Perhaps not, but would you be sad about it if Sura and Barry had been healthy and James was around and they were playing better than Luther Head? If these guys were healthy, Luther probably sees 10 minutes a game rather than 30, and that's all he would have deserved. Would it have been bad for his development if he had to beat out the vets in order to play? I don't think so. Plenty of guys saw limited minutes as rookie, but still developed very well. Let's also remember this: part of the reason why Van Gundy shelved DA and JB even though he might have had something in the tank (enough to think about a Denver offer for a few days at least) was his realization that he needs to try and give the young guys-- Luther and Bogans-- a chance in a lost season.
Lots, even since 1980. Three-year droughts of significant rookies are more common than you might think. And as far as I can tell, teams undergoing these droughts never win the first championship of their generation of players. So the Rockets are in danger, unless our fresh batch of youngsters pans out. Here's the data: Atlanta: 1986, 5 years -- 1996, 3 years. Boston: 1981, 7. Denver: 1983, 3. Detroit: 1982, 3 -- 1987, 6. Houston: 1985, 3 -- 1989, 3 -- 2003, 3. Indiana: 1997, 4. LA Clippers: 1991, 3. LA Lakers: 2003, 4. MIami: 1996, 3. Milwaukee: 1983, 9. Minnesota: 2000, 6. NY Knicks: 1992, 12. Orlando: 1994, 4. Philadelphia: 1989, 3 -- 1998, 3. Portland: 1990, 5. Sacramento: 2001, 6. San Antonio: 1993, 4 -- 1998, 3. Utah: 1986, 3. As you can see, that is a lot of droughts and a lot of non-championship years. It is unanimous: a 3-year dought is fatal to championship hopes. The only two exceptions are not really exceptions: both Boston (1981-1986) and Detroit (1987-1992) began their championship dynasties within 3 years of their last significant rookie. Boston got McHale in 1980 and won in 1981; Detroit got Salley and Rodman in 1986 and won in 1989. If you can show that, fine. At least my conclusion has common sense behind it. An ability to draft well is a pretty good indication of management quality. If a team has been able to load up on significant rookies, that speaks well of management.
It's understood that "rookie drought" means "drought of significant rookies", using my definition of "significant rookie". (See my previous posts if you want that definition.) I don't care whose fault it was: no significant rookies means no championships. The lesson is clear: don't do what the Knicks did when Riley and JVG were the coaches.
van gundier this is an argument you can't win, no matter how well you present your points. van gundy haters won't stand for facts. they hate them. jvg doesn't have a problem playing rookies, he just wants the best players who give the best chance to win ballgames. he said as much when he said he would have played gay if we kept him. luther head received more minutes because we were hurt but that's not the whole story. going into the season he was behind, alston, wesley, barry, and derek anderson. wesley and barry were key contributors in the previous years 50 win team, derek anderson was one of our big offseason acquisitions(sounds silly now) and we got alston to be "the man" at pg(equally silly). now why, right off the bat, would the #24 pick be automatically moved ahead of those guys on the depth chart of a team with championship aspirations? no coach, with this team is going to move luther head ahead of these guys unless a couple of them go down. in this case three of the four. luther steps in. now in the breakfast with van gundy, he told us that luther stepping in and playing well allowed him to trade derek anderson. hmm...van gundy choosing a rookie over a veteran?
You may be right about the 10 minutes a game or it could be less, there is no way to tell now. So, I will give you that. But, I remember both DA and Jon Barry were injuried and JVG did not like DA's attitude in regards to his injury because it took such a long time for him to recover. Jon Barry did not fully recovered from his injury but he did play some minutes off the bench but not for long and eventually retired. Whether JVG did really give chances for the rookies, I'm not sure. I believe it is still a question.
Defintion: 1000 minutes as rookie 2002 Yao-- 2382 minutes as rookie 2003 Nobody, no first round pick 2004 Nobody, no first round pick 2005 Head 2310 minutes That looks like a two year "drought" to me. If you count that as 3 yeasrs because 2005-2002=3, then the Spurs also had a 3 year drought betwen Parker in 2001 and Udrich in 2004 since nobody from their 2002 or 2003 drafts played even a single minute for them as of now (Barbosa, Salmons were their first round picks) And the main problem is they gave away those picks while RudyT was still the coach and as far as I remember, didn't get much of anything in return in the middle years. If anything, the idea is that teams that get value out of the draft tend to win championships, teams that pick Turkcans tend not to win as much. That's not suprising. Also, trading picks do not automatically disqualify you from championship contention. As stated before, #1 overall pick Joe Barry Carroll was traded for lower pick McHale and veteran Parish. Spurs traded away Salmons and Barbosa's draft rights.l Spurs also threw in a 1st rounder to obtain Nazr Mohammed, a contributor for their last championship teams.
