Do Coach/Players "Stunt the Development" of All-Stars

I can only think of two scenarios where a player can be stunted by a coach:

a) The coach sits the "stunted" on the bench -

This seems pretty obvious, although you could argue that the stunting is mitigated when the coach allows the stunted to scrimage during practice. Still, it's probably not totally untrue to say that a player won't ever thrive in the NBA unless they play in a real game.

b)The coach uses the stunted in ways that are counterproductive to the player's strengths -

Say a coach uses a Jason Kidd to play center in a half-court style offense (to use a somewhat ridiculous example). You might be able to say that the coach is "stunting" Kidd's development. Of course, "stunting" is rarely that obvious but I think we've all seen a certain coach use slashing type players as spot-up 3-pt shooters. Did the coach "stunt" these players (cough ... Shandon Anderson) development. That depends on whether you believe these players were capable of development.

As far as players stunting each others development, it's possible. I can see that if Player A gets an Iversonian number a shots, Player B may not be able to develop his offensive skills. You could also argue that having a extremely good shot-blocking frontcourt could somewhat hinder the perimeter defense-abilities of the backcourt, as the guards would have a safety net allowing them to be a little more lax on D.

If any "stunting" actually goes on, I would think that it would take several seasons before anyone could recognize it.

 

Stars Wars or Medicare

 

How about Tracy McGrady while he was in Toronto? I believe his growth was stunted by the coach at that time as well as the all the hype surrounding Vince Carter. Personally I think TMac is the better all around player and would take him before half-man half amazing.

 

To me this theory is somewhat backwards. In my opinion, if you have a great shotblocker in the paint, the guards should be able to become better defenders or have the "look" of being better due to them being able to be more agressive on the perimeter with the safety net behind them, ie., Kobe Bryant.

 

I'm like this, if you have a young player with a lot of potential and you're a lotto team, he should play as much as possible. As much as Kenny Thomas improved, and after the 16 game losing streak that basically killed the Rockets somewhat playoff chances, Eddie Griffin should have played a lot more. Morris,Langhi and Torres also. Players in basketball don't realy learn anything from sitting on the bench collecting dust. The way the Rockets handled Francis is the same way they should have handled Griffin which is the same way they should handle Ming. Its not a question of who is better for that particular time as to who will be the better player in the near future.

A classic example was the Eddie Jones v Kobe Bryant scenerio. From the time he got there until now, Kobe has shown to have "it". Now whatever "it" is I really can't explain it. Some player have "it" and some don't. Eddie Jones was a perrinnial all star, but when it came time to take over a game or score a huge baskets, he backed down. Kobe even in hisyouth albeit sometimes out of control ways, wanted to take the last shot . Kobe actually craved for situations like that. Evereyone remembers the airballs he shot against the Jazz, but where was Eddie Jones or Elden Campbell during that span? They were in the same place Webber was in the playoffs, David Robinson was his enitire career and other player who don't have it.

It can be said that in 1999 Francis couldn't have beaten out Cat for the pg position, but what mgmt decided was Francis had or has superstart quality whereas Mobley might just be a good player. The same can will be said of Griffin vs Thomas/Taylor and Ming vs Cato. Some players have the pedigree (size,atheleticism,or skill) and some players are just going to be decent or "solid" their entire career. Eventually when ths scenerio plays out Cato and Taylor will be high paid backups or on another teams roster. Playing Cato, Thomas or Taylor in front of Ming and Griffin because they are not supposedly ready is and will slow their learning curve.

 

leebigez,


Thing is, we're not a lottery team, and can't afford to start Ming and Griffin right now. Not too long from now, but not right now.

For now, Cato is a betetr NBA player than Ming. Plus, Ming is not in good physcial condition to be handed starting minutes.

Some people may also say that Mo T and/or KT are better than Griffin right now. But the only think KT and Mo T have over Griffin is that they're a little stronger. Mo T doesn't even use his size, and KT is 6'7, so Griffin actually has his won advantage too.

I understand your thinking. But I don't agree that our team should start Griffin and Ming now. They're not ready yet, and Ming won't be early season.


My conclusion? Sometimes it's better for someone with high potential to learn slowly off the benhc. Ask Antonio Daniels.

 

Yeah, I really wish Rudy and Steve would stop the stunting of Cato's development. We need Kelvin playing on all cylinders right now, and nothing bothers me more than to see people messing with his mad game.

 

In T-Mac's case it wasn't so much stunting his growth as it was holding him back in games. Although he was brought along very well and became the player that he is now in Toronto, they never really showcased his abilities in the games. If you think about it the guy's only about 23 or 24 so he would be only a few years in the league if he came out of college but instead he came out of hs which is why it seems like it took so long for him to develop.

 

Tell me your not serious. Please tell me your joking. Let me put it to you like this: if Cato is a better NBA player than Ming, right now, then Rudy, CD, and Les are all floundering down **** creek -- forget without just a paddle -- there without a raft, life jackets, and there all wearing zebra striped speedos.

 

...and you know this, how? Such a thing simply isn't knowable by a fan right now.

As for the original question... I'd probably go with Jermaine O'Neal. THe improvement from his 1st year with the Pacers to his 2nd was marked. Perhaps it was all about aging a year... but I tend to think the playing time he got the year before was more important. If he'd gotten that PT in Portland, then he'd be more advanced then... and now.

 

i see this discussion as the classic nature vs nurture argument...
is it the players environment or is it just the player...

my take...some players have a generic pre-disposition to be good players (hops, athleticism, height, vision, creativity...) which is
one factor in the equation on how good a player is or will be.. the players environment(coach, teammates, off/def schemes, playing time..) is another ... the players drive(determination, competitiveness, work ethic..) is another...

the different factors are weighted differently depending on the situation/player...

the only thing the player can really control is his "drive"...which he can use to maximize his abilities in a given environment... i feel the best players have the "drive", and will succeed no matter the circumstances..ie "the cream rising to the top"

in other words...the great ones can't be stunted ..becasue they continually "driving" to improve....

 

Let's sit KT down because he does not have 'it'?
Not that the other guy is out playing him
not that the other guy is practicing harder
not that the other guy has done anything

we just feel the other guy has IT
I know we drafted you dude .. but we have little confidence
in you and would like to stunt your developement
so that we can develope this other guy . ..
YEA . . we know you developed your self working hard in
the off season . . but. . .
loosely translated. . .SCREW YOU . . .
we don't give a D*MN ABOUT U
thanks for the hustle. . . . . thanks for sinking ya heart into this
team . . . but get the hell on the bench and just take it

is that about the sum of it . . . .leebigez?

Rocket River