Hey, after working so hard, I'm the one who needs the Valium, the Pepto Bismol, and the shot of whiskey.
That's a good point about free agency. You would think that when free agents are available, there would be less of a need to draft well. That doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe it's because your draft picks are the only fuel that can keep your franchise going in the long run. If you keep dumping them before they develop, or if you trade them away before you've seen head or hair of them (I'm still hurting from the Rudy Gay trade), your team eventually runs out of gas. Just as JVG's Knicks did. (Maybe Isiah isn't entirely to blame for that team's current suckitude -- he probably inherited a horrible situation.) Absolutely.
I'd like to know what percentage of NBA teams since 1951 did not have a "significant rookie". If the vast majority of NBA teams (say, greater than 90%) have such a player on the roster, than this stat could be nothing more than a coincidence.
But I didn't misquote what you're data is representing. You said initially: 1. You must have significant rookies to win championship 2. Teams without a significant rookie cannot win a championship Fine...those two statements are converses of each other. However, your data only demonstrates: 1b. All teams that have won a championship have had a significant rookie 2b. All teams without a significant rookie have never won a championship You can't conclude your initial statements from the data you presented (unless you plan on making a few fallacious leaps in logic).
I like your analysis Terse, but I just have a problem with you calling it a rule which makes it seem like the two events, of haveing a significant rookie in a 3-year period and winning a championship seem like it is mutually exclusive. I agree it is good for a team to develop rookies but you cannot act like the events have to happen in order for a team to win a championship, because I'm sure of that every year there is a team that does not win a championship has a significant rookie. So therefore do you think it is right for my statement to say: Having a significant rookie does no equal championship? I'm pretty sure I can find evidence that a significant rookie has played for a team that hasn't one a championship. I think you beat me to the punch durvasa and agree with your statement. Its like saying every championship team has a player that averaged more than 10 points a season. But you cannot make a rule that say If you have a player that averages 10 points a season you will win the championship. The two events are not mutually exclusive.
terse, I just did really quickly... There've been a total of 1038 "single-season teams" that competed in the NBA since 1951. (Clarification: If a team has been in the NBA for 20 years, then that counts as 20 single-season teams) Using the second list you provided, there've been 40 instances of teams with rookie droughts. If we count all these rookie droughts as individual seasons, that gives us 174. Out of the 1038 possible teams, only 174 of them have been a part of extended rookie droughts. In other words, just go back and pick any team at any year since 1951 completely randomly. There will be only be a 17% chance that the team you chose either 1) did not draft a signficant rookie less than three years prior or 2) will not have drafted a significant rookie within the next three years. Seeing as how 83% of teams in NBA history are less than 3 years removed from a significant rookie (forwards AND backwards)...saying that you need one to win a title is a moot point. It's like saying, "Hey guys...all the championship teams in the past have had coaches over the age of XX! That means if you have a young coach, there's no way you can win!"
terse, Does the rule state that the significant rookie was drafted by the team itself, or just that the team has a significant player that was drafted at most 3 years prior by some team. Because if it's the latter, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any team that doesn't have such a player.
This is why I gave the converse so much weight. Teams going through a drought of significant rookies never win the championship. The converse has also never been broken in the history of the NBA, which suggests that it is far from being coincidental.
Terse, have you considered that despite the correlation of the variables you are using, there could be a 3rd variable causing the other two? Meaning, perhaps it is a GM who has a great sense of talent in developing rookies and obtaining the right free agents to build a winning team. Therefore the GM would be the actual variable that leads to a championship. I just used GM as a random variable, but I am thinking there could be a number of different variables that all championship teams have had in common. It almost seems you are starting with a theory and building evidence to support it rather than starting with a blank slate and letting the evidence lead you wherever it may. May I ask what caused you to focus on rookies in building your theory?
You know what...forget it. Bottom line is, you found an absolutely useless statistic. When the VAST majority of teams in NBA history have had significant rookies pretty much every single year, chances are the championship teams did as well.
Quite a lengthy analysis for a guy named "terse". I'm with these guys who pointed out that finding only 40 teams out of the history of the NBA who didn't have "significant rookies" means the entire analysis is pretty meaningless. Especially with the caveats exempting past champions, etc. And I believe that your criteria for "significant", based solely on minutes played, is lacking. I could create a similar correlation argument by pointing out that in the history of the NBA, no team named "Clippers" or "Mavericks" has ever won the championship, therefore, the Clippers and Mavs will never win. Actually, that one probably holds more validity.
great that you did all that analysis but just like your other thread i see absolutely nothing of value that came from this.
