ImageImageImageImageImage

The "Culture Change" and Defense

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,721
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#41 » by nate33 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:25 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:What would have made a ton of sense and been proactive, IMO, is for the Wizards to arrange a good trade of Trevor Booker. They could have kept James Singleton because he has an outside shot and he can play SF. I would have been happy to see Trevor not have his minutes pinched, because I think he's a good basketball player. The deal has clouded his future--unless he puts an ineffective Okafor on the bench, or he can play SF and put Ariza on the bench some.

Exactly. Trading Booker for a SF version of Booker would have been real nice. The only trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a guy roughly as good (quality backup, borderline starter, good attitude, future improvement possible) who also has at least 2 years on his rookie deal.

Klay Thompson could work, but Golden State probably wouldn't pull the trigger. Kawhi Leonard would also be nice, but San Antonio wouldn't go for it. Gordon Haywood perhaps? Utah has a ton of PF's though.

Alternatively, he could be traded for a backup PG with some ability to play some SG. Greivis Vasquez or Eric Gordon might fit the bill.

If we made such a deal right now, is there any chance of getting James Singleton back?
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#42 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:27 pm

Nivek wrote:Shorty: I agree with your point about pursuing value in acquisition. I'm just not convinced that going after "defense" is the way to get value in a way that builds a winner. To the extent that defense is undervalued, I'm in favor of getting guys who are good defenders. Still, the game is played on both ends. Top teams are usually good at both ends of the floor. Focusing on one end doesn't make a ton of sense to me -- the team is going to need guys who can be good on both ends of the floor. Again, I'm in favor of value acquisitions, but if I'm prioritizing, I'd lean offense over defense.

As for the "can shooting be taught?" issue...absolutely. It's a skill, which means that it can be developed with focused practice. Barring some kind of medical problem, anyone can learn to be a better shooter if they work hard/smart enough. The challenge is that by the time a player reaches the NBA, his shot is habit -- he's not thinking about how to shoot anymore, he's just doing it. And he's been successful in the sense that he's likely been the best player on his team for virtually his entire life, and he's made it to the NBA. Breaking that habit takes a LOAD of disciplined work -- tens of thousands of shots with attention paid to using proper form.

Now, similar things are true when it comes to the skills required for good defense. The difference I see is that the physical activities -- slide steps, running, jumping, etc. are things that most NBA players already do well. It's one of the big reasons they're in the NBA. So, the physical part is largely taken care of. Cognitively they're accustomed to learning new playbooks, new schemes, new terminology. So a lot of defense is learning to work with new teammates and learning how to execute what the coaches are asking. They don't have to learn a new physical skill -- they're applying skills they already have.



I think the smartest approach is to look at Win Score/48 and pretty much average out other factors to evaluate a player's worth. I like Wins Produced/Points over Par. I think net points differential per 100 possessions and aggregate field goal percentages for and against while a player is on the floor is important. So is rebounding.

What I would do is evaluate all those things but consider the team needs before selecting a given player. On a team that already has defenders, I would seek an alpha male scorer. (Lou Williams, Ilyasova, Anderson, etc) On a team bereft of proficient shooters, I would make sure I balanced that out. (Ryan Anderson just made too much sense). I would use money ball for defenders to build the roster, but I would pay top dollar for proficient alpha male type scorers to complete the roster.

Where the Wizards have terribly miscalculated is they have kept a poor GM in a job. This owner doesn't care beyond the business model and his idea of changing a culture. I don't think they know how to win. I think their player evaluations are beyond sub par. They tend to pay for yesterday's headline players, who by the way are coming off of injury and career malaise. Quick example of what they don't know: AJ Price instead of Josh Akognon. Why? I know which guy is better and cheaper, but he's not one somebody else has cast off an NBA roster. Thus, EG was not interested. Akognon is clearly much better than Jimmer Fredette. He won't make the Kings over Aaron Brooks or Isaiah Thomas. The problem is it would take a shrewd GM to step out on faith.

The players they should have attempted to acquire (and we knew) were Danny Green, Ryan Anderson, Brandon Rush, Alonzo Gee, Lou Williams, Elton Brand after amnesty -- because if you look at the price tag vs the return, they were MUCH BETTER BARGAINS than what the Wizards paid for. At best, Ted and EG can approach mediocrity without cap flexibility and with older, more expensive, more injured players. I'm not feeling Okafor just for the sake of Rashard not being bought out. They would have been SO MUCH BETTER OFF with Brand and James Singleton. That way they could have acquired someone like Lou Williams or Danny Green to make things smoother for Beal. They could have traded Jordan Crawford for a pick. But instead, they have chosen to go with known commodities on the downside, Ariza and Okafor. It's going to have to take bounce back years from both for the trade to work out.

