and staff) ability to scout talent than Nate's ability to increase the players trade value.

But mook has me thinking about it . . .

 

[C_note]

Meh. You have a good idea, but a study like this will always be flawed, since you can't do it complete justice with control variables and such. Just because two things correlate doesn't automatically mean they are linked. I'd say the fact that we sucked as a team, giving these players tons of minutes, would be somewhat relevant. NBA teams are ridiculously situational...that's why GMs and scouts get paid...

 

[mook]

Meh. You have a good idea, but a study like this will always be flawed, since you can't do it complete justice with control variables and such. Just because two things correlate doesn't automatically mean they are linked. I'd say the fact that we sucked as a team, giving these players tons of minutes, would be somewhat relevant. NBA teams are ridiculously situational...that's why GMs and scouts get paid...

Yeah, I'm probably coming across as more stalwart than I actually am. It's impossible to prove almost any theory conclusively in a team sport. (Hell, just ask who the greatest NBA player of all time is. It seems obvious to everyone, but the answer isn't the same for everyone.)

But you have to admit there's a heck of a correlation between players doing as well or better than typical under Nate.

Most coaches are evaluated by their teams' records. That to me seems like a far, far more correlative evaluation than mine. There are a million different reasons why a team may suck, and most of the time it has little or nothing to do with the coach. It's just that the coach is always easy to fire, and the GM would rather fire the coach than himself, so he gets canned.

And then you've got the issue of coaches like Phil Jackson and Popovich. Those guys happen to have the best records and the most rings. But they've also coached the greatest superstars.

It'd be interesting to see how coaches like Phil and Pop do on my test. Clearly Nate did better at least with Udoka.

 

[mook]

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.

Yeah, if I had to rename this thread, it'd probably be something like, "PER shows Nate is a damned good coach." That's really more my point. The "Pritchslap" thing is secondary, and admittedly kind of sensational.

Still, though, even if the "Pritchslap" unarguably only happened once due to Nate's work as a coach, the results were Brandon Roy. It may be only one instance, but it's a pretty fucking big instance.

 

[handiman]

I'd say the fact that we sucked as a team, giving these players tons of minutes, would be somewhat relevant.

I was thinking something along those lines for possibly explaining Udoka. We played him in a big role and he played through a lot of knee pain, perhaps damaging his future. It's entirely possible that we got out of him pretty much everything he had to give. There was a lot of pride on his part, being the hometown kid getting his first real shot and wanting to make the most of it.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Yeah, if I had to rename this thread, it'd probably be something like, "PER shows Nate is a damned good coach." That's really more my point. The "Pritchslap" thing is secondary, and admittedly kind of sensational.

Still, though, even if the "Pritchslap" unarguably only happened once due to Nate's work as a coach, the results were Brandon Roy. It may be only one instance, but it's a pretty fucking big instance.

Exactly.

Also, people should remember that PER doesn't magically go up when minutes go up. It's a measure of efficiency, which doesn't care about pace or minutes. It's a measure of how good you do in the time you're given. The argument of "Ime Udoka got more minutes on a bad team" doesn't really fly too too much.

 

[mook]

I was thinking something along those lines for possibly explaining Udoka. We played him in a big role

Maybe. But if that's true about our team, it should also be true about other bad teams.
Look at Sacramento--
Mikki Moore has been more dreadful than ever. PER in Sactown of 8.3.
Bobby Jackson has a career low of 12.4.
Beno Udrih, who has a 15.3 PER in San Antonio, has PER's of 13.3 and 12.3.

Or the Wizards:
Caron Butler: Ok, he definitely took off. That to me is just a case of a star player finally getting the space to play. But that's sort of your point.
Jamison: His highest was in Dallas (21.2) but he's had a couple of 20 PER seasons there too.
Darius Songalia: Highest PER's were on pretty good Kings teams (14.9). Highest in Washington was 13.9

Timberwolves:
Ryan Gomes: Boston high - 14.0, Minnesota high - 15.7. Of course, this year he dropped to 12.5, but it's valid.
Mike Miller: 13.8, the lowest since his rookie year. Last year he had a 16.1

Again, I'm not cherry picking guys. Just going for middle-aged guys who've had the opportunity to play on multiple teams and aren't broken down completely yet. Just from my quick random sampling, I don't think there's a definitive "bad team bump" in PER, unless you are a guy like Caron Butler and you just needed the opportunity to become a star.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

Exactly.

Also, people should remember that PER doesn't magically go up when minutes go up. It's a measure of efficiency, which doesn't care about pace or minutes. It's a measure of how good you do in the time you're given. The argument of "Ime Udoka got more minutes on a bad team" doesn't really fly too too much.

Don't you think players tend to play better knowing they are going to get minutes? I know that's not entirely relevant to PER, but it's something to consider.

EDIT:

I'm not saying it has anything to do with good or bad team, just the player's particular role.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Don't you think players tend to play better knowing they are going to get minutes? I know that's not entirely relevant to PER, but it's something to consider.

Possibly, but there's guys like Bonzi and Zach who played great in limited minutes and earned their starting roles because of making the most of their time. Then there's players like Channing Frye, who need minutes just to get loose and warm on the court.

So it does take all types, but I think you'll see that the self-starters are the ones who eventually prove their value in the league.