Rookies who help a franchise right away vs. taking time to develop

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

If you look at the past several NBA drafts, only a small number of players make a big impact as starters for their respective teams during their rookie year or 2nd year in the league. It takes most players at least 2+ years to really become impact players, regardless of where they are drafted.

Here are some examples:

In 2009, the only players that excelled as starters were Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings and Stephen Curry. Jrue Holiday came on towards the end of the season, and Darren Collison also excelled when Chris Paul was injurred. All of these players were guards, and none of them (with the exception of Jennings) played on playoff teams.

There are a number of high-potential players from this draft that will probably pan out, but haven't matured yet.

In the 2008 draft class, there are more players who became high-impact starters for their respective teams by their second year in the league--including Derrick Rose, OJ Mayo, Russel Westbrook, Kevin Love, Brook Lopez, Robin Lopez, Roy Hibbert, and Jason Thompson. However, with the exception of Rose, Westbrook and Robin Lopez, they all play for teams that are back in the lottery.

My point is... no matter who the Jazz draft, it's likely going to be at least a year or two before this player makes a real impact as a starting-rotation player--something you'd hope the Jazz get with a lottery pick they've been waiting years for. That being the case, the Jazz should take the player with the most upside and potential to contribute meaningful minutes in 2 years.

It looks like there are only 3 or 4 players in this year's draft whom you could count on to come in, crack the Jazz's starting or 4th-quarter rotation and make a difference. Those players are Wall, Favors, Turner and W. Johnson. So if we're debating between the likes of Monroe, Udoh, Whiteside, Babbit, Aldrich, Aminu, etc. we should really be picking based on their potential to help take the Jazz to a higher level 1-2 years from now. There's not much point picking a regular rotation player with this pick. That's not going to get the Jazz past the 2nd round.

 

[Archie Moses]

In 2009, the only players that excelled as starters were Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings and Stephen Curry. Jrue Holiday came on towards the end of the season, and Darren Collison also excelled when Chris Paul was injurred. All of these players were guards, and none of them (with the exception of Jennings) played on playoff teams.

Not even close to being true.

 

[The Fresh Prince]

Johnny Flynn? I don't see Flynn on your list.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Not even close to being true.

Who else excelled as a starter? Johnny Flynn I guess.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The one thing I'd say is that the reason rookies excelled on non-playoff teams is because they were drafted by lottery teams. The Jazz are a playoff team getting a lottery pick. Let's say Aminu falls to the Jazz and he beats out Miles and Matthews for big time minutes. That's one possibility. At #9, you'd except someone who can at least contribute his rookie year. Maybe not excel, but contribute.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The positions on the Jazz where there's the most opportunity to come in and win major minutes are at the 2/3 and the 5. I'm not sure if Aminu would really make a big difference. He's an athletic finisher on the break, but I'm not sure that's a big priority for the Jazz. If I were the Jazz, I'd do everything I can to move up a few spots in this draft and see if I could get one of the top 5 or 6 players. The Jazz need to roll the dice and try to land an all-star caliber player here. Otherwise, the D. Will era will end in a few years and the Jazz will be back to rebuilding.

 

[sirkickyass]

Not even close to being true.

I'd say it was pretty close to being true. Wes Matthews qualifies. Taj Gibson probably qualifies. Maybe Marcus Thornton. Who else was a rookie that was really a starter this season?

There were a few other guys who got some starts late in the season (Terrence Williams, Toney Douglas, Chase Budinger) but weren't really season long starters by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[InGameStrategy]

My point is... no matter who the Jazz draft, it's likely going to be at least a year or two before this player makes a real impact as a starting-rotation player--something you'd hope the Jazz get with a lottery pick they've been waiting years for.

Yeah, and it might be longer if Sloan continues to make a poor effort in trying to get young players--especially bigs--the court time that they need to develop. As your post suggests, guards tend to be able to develop faster and contribute sooner. Bigs, however, need more time, including court time. Koufos was coming along nicely until he was completely shut off from PT for weeks on end during his rookie year. And Fesenko has gotten about as many minutes in three years as Ostertag (or Robin Lopez, for that matter) got in one. And the Big O and the Big Lo weren't lottery picks, either.

Instead, Sloan continued his mysterious man-crush on the slow-motion defense and three-point threat (even after Utah got shooters) of Mehmet Okur. And he also fell in love with playing two sub-6'9" at the 4/5 together, even though it was shown years ago that it doesn't work against the Twin Towers of Tinseltown. It took a season-ending injury in the PLAYOFFS for Sloan to finally give Fes more than garbage minutes, and sure enough, he was the only Jazz player not to have a negative on-court +/- in any Laker game. In other words, despite being a low scorer, he was a net positive out there. The same cannot be said for Boozer, especially when he was foolishly paired with PM.