Lets hope that defensive unit can get them in the playoffs. I won't care if they're as boring as drying paint on offense if they win. Actually, I think they'll be a tough bunch, and I can appreciate hard workers. The style actually could pay off if Okafor and Nene both have their best seasons health wise. Doubtful, but possible it could happen.
Bye bye Beal.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,177
And1: 4,149
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#43 » by Zonkerbl » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:35 pm

They'll be ineffective in the half court. If their defense is as good as we hope they should be able to score some in transition.

Course all you have to do then is drop back on defense the moment the ball goes up and not try for offensive rebounds.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
User avatar
Shorty
Ballboy
Posts: 49
And1: 2
Joined: Oct 22, 2011

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#44 » by Shorty » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:06 pm

Nivek wrote:Shorty: I agree with your point about pursuing value in acquisition. I'm just not convinced that going after "defense" is the way to get value in a way that builds a winner. To the extent that defense is undervalued, I'm in favor of getting guys who are good defenders. Still, the game is played on both ends. Top teams are usually good at both ends of the floor. Focusing on one end doesn't make a ton of sense to me -- the team is going to need guys who can be good on both ends of the floor. Again, I'm in favor of value acquisitions, but if I'm prioritizing, I'd lean offense over defense.

As for the "can shooting be taught?" issue...absolutely. It's a skill, which means that it can be developed with focused practice. Barring some kind of medical problem, anyone can learn to be a better shooter if they work hard/smart enough. The challenge is that by the time a player reaches the NBA, his shot is habit -- he's not thinking about how to shoot anymore, he's just doing it. And he's been successful in the sense that he's likely been the best player on his team for virtually his entire life, and he's made it to the NBA. Breaking that habit takes a LOAD of disciplined work -- tens of thousands of shots with attention paid to using proper form.

Now, similar things are true when it comes to the skills required for good defense. The difference I see is that the physical activities -- slide steps, running, jumping, etc. are things that most NBA players already do well. It's one of the big reasons they're in the NBA. So, the physical part is largely taken care of. Cognitively they're accustomed to learning new playbooks, new schemes, new terminology. So a lot of defense is learning to work with new teammates and learning how to execute what the coaches are asking. They don't have to learn a new physical skill -- they're applying skills they already have.


Everything you wrote makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the ongoing education from you (and others).

Assessing the market for players, though, I'd draw an analogy with football--dangerous territory, since I know even less about football than basketball. Namely, I would guess that an important reason for Shanahan's chronically successful rushing attack in Denver is that it was relatively easier to find "small", fast offensive lineman, who were good for the zone blocking scheme, than the big, strong brutes that most teams favored.

In the NBA, I claim that it's easier to find a defense-oriented player who can hit open shots, available relatively cheap, say, DeShawn Stevenson, than it is to find a player with more skills on offense who is undervalued. But if you can get someone to trade you, say, a young Richard Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse, and then get him to play good defense in your scheme, then by all means do it.

The encouraging thing about the Wizards is that Wall has shown the ability and the inclination to get his teammates open shots even without a good shot of his own. The bigs are willing passers too. So, along with a stifling defense, I'm optimistic that the offense could become good enough to contend.
User avatar
Shorty
Ballboy
Posts: 49
And1: 2
Joined: Oct 22, 2011

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#45 » by Shorty » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:23 pm

DCZards wrote:Yes, with coaching and the right defensive schemes most guys can play good D. But if there's one aspect of the game where effort and intensity trump coaching and strategy it's defense, imo. Playing defense is hard work and it won't get you a highlight on ESPN. The best defenders make a physical and emotional commitment to playing great D, which is a commitment that the average player simply doesn't make. Even with the physical tools and coaching, those players never become anything more than decent defenders.