I think that with those numbers, there is a statistical causality. It can´t be just a coincidence that 55 times championship team has been a part of that 83 percent group. 0,83^55= almost 0. I think that terse's theory is good and it shows how important it is to draft and develop good rookies, albeit it has little holes as a presentation from a scientificial viewpoint.
Predictive? How does your data allow you to distinguish between significant rookies=championships as opposed to championships=significant rookies? Using an argument similar to yours you could conclude that not having significant rookies is also correlated with finishing last in the league because a look at your no-significant-rookie-teams reveals none that finished the season with the worse record during those years. So, you've found a measure that to date is 100% associated with champs and chumps... Explanation: who knows! I'm guessing that championship teams have more garbage time in blow out wins than average teams and hence have an easier time playing rookies. The same is true for horrible teams, but their garbage time occurs in blow out loses (it’s also probably true that horrible teams play rookies in close games because their season is already tanked…).
Very good point. Analysis is a wonderful thing, and of course there is not any good reason to think that getting a very good player as a rookie and developing him into the team as a contributor would ever be a BAD thing - it's self-evident that finding good young players to add to your team is always a good thing to do. Always be careful looking at 'studies' where people show evidence of a trend or the like and draw conclusions of causation where there is only correlation. This is what is called 'junk science' in most circles, and can be seen particularly vividly in areas such as the great 'obesity epidemic', among other things. Fact is, teams win championships because they are good-to-great teams. The NBA holds a Draft every year, so almost every year, the good organizations (those with good GMs, coaches, owners and scouting) will draft a rookie who should eventually contribute. The bad organizations also draft from the same pool of rookies, often with higher slotted selections, but seldom break out of the mold of 'badness'. There are far more examples of teams who DID draft the supposedly great rookies, and yet never won a championship within this 3-year time frame. Every year there are approximately 60 rookies drafted, yet only one team wins the championship. Rather than see a roughly 30-to-1 shot at drafting 'the' rookie who will help you win a championship within three years as some kind of rule, it should rather be seen as simply a reflection of what good organizations do, and what bad ones don't do. Look at the Spurs and the Pistons, and even the Suns and Mavericks. Those teams seem to have a 'knack' for finding talented young players who fit their systems, and their continued success is the result not only of this 'knack', but of many other factors, among which this knack is merely one facet. No one argues that having these good young contributors does not help these teams succeed. And few would argue that the Rockets have had much success at all in finding the same sorts of good young players. I would go so far as to say that the Rockets' organization's performance in this area has been dismal. Notable exceptions would be Horry, Cassell, and Mobley. Francis and Yao do not count, for obvious reasons, and the jury is still out on Head. The point is, be wary of those who definitively declare conclusions based on evidence which do not in fact imply causation, but merely show correlation. Frankly, this whole exercise seems to me to be designed as a sort of 'stealth' attempt to impugn the Rockets organization for the decision not to hang onto Rudy Gay. But something tells me that Morey is going to be far more level-headed about this sort of thing than us armchair statisticians, and that if he determines that a guy like Battier gives us a better chance to win a ring than a 'potential' player like Gay, then I have to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. It is still a very real possibility that we actually totally reamed Memphis in this deal, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth prevalent on the board these days.
That was my suspicion as well. It seems Terse began with a theory, that you need to develop rookies to win a championship, and gathered evidence to support said theory. What should have been done, is first ask the question, "What do all Championship teams have in common?", and let the evidence lead where it may. Certainly, "developed" rookies have historically been one aspect of championship teams. I would presume there are other factors they have in common as well, I feel it is a very dynamic combination of factors which create a champion. I am thinking under Morey our draft success should improved dramatically (how could it not? ) My take on the Gay/Battier trade is the brass decided against a high risk/high reward player in favor of a low risk/moderate reward player. Furthermore, I feel the move was the precursor to a broad offseason plan to build the right combination of players and chemistry. Is there a better team player than Battier? I think he would be on the short list of players. I am okay with the deal because Gay has the Reputation of being inconsistent and even lazy at times. He could be an allstar or Stro redux. The Rockets did their homework on him and must have decided he would more likely be Stro-esque. I wish him the best, he certainly has potential.
