Nate McMillan may be the secret to the Pritchslap

I was just thinking to myself, "What ever happened with Telfair?" and since I'd rather stab tabasco sauce under my eyelids than watch a Minnesota game, I thought I'd look up his stats. Huh. Turned out he had his highest PER as a Blazer in that really, really bad 21 win team. 13.0. Not bad for a third year PG out of high school. (Not worth mother fucking Brandon Roy, but not bad.) He's kind of sucked since, though.

So then I thought, that Jarret Jack seems to be making a name for himself in Indiana. Let's check him out. Hmm. 13.1 PER. But wait--he actually was almost average under Nate at 14.5. That's weird.

Now I was curious.

Zach Randolph: high PER was 22.8 in his last year in Portland. Hasn't broken 20 since.

Ime Udoka: high PER was 12.1 in his one year here. 11.5 and 9.5 in his two years in San Antonio.

Viktor Khryapa: high PER was 11.5 in Portland. Never even got into double digits in Chicago before being cut.

Steve Blake: high PER was 14.5 in two different stints with Portland! Despite bouncing between 4 teams, he never topped 11.0 on any other one.

Former All-Star (lol) Jamaal Magloire: Ok, he sucked at 11.5, but it was still better than his prior year in Milwaukee (11.1). He'd bounce to two other teams after ours, garnering PER's of 1.7 and -1.9 (yes, a negative PER). I'd say Nate did as much as he could with that turd.

Ruben Patterson: Ok, he had a PER of 17.0 in the 45 games he played under Nate in Portland (perhaps the biggest argument ever that PER isn't the be-all-end-all stat), but Ruben actually had a higher PER in Seattle in his second year of 19.3. I guess he wasn't that great of a coach. Wait--who was his coach in Seattle? That's right! Nate Fuckin' McMillan.

Juan Dixon: His high here was 14.6. He had one season over his 7 year career that was higher--15.2 in the prior year in Washington.

Joel Przybilla: Three seasons at right around 15.4. In Milwaukee he once made it to 10.2.

Guys just play as well or better under Nate than they do anywhere else (unless we get them at the end of their career, in which case Nate still gets the most out of them). I wasn't cherry picking players--just going with guys who popped into my head. Feel free to test my theory yourself.

So how does this enable the "Pritchslap"? Other teams don't seem to realize that Nate's really, really good at getting the most out of (often) very little. Aldridge and Roy were stolen from other teams because (at least partially) other teams mistakenly thought guys like Telfair and Khryapa were worth a damn. Pritchard gets the glory, but I think a fair amount of the credit should go to McMillan.

Going forward, I'm feeling even more comfortable in trading assets like Webster and Outlaw. Those are two guys I honestly think have put up the best (or near-best) PER's of their careers. Nate's done what he can with them. It's time to cash in. Maybe you wait on Webster for a midseason trade so teams can see he's recovered.

Bayless and Fernandez, perhaps not so much. I'm a firm believer in buy low, sell high. Nate hasn't had enough time to work with those two. I still feel Fernandez definitely needs to be traded, but right now he's just viewed by other teams as a decent prospect. With another year under Nate, his value will only climb. Bayless still needs another year, perhaps two, before we even really know what we have.

(The one poster here who laments the passing of Sergio Rodriguez and eagerly anticipates his rebirth in Sactown ought to keep this post in mind.)

I said in another thread Nate isn't indispensable. He's not a Jackson or Sloan or Popovich--guys who will never be fired. But he's probably in that next tier right now of really good coaches. And although he's excellent at turning crappy players into somewhat mediocre players, the jury is still out on his ability to manage multiple stars/superstars. But given the data, I like his odds.

 

Nate runs a highly efficient offense (the most efficient in the league), and since PER is a measurement of efficiency per player, it stands to reason that everyone's PER is higher with Nate, because he's making the players more efficient. One wonders if Roy would be quite as amazing in Minnesota, or if Foye would be considered a steal when paired up with a starting Rudy.

I'm not giving Nate all the credit of course: Roy is a beast, absolutely amazing; it's just that his game completely compliments the efficiency Nate lays out. They're perfect for each other.

As to him being the secret of the Pritchslap: yeah, definitely. Those advanced stats all look great on a Nate team, and it's made Viktor and Ime and Telfair look salvageable to other teams, giving us the ability to steal Aldridge and Roy out from under unsuspecting teams...

 

As his team continues to grow and mature. He will have to continue to adjust himself. Which means being a lil less anal retentive. Loosening up the reigns on them. Becoming more of a players coach rather than what he is today.

I will be interested to see if he can adjust.

 

Mediocre Man meltdown in 3, ..., 2, ..., 1 ...

 

Not necessarily. It could have been the case that our GM was just really good at acquiring really efficient players, and our coach got the credit for having an efficient team.

My post clearly demonstrates that wasn't the case. Guys were generally much less efficient before they came here, and they were generally much less efficient after they left.

 

Heh. I'm counting down too.

I don't know how you really argue with the numbers, though.