Excellent point. The culture change that Fishercob cites Leonsis as wanting would create a synergy for that kind of effort. A great sign for the future is that Wall, Nene, Seraphin, and probably others stood up for Wittman; they will be motivated to back it up.
User avatar
Shorty
Ballboy
Posts: 49
And1: 2
Joined: Oct 22, 2011

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#46 » by Shorty » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:23 pm

nate33 wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:What would have made a ton of sense and been proactive, IMO, is for the Wizards to arrange a good trade of Trevor Booker. They could have kept James Singleton because he has an outside shot and he can play SF. I would have been happy to see Trevor not have his minutes pinched, because I think he's a good basketball player. The deal has clouded his future--unless he puts an ineffective Okafor on the bench, or he can play SF and put Ariza on the bench some.

Exactly. Trading Booker for a SF version of Booker would have been real nice. The only trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a guy roughly as good (quality backup, borderline starter, good attitude, future improvement possible) who also has at least 2 years on his rookie deal.



nate33: You've written several times that Booker is your favorite player on the roster, so I know you that you value him and wouldn't trade him lightly.

I just want to say that, from limited information, I have the strong impression that he's the heart and soul of the team, a key part of the culture change we're discussing in this thread. I mostly formed this impression from the positive body language that I saw last year on the court, especially between him and Wall, but I also noticed that Beal cited him (Wizards.com interview) for contacting him immediately after he was drafted. He improved his shot markedly last year, and Nivek has described how much work this entails; I wouldn't put it past him to develop three point range. It reflects well on his character that he played for an Israeli team during the lockout, being willing to broaden his horizons, etc., although maybe he just wanted a paycheck.

I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#47 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:56 pm

Shorty wrote:In the NBA, I claim that it's easier to find a defense-oriented player who can hit open shots, available relatively cheap, say, DeShawn Stevenson, than it is to find a player with more skills on offense who is undervalued. But if you can get someone to trade you, say, a young Richard Hamilton for Jerry Stackhouse, and then get him to play good defense in your scheme, then by all means do it.

The encouraging thing about the Wizards is that Wall has shown the ability and the inclination to get his teammates open shots even without a good shot of his own. The bigs are willing passers too. So, along with a stifling defense, I'm optimistic that the offense could become good enough to contend.


Shorty, I really appreciate your insights. Great input, always.

I think another reason for optimism would be if the Wizards are able to turn Okafor or Ariza into Stackhouse-like trades for another team's Rip Hamilton. I think modest improvement, and definitely the Wizards making the playoffs, can go a long ways to increasing the value of these two players. Next season, if they're not only expiring contracts but also players who are perceived to be trending upward in productivity that could REALLY be a good thing for the Wizards.

So, despite my ripping EG/Ted, there are still possibilities for redemption and success, ultimately.
Bye bye Beal.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#48 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:02 pm

Shorty wrote:
nate33 wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:What would have made a ton of sense and been proactive, IMO, is for the Wizards to arrange a good trade of Trevor Booker. They could have kept James Singleton because he has an outside shot and he can play SF. I would have been happy to see Trevor not have his minutes pinched, because I think he's a good basketball player. The deal has clouded his future--unless he puts an ineffective Okafor on the bench, or he can play SF and put Ariza on the bench some.

Exactly. Trading Booker for a SF version of Booker would have been real nice. The only trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a guy roughly as good (quality backup, borderline starter, good attitude, future improvement possible) who also has at least 2 years on his rookie deal.



nate33: You've written several times that Booker is your favorite player on the roster, so I know you that you value him and wouldn't trade him lightly.

I just want to say that, from limited information, I have the strong impression that he's the heart and soul of the team, a key part of the culture change we're discussing in this thread. I mostly formed this impression from the positive body language that I saw last year on the court, especially between him and Wall, but I also noticed that Beal cited him (Wizards.com interview) for contacting him immediately after he was drafted. He improved his shot markedly last year, and Nivek has described how much work this entails; I wouldn't put it past him to develop three point range. It reflects well on his character that he played for an Israeli team during the lockout, being willing to broaden his horizons, etc., although maybe he just wanted a paycheck.

I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.


I wouldn't put that past Booker, provided he gets the minutes, Shorty. Booker with the three point shot respected by opponents could then use a ball fake or a shot fake when they start playing him close. Trevor has the speed and athleticism off of two or three dribbles to be one of the sickest dunkers in the NBA. Yes, I can see him playing SF and being good at it, too, Shorty.

Unfortunately, the roster being what it is now, I think Booker might not ever get the minutes or the comfort level necessary to show some explosive moves, take risks, and make mistakes growing into the position of SF. Trevor will probably get so few minutes that he'll just defend, rebound, and try to play mistake free would be my guess.

