I’m pretty sure it’s been shown that players don’t play better in contract years. There are certainly some who do, but it’s not a general rule.

Unfortunately I think Isiah managed to get a high % of the players who stopped working once they got paid on the Knicks.

Caleb,

I agree that work ethic shows up in the stats, but in this case we’re referring specifically to young players with limited track records. Say, 2 young players with very similar rookie years. How hard they work is going to show up in their stats the next few years, but at that point they’re not as young anymore. I doubt there’s enough of a pattern to create a model that would predict who’s going to improve from 1 season of stats, maybe if you include college and even high school stats. There might be some predictors, but I would guess it’s a pretty inexact science. Possibly better to just use your better judgement if you have inside information.

I’m only saying that work ethic, like athletic ability, is already factored into what we see on the court. And in the stats.

I know people would like to know what factors predict longevity and improvement – I mean, what team doesn’t want that crystal ball? – but there are no real answers at this point. It would be a great project for the next Knickerblogger intern :)

For purposes of such a study, there might be a way to quantify work ethic — looking at durability, change in weight from year to year, number of quotes from Tim Grover, etc.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Marbury showed up in such great shape in a contract year? I don’t!

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Collins was out of shape last year due to injury and reportedly on his way out this year and then suddenly showed up in the best shape of his life? I don’t.

My guess: it won’t make a difference, or will make only a very small difference, in how they play this year. Collins will still be awful, and Marbury will still be ok, crazy and wildly overpaid. But we’ll see.

It’s impossible for me to comment much on the other young forwards that have come up in conversations about Chandler because I don’t get to see them play every night.

However, do not exclude the possibility that several of them (including Chandler) will all make the all star team at one time or another. They may all be very good prospects. I just can’t say that with much certainty based on just stats. I’d have to watch and know more about them also.

IMO, we can say for certain that there are variations in work ethic among NBA pros. It ranges from one extreme like Curry (and I’m sure there are even worse cases) to stories you hear about Kobe, Bird etc…

They all work hard in HS and college trying to get to the pros and make the big bucks, but once they get a payday, some of them change.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Marbury showed up in such great shape in a contract year? I don’t!

Do you think it’s a coincidence that Collins was out of shape last year due to injury and reportedly on his way out this year and then suddenly showed up in the best shape of his life? I don’t.

You see that kind of thing in every sport.

They all work hard until they cash the big ticket, but once they cash the big ticket, only the real professionals with pride and love for the game continue working hard to improve because they want to win and be great players. The rest of them work, but not quite as hard….. until the contract is coming up and they want a raise or renewal.

I think you’re right that NBA players almost necessarily have a certain level of work ethic. (With bigmen having it a lot easier due to the relatively scarce competition… I mean you get some Eddy Curry, Jerome James, Darius Miles pre-injury, etc. types who seem to do the minimum amount of work necessary to stay in the NBA. Another exception might be true athletic freaks.)

I see your point about athleticism, but surely you’d agree that there is variation in athletic ability within the NBA that–small compared to the entire populatio–is relatively huge. I mean in NBA terms Chris Bosh and Roy Hibbert just aren’t in the same class.
I would say that the same thing goes for work ethic. The Mike Sweetney/Tractor Traylor types with absolutely no self control wind up out of the league, but the difference between the Eddy Curry–the average player–the MJ (for example) is relatively huge. When you’re talking about the best in the world in a market with as much competition as professional basketball, the difference is really at the margin.

Now I think Mardy Collins could work as hard as he wants and never be half the player Chris Paul would be even if he stopped working hard.

If you’re suggesting that the athleticism and work ethic of NBA players is so similar that it makes no difference, what do you ascribe the difference in performance to? Pure skill? How do you develop those skills? Just born with them? Aren’t those skills necessarily one aspect of athleticism?

“Why bring it up? Because I like Chandler. He seems to work hard on his game.. but I don’t have a reason to think he works harder than Julian Wright, or Thad Young, or Al Thornton – any of the other small forwards taken in the draft with him. Or Jamal Crawford, or Quentin Richardson for that matter.”

I have no idea how much each of those guys work… however, in an offseason that’s several months long the differnce between working (weights, court, tape, etc) at 90% for 5 hours a day and 100% for 8 hours a day has to really add up. As far as during the season, my job is not physically demanding in any way (although I think I’m getting carpal tunnel or whatever) but I’m exausted when I get home at night. I can’t imagine that every NBA player wakes up the morning after a game and gets a workout in before practice, for example. I have no idea if any NBA player does that, I’m just saying that I think there’s room for variation.
Of course, I had a coach who told us that we could practice for 10 hours a day the wrong way and never get better or for an hour a day the right way and get much better (he said it more eloquantly). Doing the right excercise, drill, etc. can have a huge impact especially if it helps to address a weakness.
I read an article in Men’s Health before last season about Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy working out together with a trainer using some unconventional methods that resulted in huge ahtleticism gains for them (their vertical leaps, bench presses, etc. both improved tremendously, I think Dunleavy’s more but I’m not sure). Dunleavy had a career/breakout year, while Murphy was more or less around his career averages in most regards.

One last point… if you’re starting from zero it’s a lot easier to improve than if you’re starting from 8. If Chandler was extremely underdeveloped/undercoached/etc. before coming to the NBA while someone else always had the best coaching in the best programs then in general I’d give WC a better chance to improve through NBA caliber training. (It’s not like he’s from some remote village in Sudan, but WC seemed pretty raw coming into the league.)

Changing subject a little…

I think work ethic is overrated. Hear me out. Of course it’s important — but the average work ethic among NBA players is already very high. That’s a big reason they’re in the NBA, not whining about what might have been. In a group that on average works extremely hard – variations aren’t that big. So-and-so is a hard worker — so are most of his rivals.