 

Nice find.

Doesn't really surprise me either. I just don't get the over-the-top hatred of Nate.

 

I agree with this completely, because this is what I was trying to say.

 

Good post. A good PER definitely helps the Pritchslaps.

 

But it still could be the case that Pritchard acquired efficient players who played in less efficient systems before and after. To disprove that, I think you would need to do a team by team comparison.

 

This is a fair analysis, but I find some flaws in it. There is far too much emphasis on PER being the only judge of a player's success, especially when the differences for these players (on POR and off) is so marginal. Jack, Bassy, Vik, Magloire, etc are all either crappy players or below average prospects. Joel and Blake are obviously having decent seasons now because they are in their respective primes and are finally in a comfortable role with their team for the first time in their careers. Even so, the PER gain is slight.

Until this happens with a legit prospect who bombed with another team only to break out in POR (or vice versa), I'll reserve judgment.

Sergio should reveal a bit about this theory this upcoming season once he usurps Beno's starting spot and beats out Tyreke Evans.

 

Ah but, Telfair and Kryapha were Nash pickups, and Zach was a Whitsett pickup. In their cases, I think you can safely say Nate was making the best use of his tools at hand.

 

Hmm. That's an interesting point. Two obvious counterpoints off the top of my head are Udoka and Blake.

Udoka saw his PER drop despite moving to a really great coach in San Antonio.

Blake played on a Denver squad with 9 guys on their squad with PER's over 15. That's a really efficient collection of talent there. Yet Blake's own PER dropped quite a bit.

 

Very interesting post. Thanks for the work

I think we can drop Joel and other players who came young and then grew with Nate from your analysis because young players should improve with time. But, the players that leave the Blazers and then play worse is very telling, especially when they are young like Telfair and VK.

Nate is very good at getting players to concentrate on a few aspects of their game and improve immensely in those areas. Batum last year being asked to just play D and shoot a 3 from time to time. Oden being asked to rebound and play D. Neither of those guys were asked to do anything above their current ability which really helps the player 1) gain confidence in themselves 2) become effecient 3) not overload on learning, and more.

Nate is also very good at getting players to play as a team. With a real quality supporting cast, each player is better able to play to the best of their abilities.

Where Nate needs to improve is with the x's and O's. Also, even though I just listed as a benefit that he does not ask too much of his players, I think he needs to be able to assess each player separately and at least let certain players open up their games even if it results in more mistakes. But overall, I think Nate is a good coach and he is certainly a good teacher.

 

I think one thing we forget about Nate is that he's been growing some too. His approach has evolved over the last three or four years, and there's no reason to believe it won't keep growing. He'll always have some weaknesses, but I think he's the type to learn and grow too, which is why he's good at getting others to learn and grow.

 

Well, Randolph did really well here (by the standards of PER, at least--his last year he was at 22.8) and didn't exactly bomb but did do much worse (3 and 4 PER point drop in New York and Clippers) after leaving.

 

Ok, I just thought up an exception: Channing Frye. Had a PER of 18.1 as a rookie and never got above 14.8 here.

I really think he'll continue to prove to be an exception, too. He just didn't seem motivated here. Having Aldridge in front of him and Outlaw competing for even backup minutes seem to really dispirit the guy.

In a free flowing offense like Phoenix and without a lot of competition for minutes at the 4/5, I expect him to bounce back.

 

If there is an exception, I hope it is Frye, I really like that guy.

 

No meltdown

Nate's offense is efficient. Not so much because of the offense he runs, but because of the offensive rebounders he has on the floor, and the pace that he plays. I also wonder though, if it might have a little to do with Brandon as well.


Jack, had his highest PER as a Blazer, but also his lowest. His lowest was the year before Brandon Roy got here, while his highest was with Roy.

Zach Randolph also had his highest PER when Roy got here. Zach had his lowest PER in Portland too....Nate's first year, and the year before Roy got here.

Ime Udoka had his highest PER along side Brandon Roy as well.

Veeektor's PER was never anything to write home to the Motherland about, but it's not surprising he had his highest PER when given consistent minutes.

Steve Blake has played better under Nate's slow pace than anywhere else. Although he has never reached average status anywhere.


You left out Jamaal Magloire's 14.70, 16.62 and 12.91 in his three seasons before the year he got to Portland. Also that he too played with Brandon Roy in his one year here.

Ruben Patterson had his highest PER the year after he left Portland. Hollinger's PER stats, that I found anyway, don't go back 02'

Juan Dixon had his best PER year under Nate, and also one of his lowest PER's

Joel had his highest PER 15.58 for the Blazers the year before Nate got here. Nate has coaches Joel to PER's of 15.32, 7.43, 12.10 and 15.46. Mixed bag at best.



So while Nate certainly seems to get a lot out of his players, it seems most players you mentioned had their best year with Portland when Roy was here.

Travis has had his best PER years once Roy got here. Mind you, it's only a years differnce, but I think it could easily be as much Roy as Nate.

Rashard Lewis has had his best PER years after he left Nate as well.