I would have preferred to see the Wizards NOT acquire Ariza or Okafor and rather, make sure sufficient minutes were there for Trevor Booker, Kevin Seraphin, along with Jan Vesely. If those guys were to cede minutes, I would have rather they be given up to more talented, young players like Anderson, Ilyasova, or Batum (at a reasonable price, not the deal he got) instead of to Ariza/Okafor.
Bye bye Beal.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,929
And1: 3,903
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#49 » by DCZards » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:10 pm

Shorty wrote:I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.


That's the approach I prefer in regards to Trevor. Instead of trading Booker because we think he won't get minutes at PF due to the presence of Okafor/Seraphin/Nene, let's first see where he fits in...or not. I like what Trevor brings to the table both in terms of play and leadership, and I'd hate to lose that without first finding out what role, if any, he can play on this year's team.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#50 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:13 pm

Shorty wrote:
DCZards wrote:Yes, with coaching and the right defensive schemes most guys can play good D. But if there's one aspect of the game where effort and intensity trump coaching and strategy it's defense, imo. Playing defense is hard work and it won't get you a highlight on ESPN. The best defenders make a physical and emotional commitment to playing great D, which is a commitment that the average player simply doesn't make. Even with the physical tools and coaching, those players never become anything more than decent defenders.


Excellent point. The culture change that Fishercob cites Leonsis as wanting would create a synergy for that kind of effort. A great sign for the future is that Wall, Nene, Seraphin, and probably others stood up for Wittman; they will be motivated to back it up.


Even though I have wanted Dave Joerger for head coach for what seems like forever and a day, I support the decision to stick with Randy Wittman. I think he did a GREAT job coaching this team.

I think he's had no talent to work with at other stops. With talent, Randy is IMO at least competent, and perhaps even a good head coach. He has good, common sense. He doesn't mince words. He has spine with credibility. he doesn't seem to play favorites (but Crawford might be a guy he looks the other way too much with). I trust Randy Wittman. I think he's the type of tough-love, good-dad type coach. I am not sure what type of strategist he is as far as Xs and Os go, but I do think he's a great coach for a team full of young players. I like Randy Wittman a whole lot. I don't say that about many coaches. I hardly ever like a coach that much, but I do like Wittman.

I am most confident Randy Wittman has the respect of the players, at least coming in to the season. The challenge for him is going to be massaging the egos of the players who don't play. He's going to be feeling a LOT of heat if this team doesn't win, because no matter what, guys who played a lot of minutes last year will play LESS. It is easy to like the coach when he's giving you minutes. Let us see how Chris Singleton, Trevor Booker, Kevin Seraphin, Jan Vesely, Jordan Crawford, and Shelvin Mack feel next season. Also, if the Wizards do not win, will Wall be able to rationalize it in a way that does not reflect on the coach? He could point to Javale's immaturity or the lack of seriousness from Nick Young before. Now? There are no more excuses. Randy Wittman is the man who has respect coming in to the season. Will he by midseason still be respected?

This is really make or break on the coach. How he utilizes Okafor and Ariza and how he manages minutes will prove whether Randy Wittman is a good coach.
Bye bye Beal.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,922
And1: 1,571
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#51 » by fishercob » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:23 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
Shorty wrote:
DCZards wrote:Yes, with coaching and the right defensive schemes most guys can play good D. But if there's one aspect of the game where effort and intensity trump coaching and strategy it's defense, imo. Playing defense is hard work and it won't get you a highlight on ESPN. The best defenders make a physical and emotional commitment to playing great D, which is a commitment that the average player simply doesn't make. Even with the physical tools and coaching, those players never become anything more than decent defenders.


Excellent point. The culture change that Fishercob cites Leonsis as wanting would create a synergy for that kind of effort. A great sign for the future is that Wall, Nene, Seraphin, and probably others stood up for Wittman; they will be motivated to back it up.


Even though I have wanted Dave Joerger for head coach for what seems like forever and a day, I support the decision to stick with Randy Wittman. I think he did a GREAT job coaching this team.

I think he's had no talent to work with at other stops. With talent, Randy is IMO at least competent, and perhaps even a good head coach. He has good, common sense. He doesn't mince words. He has spine with credibility. he doesn't seem to play favorites (but Crawford might be a guy he looks the other way too much with). I trust Randy Wittman. I think he's the type of tough-love, good-dad type coach. I am not sure what type of strategist he is as far as Xs and Os go, but I do think he's a great coach for a team full of young players. I like Randy Wittman a whole lot. I don't say that about many coaches. I hardly ever like a coach that much, but I do like Wittman.