Who were the significant rookies (playiing more than 1000 minutes as rookie) loaded up no more than 3 years before the Lakers championship run for 2000-2001 to 2002-2003? http://basketballreference.com/draft/draftteam.htm?tm=LAL&lg=N Here is the Lakers draft history. Kobe is not on there, but he was drafted by the Hornets and traded to Lakers in June of 1996, 4 seasons before 2000-2001 championship. Who among the group drafted in the 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 draft were "significant rookies" on that Lakers team?
jvg has nothing against rookies or younger players...as long as they outplay the person in front of them or earn their minutes, he will play them..he said that himself
Van Gundier ripped this thread to pieces right before our eyes. lol Thanks for doing it because I was dreading having to put the words together to explain why this is a worthless post. Yeah...Detroit had Okur...great. He helped out. That's fabulous. But nearly every damn team in the league also had rookies and they didn't win the championship lol. It's just a dumb post.
Once again, how did Vlade qualify under your theory? Drafted in 1989, traded in 1996. 4 seasons away from the June 2001 championship, which came after the Lakers had no "significant rookie" in 1997, 1998, 1999, or the 2000 draft. In fact, while you listed them having a 3 year rookie drought since 2003, I don't think they had a rookie playing 1000 minutes in 2000, 2001, 2002 either. If I am wrong about them, could you put up some names of Lakers rookies playing 1000+ minutes that were drafted in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002? Here's a link to a basketball database, you can click on each year... maybe it's just late and I couldn't find these examples, but check it out: http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=LAL&lg=n __________________________________________________________ Anyhow... didn't mean to interrupt your thread with facts. Sorry. I know such things are futile..
Yep. I posted about that earlier and he ignored it. I guess according to terse math 2000-1989 = 1. If you can't even remember that Divac was playing for the Kings all those years in the epic Laker vs. Kings playoff games, you should automatically lose the argument. Also, Vlade was the guy LA traded to get Kobe. How could you think they were on the same team.
Well, the initial post showed one thing: The "rule" has really not applied to any team by San Antonio over the last 10 years.
Uh...what? Divac was drafted 11 years before the Lakers 3-peat (2000-2002). Moreover, he was traded away 4 years before their championship run.
terse, you're looking at two independent events and assuming that one is necessary for the other to occur. You're drawing the wrong conclusion. Using the same requirements that you used (less than 3 years played, at least 1000 minutes contributed), I put together all the lottery teams from the Western Conference last season. Utah - Williams, Mcleod New Orleans - West, Paul, Snyder Seattle - Ridnour, Collison, Wilkins, Petro Houston - Head, Bogans Golden State - Pietrus, Diogu Minnesota - McCants, Banks Portland - Dixon, Telfaid, Blake, Jack, Webster, Khryapa Bottom line is...I'm sure almost every team in NBA history has had at least one "young" player who contributed significant minutes to his team. As a result, you can't automatically assume that having one such player is a prequisite for winning a title.
Is this an exhaustive list since 1980? If so, then it doesn't really represent a common event given that in any given year all but one team is a non-champion. To use Utah as an example, for the last 26 years it appears that they've had a single 3 year stretch when they didn't meet your rookie condition, but presumably they did meet the condition for the remaining 23 years. More generally, every team on that list met the condition more often then they didn't since 1980, and for most of the teams, much more often. If you're looking for some measure that separates champions from non-champions, you'll get less argument if you first find something that genuinely rare in the non-champion group...
This thread doesn't make sense statistically or logically. But the statement you made REALLY makes no sense, seeing that you've acknowledged TWICE (both times you actually wrote it out) that Vlade was drafted in '89 and that the Lakers won in 2000...and that your qualification was 3 years.
OK folks, there is a problem with year numbers. It turns out that "draft year" and "championship year" for the same season are different. For example, Magic Johnson won a championship in his rookie year; he is listed as having been drafted in 1979 but his first championship came in 1980. Very confusing. So I will fix my analyses and start a new thread tomorrow evening.