Kudos for Alvin Gentry at least giving the Phoenix backups a chance late into the 4th quarter last night because it was working. Sadly, Gentry reverted to the starters, who were cold and ineffective. Not sure if the backups could've gotten it done, either, but they were doing better. The best decision was NOT to put in two aging players (Nash and Hill). If past is prologue, Sloan would've put in the ineffective starters long before that.

For the draft, I do agree that the player's long-term potential is most important. Miles and Matthews will probably continue to develop. If Sloan would just give more time to the young 7-footers, they will continue to develop while whomever Utah drafts comes along. Whenever the rook happens to be better then the players ahead of him, then he should definitely get more PT. But in the meantime, a coach should balance development with winning; in other words, have a good InGameStrategy. Sloan did not achieve either of these goals last year, and Utah ended up with both a lower seed than they had the potential to achieve AND less-developed bigs than they had the potential to have.

 

[LunaticWolf]

Koufos was coming along nicely until he was completely shut off from PT for weeks on end during his rookie year. And Fesenko has gotten about as many minutes in three years as Ostertag (or Robin Lopez, for that matter) got in one. And the Big O and the Big Lo weren't lottery picks, either.

Sorry, Koufos was never coming along nicely. In his first minutes, he was bricking midrange jumpers, getting points because nobody was actually guarding him. Then, we they decided to try to guard him, he sucked.

Fesenko was the 44th pick, who was traded to us for the 55th pick and cash. Ostertag was the 28th pick and Lopez was the 15th pick. Are you seriously comparing minutes between these guys?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Yeah, and it might be longer if Sloan continues to make a poor effort in trying to get young players--especially bigs--the court time that they need to develop. As your post suggests, guards tend to be able to develop faster and contribute sooner. Bigs, however, need more time, including court time. Koufos was coming along nicely until he was completely shut off from PT for weeks on end during his rookie year. And Fesenko has gotten about as many minutes in three years as Ostertag (or Robin Lopez, for that matter) got in one. And the Big O and the Big Lo weren't lottery picks, either.

Because the Jazz' bigs, and any bigs really, will automatically develop if given playing time, and their undeveloped play won't cost the team wins. If Fesenko is not on the Jazz roster next year, he'll be deep on the bench on a good team, or playing bunches of minutes on a bad team. Which type of team is the Jazz? And I've already posted why I think Koufos hasn't gotten minutes, which makes sense given how his play was this year.

Instead, Sloan continued his mysterious man-crush on the slow-motion defense and three-point threat (even after Utah got shooters) of Mehmet Okur. And he also fell in love with playing two sub-6'9" at the 4/5 together, even though it was shown years ago that it doesn't work against the Twin Towers of Tinseltown. It took a season-ending injury in the PLAYOFFS for Sloan to finally give Fes more than garbage minutes, and sure enough, he was the only Jazz player not to have a negative on-court +/- in any Laker game. In other words, despite being a low scorer, he was a net positive out there. The same cannot be said for Boozer, especially when he was foolishly paired with PM.

Nothing says great player better than 2/1/1 in 13 minutes so long as that plus/minus is at 0. Or 2/3/1 WITH ONE ALMIGHTY BLOCK in 17 minutes with a +4, or a 2/4/2 with ONE MORE BLOCK for another 0 in 13 minutes. Good thing those 12 boards happened in the last game since he was averaging less than 3 boards a game in the series. Of course, I should forget all that and look directly at the +/-, which, as everyone should know, is only attributed to how the individual played. Has nothing to do with the other nine players on the court when he is.

Kudos for Alvin Gentry at least giving the Phoenix backups a chance late into the 4th quarter last night because it was working. Sadly, Gentry reverted to the starters, who were cold and ineffective. Not sure if the backups could've gotten it done, either, but they were doing better. The best decision was NOT to put in two aging players (Nash and Hill). If past is prologue, Sloan would've put in the ineffective starters long before that.

Sloan did that with Price last year in Game 6. That's one example. Played Price a lot more in the Laker series since he was playing well as opposed to the Nugget series where he wasn't. Sloan also would generally play the best two wings of the night late in the fourth quarter, something you don't mention. Fesenko, I admit, should have been in games late to knock down those clutch free throws.