Yes. I dig that Wittman is known as either a "fiery competitor" or an "as$hole" around the league, per Nivek's source. We're going to get up into teams. We will not back down from anyone. We will be unpleasant to play against. Fans will embrace that culture quickly. Think of how beloved the Bad Boy Pistons were, and how guys like Oakley, Artest, PJ Brown, Reggie Evans, and Tony Allen have been embraced by their respective fanbases. It's the same reason nate loves Booker. Fans want guys who will fight for them.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,721
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#52 » by nate33 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:45 pm

Shorty wrote:
nate33 wrote:
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:What would have made a ton of sense and been proactive, IMO, is for the Wizards to arrange a good trade of Trevor Booker. They could have kept James Singleton because he has an outside shot and he can play SF. I would have been happy to see Trevor not have his minutes pinched, because I think he's a good basketball player. The deal has clouded his future--unless he puts an ineffective Okafor on the bench, or he can play SF and put Ariza on the bench some.

Exactly. Trading Booker for a SF version of Booker would have been real nice. The only trouble is, it's pretty hard to find a guy roughly as good (quality backup, borderline starter, good attitude, future improvement possible) who also has at least 2 years on his rookie deal.



nate33: You've written several times that Booker is your favorite player on the roster, so I know you that you value him and wouldn't trade him lightly.

I just want to say that, from limited information, I have the strong impression that he's the heart and soul of the team, a key part of the culture change we're discussing in this thread. I mostly formed this impression from the positive body language that I saw last year on the court, especially between him and Wall, but I also noticed that Beal cited him (Wizards.com interview) for contacting him immediately after he was drafted. He improved his shot markedly last year, and Nivek has described how much work this entails; I wouldn't put it past him to develop three point range. It reflects well on his character that he played for an Israeli team during the lockout, being willing to broaden his horizons, etc., although maybe he just wanted a paycheck.

I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.

Nice post, shorty. Booker is indeed my favorite player on the team and I wouldn't consider trading him unless we got a real good return. My guess is that we wouldn't be offered enough value for me to agree with parting with Booker, so it's probably a moot issue.

And it may well be that Booker is the heart of the team. If so, that should also be factored.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#53 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:54 pm

DCZards wrote:
Shorty wrote:I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.


That's the approach I prefer in regards to Trevor. Instead of trading Booker because we think he won't get minutes at PF due to the presence of Okafor/Seraphin/Nene, let's first see where he fits in...or not. I like what Trevor brings to the table both in terms of play and leadership, and I'd hate to lose that without first finding out what role, if any, he can play on this year's team.


The reasons I disagree are: 1. Wait and see produces diminishing returns. The only thing that is going to happen is you will find out that sparse minutes will be given Booker. Unless Vesely doesn't play or Seraphin doesn't play, Booker cannot do any better than play backup minutes that will be sparse. When you wait to trade him, his numbers will go down and so will his trade value. 2. Waiting is not proactive, it is reactive. When you get finished waiting, you will find the Wizards lack scorers and guys who can create shots. They lack three point shooting. If you say you'd rather wait to move Booker, you're just delaying discovery of why you need to move him. By then, you'll be rather desperate from losses and it will necessitate a trade made with less leverage, and also reactionary. I understand not trading Booker just for the sake of trading him. However, I also know the guys who are paid the most and the rookies/youngest are who will get the minutes. Booker will play LESS minutes. A lot less. Trying to trade Vesely and Chris Singleton, the latter I don't think anybody will give anything of value for, won't be very fruitful. Reacting at the last minute and trading Trevor later will get less than moving early. It also could preclude the team lacking shooting or some other deficiency from roster construction that you don't even need to wait to see develop. 3. Dissension will set in from guys sitting on the bench when they were playing last season the longer you wait. Guys who have played 25-30 minutes will be lucky to play 10-15 minutes a night. Waiting guarantees this.

I totally disagree with wait and see.
Bye bye Beal.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,929
And1: 3,903
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#54 » by DCZards » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:18 pm

^^^^ ccj, the reason you disagree with "wait and see" is because you've obviously already decided what's going to happen with Bookers' minutes, etc. I don't have that crystal ball. So I'll have to stick with the wait and see approach.
User avatar
Chocolate City Jordanaire
RealGM
Posts: 52,607
And1: 8,962
Joined: Aug 05, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#55 » by Chocolate City Jordanaire » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:35 pm

I don't have a crystal ball but I told you what I didn't like about Flip one month after he became coach. I told you about Faried about a year and a half before the draft. I did say Wall would struggle and Cousins was going to be a stud.

