# The Pareto Principle



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Or the 80-20 rule. I've been thinking about this and how it applies to our team.

For those who don't know what it is, here's the wikipedia summary: The Pareto principle states that, for many events, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

(so, 80% of the wealth in a country is controlled by 20% of the people. Or 80% of the time your phone rings, it's from 20% of your friends, or whatever) 

And the Pareto principle applies to many, many things. 

Dave Berri, from the Wages of Wins journal, has noticed that 80% of wins are produced by 20% of the players on a given team. For a 15 player roster, that's three players. The rest of the players are much, much less signifcant. You can look up win score stats, and it holds true for most teams. It's weird. Not surprisingly, most dynasties in the NBA have had 2 or 3 top players, and a bunch of role players surrounding them. 

But it seems to me, that we are trying to do something entirely different. We're stacking our team with guys who could be one of the top three on some other team. The question is, is this a smart thing to do? We're effectively trying to mass the absolute most talent we can and force those players into becoming role players. It's like the most recent US national basketball teams...they've been much less successful than they should be on paper. Is it because of that hierarchy that's missing? Which means that everybody on the team thinks they're one of the 'big three' that matter most and they're going to prove it come hell or high water? Or is it really lack of defense and three point shooting? I'd argue that, even though Spain/Argentina/whomever are catching up to the US in terms of talent, the most important factor is that they have defined roles. 

It seems to me that Oden definitely has a place as a top three win producer for the next 10-15 years. Roy? I'd say 98% certain, yes. Aldridge? Probably...but I don't think it's an absolute guarantee as he doesn't rebound well enough. But I think most here would argue that he is likely to be a top 3 guy for years. Fernadez and Bayless? If they develop like we expect, they could definitely be more than just regular old role players. Then you have Outlaw and Webster...still young enough to have a chance to develop into being that kind of player. And if we are able to keep all those guys and add a top free agent next year, that's one more. 

Is this dangerous? Should we consolidate talent as soon as we can? Or do you think this will all sort itself out in the long run? Or are Bayless, Outlaw, Webster and Fernandez destined to always remain role players and I just don't recognize it?


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

I say, Oden, Roy, LMA will be our three.
The rest will be great role players.

I consider Webster like Posey, in the finals and Rudy can be our Rondo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> But it seems to me, that we are trying to do something entirely different. We're stacking our team with guys who could be one of the top three on some other team. The question is, is this a smart thing to do? We're effectively trying to mass the absolute most talent we can and force those players into becoming role players. It's like the most recent US national basketball teams...they've been much less successful than they should be on paper. Is it because of that hierarchy that's missing? Which means that everybody on the team thinks they're one of the 'big three' that matter most and they're going to prove it come hell or high water? Or is it really lack of defense and three point shooting? I'd argue that, even though Spain/Argentina/whomever are catching up to the US in terms of talent, the most important factor is that they have defined roles.


Defined roles and lack of talent are two separate things. I think you can "stack talent" and still have defined roles. Of course, a great deal of that is make up of the roster. Five first-option scorers will not work well...not merely because they may skirmish over shots, but because they overlap too much.

Team USA was poorly constructed, in my opinion. It wasn't "too talented," it simply had too much overlapping talent. Some of that was outside of the selection committee's control...some amount of players won't play. Another factor is that the players have optimized their game for the NBA, while international rules, the structure of the courts and how the games are officiated demand a different style.

These factors aren't quite in play when considering Portland. Obviously, the issue of the differences between NBA and international basketball is not applicable. In addition, Pritchard has been going after "his guys." Marshaling his resources not to always get the best talent, but the right player at the right cost. Bayless is not as talented as Rose or Beasley or Mayo...but those players would have cost more and fit less well. Pritchard got the player he felt fit Portland the best, and got him at the right cost (he didn't overdraft for need). 

He appears to be looking for players who don't overlap too greatly, maximizing their value. Oden is a low post player, Aldridge is a high post player. Roy is a slasher with a mid-range game, Bayless is a slasher with a perimeter game. There is obviously some overlap, but enough differentiation that all the players can leverage what they do best.

In addition, the personalities of the first three star-caliber talents have been mild and non-dominating, in Roy, Aldridge and Oden. I don't know if that was luck or by design, but it does seem to be the case. His latest player, Bayless, has a more dominant personality...but you can certainly argue that you need someone who has that willful personality. You just don't want too many of them.

It's a collection of talent, but an informed, considered collection of talent. While I have always believed that the marginal gain from each additional good/great player after the first keeps dropping, it is still valuable to have those additional players...so long as they have areas of impact, on offense, that aren't wholly duplicated. And on defense and on the boards, there's no question that the more defense and rebounding as you can pack in, the better.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

i think that the most important key to this is that the 80% be reliable in their roles. if the 3 key players are un-able to rely on the role players it breeds animosity. the Role players also need to feel that their contributions are valid and key to the success of the whole. it's like an auto, the engine is the main component of it running and does the most work, but so many other compponents need to be reliable for the machine to move, the better those other components the faster and more efficiently the auto moves. i don't have any fear of this machine breaking down if all of the components want to successfully reach the same goal. if you think about dynasty teams it's pretty blurred who the whole starting line up was. yes the 2/3 key players are always the face of the memory but... ahh ****. i just lost my train of thought. (thanks history channel!) the point is the whole has to kick ***! if not the thing fails. look at minnesota with KG, "Big head Sam" and "Spree" they had it and sucked it! (not sure that's the best example but i'm distracted.)


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Defined roles and lack of talent are two separate things. I think you can "stack talent" and still have defined roles.