For the draft, I do agree that the player's long-term potential is most important. Miles and Matthews will probably continue to develop. If Sloan would just give more time to the young 7-footers, they will continue to develop while whomever Utah drafts comes along. Whenever the rook happens to be better then the players ahead of him, then he should definitely get more PT. But in the meantime, a coach should balance development with winning; in other words, have a good InGameStrategy. Sloan did not achieve either of these goals last year, and Utah ended up with both a lower seed than they had the potential to achieve AND less-developed bigs than they had the potential to have.

Fesenko isn't a starter in the league for a good team. I can never see that happening. He's a backup, pure and simple. For the draft, BPA should always be the rule. And I still don't get the "playing time is the end all, be all of developing NBA players." Sure it's important, and every player save Jeffers got his chance.

 

[Archie Moses]

I'd say it was pretty close to being true. Wes Matthews qualifies. Taj Gibson probably qualifies. Maybe Marcus Thornton. Who else was a rookie that was really a starter this season?

There were a few other guys who got some starts late in the season (Terrence Williams, Toney Douglas, Chase Budinger) but weren't really season long starters by any stretch of the imagination.

Like you said, Wes Matthews, Taj Gibson, Marcus Thornton, Demar Derozan, Jonas Jerebko, Jonny Flynn. That's an additional six starters that weren't mentioned who played very well as rookies and had impacts in their respective teams.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Sorry, Koufos was never coming along nicely. In his first minutes, he was bricking midrange jumpers, getting points because nobody was actually guarding him. Then, we they decided to try to guard him, he sucked.

Your shortsighted analysis probably parallels that of the coaching staff. By playoff time, the opportunity to develop Koufos during the season (and the end of his rookie season) had already been lost. But even in these playoffs, when defense and rebounding were so crucial, he led the team in offensive rebounding rate. And I need to correct myself: Fes wasn't the only player to have a positive +/- in every Laker game; Koufos did, too (although it's off a smaller base of minutes and probably included a higher % of garbage time, but it only underscores that the correct InGameStrategy was to have a 7-footer in the game most of the time, flanked by Millsap or Boozer to provide scoring).

Oh, and BTW, Koufos was in the top 10 or 12 in the league for rebounding rate during the playoffs (above Millsap, BTW). Yes, it was off a small base, but it should have been enough to show that the optimal strategy was to go big (i.e., have one big in there for most of the game, including down the stretch).
https://www.nba.com/statistics/play...d=Y&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=7&splitDD=All Teams

Fesenko was the 44th pick, who was traded to us for the 55th pick and cash. Ostertag was the 28th pick and Lopez was the 15th pick. Are you seriously comparing minutes between these guys?

If there is any team that proves that where a player is picked is less than relevant, it's the Utah Jazz. For most of the season, Utah had three second-rounders/undrafted players as starters. So your comparison of where players were drafted doesn't mean much. What matters more is how the coaches develop their talent once they are there. And Fes showed, especially in the last game or two of the playoffs, that he had the ability to make a difference. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to win a game, and if he had had more court time during the season, he likely would've been more seasoned in the playoffs. Such a goal (developing the 5 spot) should've have been at or near the top of the Jazz's list from day one, because it was blatantly clear that Okur wasn't gonna be enough. What would've been interesting to know hypothetically is whether Utah would've even won the Nuggets series with Okur, given that the Nuggets frontcourt is a poor matchup for Okur, and Sloan inevitably would've have blindly given MO lots of PT. Against the Nuggets, CB + PM was OK--probably better than CB + MO--because the Nugs aren't as tall (or as smart).

My core IGS (InGameStrategy) argument untiringly confirms that what is most important is how players are performing in the game, on a given night. After Sloan tried Boozer and Millsap in Game 1 vs. the Lakers, Sloan should've known that it wouldn't work. It was the early 3rd quarter lineup, when Boozer and Fesenko were mostly playing together, that cut the Jazz's deficit from double digits down to 5 points. When Millsap subbed in for Fes, the deficit went back up to 8. Then when Millsap and Koufos were playing together in the beginning of the 4th, albeit against the Laker backups, Utah recovered all but 1 point of that deficit. Then Boozer (and Odom, etc.) came in, and CB + PM scored only 6 points combined in the last 7 minutes of the game. Not exactly support for anyone's argument that keeping a 7-footer in there hurts the scoring.

This same flawed strategy of ending the game with Boozer and Millsap on the court was repeated after Game 1, and the results were the same.