In this sense, worth ethic isn’t so different from raw athletic skill. I remember about 15 years ago, waiting for a pickup game where one guy was tearing things up. Tomahawk dunks, no-look passes, running down opponents and making steals in the open court…

“Who’s that guy?”

“Oh, that’s Vinnie Askew.”

Vinnie Askew, on the tail end of a middling NBA career, maybe even just retired.. compared to a bunch of aged high school jocks and a handful of college-level athletes at the local gym, he really stood out. Around his athletic peers, not so much.

Why bring it up? Because I like Chandler. He seems to work hard on his game.. but I don’t have a reason to think he works harder than Julian Wright, or Thad Young, or Al Thornton – any of the other small forwards taken in the draft with him. Or Jamal Crawford, or Quentin Richardson for that matter.

Anyway, I hope he’s one of those rare characters who beats the curve and improves a lot more than anyone expects…

I agree. That’s what I mean when I say the stats are good place to start the analysis.

In my Secretariat example, had he finished his first race in the same final time as a slow mule (L0L), a different impression of his full potential would have been justified even though improvement would have been just as likely. The base would have been different.

Again, I agree with what you’re saying about variability and improvement. However, I think the stats can give you a more accurate/ less biased prediction.

It’s the old “you could watch an entire baseball season and not know the difference between a .200 hitter and .300 hitter” argument. In the end, by watching all the games you might spot a guy who’s a great hitter with a slight hole in his swing he should be able to correct that doesn’t appear in his stats, while by looking at stats you might uncover a Kevin Youkilis type who looks laughably unathletic and not at all like a pro prospect. Ideally, you do both. But I think stats have been proven more accurate overall, especially since those same stats will help you determine that player’s worth down the road.

In general, I know that you don’t value advanced stats as much for analyzing a player or team as I do. So, I guess there’s no reason that young players should be different.

It’s not like Caleb and I are on an island here. Hollinger, who spends a lot of time actually doing statistical analysis, has found that rookies who post single digit PERs are long shots to succeed in the NBA. For example, prep-to-pros future stars like JO and T-Mac were really raw as rookies, but managed to post solid PERs. (Not that PER is the end all and be all, just an easy example of a player evaluation metric.) There is definitely variation and room for subjective analysis and even “luck”, though.

Agreed, I was more discussing than arguing.

I agree that Wrights + T Young were better–Young especially was much better–than Chandler last year and I would most likely take all 3 over WC. I also have no idea what WC´s value is outside of the Knickerblogger universe. I could just see some GMs favoring someone who’s less productive in more minutes, i.e. potentially WC over the Wrights this season.
I checked out the Warrior’s box scores. Brandan Wright has basically had 4 strong and 2 weak scoring games this preseason, but will probably get significantly more minutes this season than last. Julian Wright sprained his ankle in the Hornets’ 4th game. Through the first 3 he was filling out the box score nicely, but averaging only 5 ppg in somewhat limited minutes.
The only thing I was saying is that Julian Wright may end up playing only, say, 15 mpg for the Hornets while Chandler is playing 30-40 mpg for the Knicks. If Chandler scores 15-20 ppg while Julian scores 5-10 ppg with better per minute and rate numbers across the board, I could see GMs being split on who’s got a better future with a lot of them considering Chandler a rising star and questioning whether Julian Wrights’ “struggles” are due to playing for a good team or his own short-comings.
From preseason returns Brandan seems more likely to play, which is logical. However, the Warriors do have a couple other decent bigs and Nelson might stick with small-ball lineups while Brandan falls into the dog house.
I don’t think anybody will suddenly forget about these former lottery picks and college stars if they’re not playing, combine that with enough GMs who do look at advanced stats + their respective situations and they’ll probably still have value. But maybe not as much as they should–certainly not to the teams that are benching them–leaving a good opportunity for some GM to “steal” them in a trade or free agency. It’s also possible GMs in general have caught on, explaining why Isiah got so many overrated players dumped on him.

Caleb,
IS,
I every well bred (athletic), lightly raced (inexperienced) player doesn’t improve in the NBA: some very athletic prospects never put it together and some even get worse with time.Even if it were true, how much better they will get is a huge question. If Chandler were a 5 of 10 last season, is he going to improve to a 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 on his career? This is where stats can be very insightful. Certainly we can all agree that Chandler and Collins have decent best-case scenario potential, Chandler more so than Collins. But what are the chances that they reach that potential? If you don’t look at stats you end up like every GM who does some homework and then just takes the most athletic, good-charecter guy on the board in the draft.

We agree that the stats serve as a basis for starting the analysis.

The questions you are asking about improvement require a detailed understanding of the factors that determine the probabilities. Even when you understand those factors, you will sometimes be disappointed because of injury, character flaws that weren’t apparent in the beginning etc… But it’s still worth studying them.

I think the kinds of athletic measurements that are done pre draft are probably helpful. So are some of the little things you can see during a game. So are things like work ethic and attitude.

Hearing that Gallinari was a workhorse in the gym during the summer and that he has a high basketball IQ are the kinds of things that would lead me to believe he’s likely to improve over time even if his early stats this year are very mediocre. If on the other hand we heard that he was clubbing in NY and basking in his new found fame, I’d have a different impression. When I actually get to see him play some more, I’ll see some signs (or lack of signs) that will tell me more about his athletic potential.

I’m don’t claim to be an expert on analyzing this kind of thing for basketball players. I am however very experienced at analyzing this kind of thing for horses. I believe the intellectual framework for doing both is the same. It’s the details that are different.