I concur.

It doesn't matter how much talent our role players have. Who cares if guys like Rudy and Bayless that might be top 20% guys on another team. If they're on our team and they play by their defined roles that's all that matters.

:smoothcriminal:


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Portland doesnt have a problem with this situation. It rarely happens in the NBA were a team has too much talent, it is easy to trade away talent into draft picks or expiring contracts.

First of all, a lot of the potential from young guys on this team will never develope. Its not that they are bad, just not everyone can turn into a superstar. Some of the young guys on this team will be no better than marginal role players. That is not an insult, its just a fact, and in truth this is probably in the Blazers best interest.

Second, KP is a good a GM and Allen is a good owner. Pritch is great at drafting and finding players to fill roles, and Allen seems to be willing to pay them.

Having too much talent is not a problem you guys will have.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

elcap15 said:


> First of all, a lot of the potential from young guys on this team will never develope. Its not that they are bad, just not everyone can turn into a superstar. Some of the young guys on this team will be no better than marginal role players. That is not an insult, its just a fact, and in truth this is probably in the Blazers best interest.


This is a very good post, and something a lot of people don't seem to realize. I sometimes post "You don't need 5 all-stars to be successful," but this is a more complete version of what I mean. It's ok, and probably a good thing to a degree for not all of our players to develop to the level of Brandon Roy (funny because he's only going into his 3rd year). We need solid rotational players, and I think for the most part we have that.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

I have a pal *whose theory is that we are trying to field two solid 5 man teams*, that is, that if our second unit is not a huge drop off from the first, then we will have fresher legs later in games which = more wins.

If you look at our second unit, he's almost right

Bayless
Rudy
Joel
Webster or Outlaw
Frye

Its the opposite of the 80-20 Rule.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Stevenson said:


> I have a pal *whose theory is that we are trying to field two solid 5 man teams*, that is, that if our second unit is not a huge drop off from the first, then we will have fresher legs later in games which = more wins.
> 
> If you look at our second unit, he's almost right
> 
> ...


50-50 rule? red and white unit?
not really opposite, just a different model.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stevenson said:


> I have a pal *whose theory is that we are trying to field two solid 5 man teams*, that is, that if our second unit is not a huge drop off from the first, then we will have fresher legs later in games which = more wins.
> 
> If you look at our second unit, he's almost right
> 
> ...


I agree with Drew that it's not the opposite of the 80-20 rule. That said, I've always thought Blazers teams should run more to take better advantage of the depth that they've so often had. Adelman ran but since then, McMillan's probably done the _best_ job of it even with teams that have come in at or near the back of the pack!

To be clear, I'm not looking for the team to become the Suns, Warriors or now potentially the Knicks. But when your second unit is stronger than your opposition's second unit....

McMillan tried running more last season and it seemed to be working relatively well until guys started dropping. And even when it was sort of working, it clearly would have worked better with better defense, rebounding, and ability to actually run a break. As _all_ of those areas should be improved this coming season _and_ the team will actually have 14 to 15 guys in uniform, maybe we'll actually see that go.

Otoh, McMillan's already said he's aiming to shorten the rotation this coming season so I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Have you noticed that 80% of the effect of a bottle of beer comes from the first 20% you drink? 80% of the structure of reality exists to buttress the bubbly movers and shakers of society. It's like the foam of consciousness, floating on the larger sea of unconsciousness. Much of reality has a supportive role, to hold up the small part you notice.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

wow... how many teams could our 2nd unit beat? I think it would end a season with like 20 wins.

Bayless, Rudy, Outlaw, Frye, Pryzbilla... holy cow.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hector said:


> Have you noticed that 80% of the effect of a bottle of beer comes from the first 20% you drink? 80% of the structure of reality exists to buttress the bubbly movers and shakers of society. It's like the foam of consciousness, floating on the larger sea of unconsciousness. Much of reality has a supportive role, to hold up the small part you notice.


80% of the toilet paper is bought by 20% of the people. 20% of your work day likely results in 80% of your productivity. 80% of Americans are having 20% of the sex. 

it's amazing how the pareto principle applies to just about everything. including basketball. the thing to remember, though, is even though 80% of the scoring is done by 20% of the team, you need more than 80 points to win most NBA games. 

this year I'm expecting dropoffs in performance of Outlaw and Webster, mostly because there just won't be as many shots to be had. that's ok, though. you have to remember that the 80% of players who aren't dominant on the NBA level would be among the 20% of players who would dominate at the college/NBADL/European level. 

every year guys who were stars become role players. it's how well they handle it that matters. given that we aren't facing a lot of contract renewals, we've got a pretty easy-going bunch of guys, and we're looking to win a lot more, I think the transition will be pretty smooth.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

What I'm looking for is "Star Role Players", which I define as players
who can have a significant effect on the game without a lot of plays
being called for them. One of the best examples of an SRP is 
Tayshaun Prince. They don't call a lot of plays for Prince, but he
scores anyway. He always plays good defense. He's not about ego.
He plays hard.

This is why I wanted Westbrook, because this is how I see him.

Eddy Curry is a prime example of the opposite (doesn't rebound or play
defense).

Can Rudy, Bayless, be good role players or do they need the ball to be successful? Time will tell.


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

mook said:


> this year I'm expecting dropoffs in performance of Outlaw and Webster, mostly because there just won't be as many shots to be had.


I think the opposite will be true, especialy with regard to Martell. With GO and LMA demanding double teams down low, *Martell will be free to do what he does best* - hang out at the three pt line and chuck threes. Only now, he will be open.


----------