If you keep doing the same thing, don't be surprised if you keep getting the same results.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I am flabbergasted. To think that Koufos' rebound rate was a big enough sample size to show anything is unfathomable to me. Hell, I'll do the box scores.

2:40 1 Def Reb
1:37 1 Off Reb. (The infamous "Boom Bitches" game. He freakin' got this rebound because his first shot was stuffed in his face.)
2:18 0 Reb
0:58 1 Off Reb. (Another rebound off his own miss)
0:56 1 Def Reb (garbage time)
4:37 0 Reb
Laker Series
9:10 1 Off Reb 2 Def Reb
6:46 1 Def Reb
DNP
1:39 0 Reb

How those minutes can be constituted as reason for playing him over Millsap or Boozer I have no idea.

 

[Qman]

I think if Aminu or Whiteside are there you have to take hard look at taking them. Even if they are going to be a couple of years away.

 

[sirkickyass]

Like you said, Wes Matthews, Taj Gibson, Marcus Thornton, Demar Derozan, Jonas Jerebko, Jonny Flynn. That's an additional six starters that weren't mentioned who played very well as rookies and had impacts in their respective teams.

I think his larger point is still fine. It's not like the analysis changes much based upon those guys. What's more interesting about this group is that they largely got the opportunity to play or start only because of injuries or weird situations. If things had gone as optimally planned, I don't think any of these guys would have played that much, with the exception of Derozan.

Wes Matthews started 48 games, largely because the guy in front of him got traded away for peanuts.

Taj Gibson, who started 70 games, got his big break because Tyrus Thomas, who many thought was going to break out this year, broke his arm.

Marcus Thornton only started 17 games, but that was largely because Bryon Scott was a moron.

Jerebko started a lot of games, but I refuse to believe that was the plan prior to the season. I'm pretty sure they thought Villanueva was going to get his time.

As far as Flynn, does anyone really think he would have started over Rubio? I also don't think he's a starter long term.

Demar did start 65 games, but let's face it, he was only ok. He's a player for the future rather than a player who was really contributing this season.

 

[honz]

Irrelevant post: I thought Tyrus Thomas was a member of the Bobcats last year.

 

[sirkickyass]

Irrelevant post: I thought Tyrus Thomas was a member of the Bobcats last year.

Got traded to the Bobcats in February.

https://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=4925000

 

[chemdude1232]

I'm going to create a simplistic analogy between myself and Koufos/Fes.

I just now ran 1 meter in a blazing time of 0.097 seconds. Extrapolating outward, that means I am in the running (no pun intended) to challenge Usain Bolt for the world record in the 100 meter dash. If only my track coach in high school had developed these skills, then I would have been an American star who would help keep our ascendancy in sprints. Damn those coaches.

See how ridiculous that example sounds? So by saying an equivalent in basketball terminology - Koufos leads the team in rebounding per minute or whatnot, I think you run the risk of sounding equally off-center. Does the fact that Koufos is rebounding at such a high rate mean that he should have gotten playing time over Karl Malone had Koufos been in the League 10 years ago? Of course not.

I agree with Darkwing...enough with this rebounding rate stuff. One problem (probably amongst many others) with saying that about Koufos/Fes: as Darkwing mentioned, the sample size is so small it is rendered nearly irrelevant. Another problem is that Kourfos' rebounds came against the other teams' scrubs, which is hardly indicative of how he'd fare against another teams' first unit.

 

[green]

It looks like there are only 3 or 4 players in this year's draft whom you could count on to come in, crack the Jazz's starting or 4th-quarter rotation and make a difference. Those players are Wall, Favors, Turner and W. Johnson. So if we're debating between the likes of Monroe, Udoh, Whiteside, Babbit, Aldrich, Aminu, etc. we should really be picking based on their potential to help take the Jazz to a higher level 1-2 years from now. There's not much point picking a regular rotation player with this pick. That's not going to get the Jazz past the 2nd round.

LOL. Three years and counting.

And then this thread turned into a Koufos vs Fess debate.

As Jazz fans, we tend to overrate our own players. Remember that when you predict how good the team will be this year.

Scrubs don't become rotation players magically when they put on the Jazz uni. There is a reason Millsap and Boozer played over Fess/Koufos (they were better).

 

[orangello]

LOL. Three years and counting.

And then this thread turned into a Koufos vs Fess debate.

As Jazz fans, we tend to overrate our own players. Remember that when you predict how good the team will be this year.

Scrubs don't become rotation players magically when they put on the Jazz uni. There is a reason Millsap and Boozer played over Fess/Koufos (they were better).

Nice find.