I don't know what is going to happen with Booker's minutes, but I can do math pretty well. Between PF and C in a 48 minute game, there are only 96 minutes. If you expand and include the SF position, there are 144 available minutes. Starters generally play between 28 and 35 minutes. If I generalize at 30 minutes for those three positions, that's 90 minutes. I don't know Booker will not start, but I would bet my car that he won't. I would bet a lot of money that he won't be a part of those 90 minutes. DCZ, I know for certain that 144-90=54. Fifty-four minutes to be split between the SF, PF, and C backups.

Beyond those numbers, the number of backups at SF, PF, and C is at least 4. Chris Singleton, Jan Vesely, Kevin Seraphin, and Trevor Booker are the four players I have in mind. Forget small ball with Beal at the SF position. Forget Cartier Martin playing any SF, his best position. Because that would make the number larger. Stick with 4 backups at those positions. If you divide the backup minutes among those four, you get 13.5 minutes. Trevor Booker, could conceivably get a double portion of those minutes if Singleton or Vesely or Seraphin play that much less. That is what I do not know. Will Trevor Booker play more than 12-15 minutes? Perhaps he can become a great 20-25 minute sub with others on the bench.

The other things: An injury to Hilario or Okafor opens minutes. Booker could simply outplay Okafor and Wittman would start him in time. Seraphin could possibly slump, but IMO that is HIGHLY unlikely. If anything, Seraphin is going to improve the most. Also, I think Vesely is going to become more useful in time because he has a great court sense and both Nene and Kevin play well off him. Ariza is going to find Vesely with the ball is my prediction. Booker's the odd man out, DCZ. That is how I see it now.

We shall see, DCZ. I don't have a crystal ball but I have had some success predicting outcomes with various personnel.
Bye bye Beal.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#56 » by Nivek » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:45 pm

Edit because while I was typing my response, CCJ posted pretty much what I was posting.

So, +1 CCJ. :)
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,579
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#57 » by Ruzious » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:00 pm

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:
DCZards wrote:
Shorty wrote:I don't regard him as untouchable either; I just think the G.A.M has earned his spot, and that his value to the team goes beyond the minutes he plays. The roster can be balanced later, when the front office has more information about how it all fits together.


That's the approach I prefer in regards to Trevor. Instead of trading Booker because we think he won't get minutes at PF due to the presence of Okafor/Seraphin/Nene, let's first see where he fits in...or not. I like what Trevor brings to the table both in terms of play and leadership, and I'd hate to lose that without first finding out what role, if any, he can play on this year's team.


The reasons I disagree are: 1. Wait and see produces diminishing returns. The only thing that is going to happen is you will find out that sparse minutes will be given Booker. Unless Vesely doesn't play or Seraphin doesn't play, Booker cannot do any better than play backup minutes that will be sparse. When you wait to trade him, his numbers will go down and so will his trade value. 2. Waiting is not proactive, it is reactive. When you get finished waiting, you will find the Wizards lack scorers and guys who can create shots. They lack three point shooting. If you say you'd rather wait to move Booker, you're just delaying discovery of why you need to move him. By then, you'll be rather desperate from losses and it will necessitate a trade made with less leverage, and also reactionary. I understand not trading Booker just for the sake of trading him. However, I also know the guys who are paid the most and the rookies/youngest are who will get the minutes. Booker will play LESS minutes. A lot less. Trying to trade Vesely and Chris Singleton, the latter I don't think anybody will give anything of value for, won't be very fruitful. Reacting at the last minute and trading Trevor later will get less than moving early. It also could preclude the team lacking shooting or some other deficiency from roster construction that you don't even need to wait to see develop. 3. Dissension will set in from guys sitting on the bench when they were playing last season the longer you wait. Guys who have played 25-30 minutes will be lucky to play 10-15 minutes a night. Waiting guarantees this.

I totally disagree with wait and see.

Good post. You can't play wait and see as a GM. You have to make projections - just like you have to in any business. The wait and see approach is what EG used as his plan to do... nothing... in the big 3 years. For a couple a years, he would say his mantra - well, lets wait till everyone's healthy for the whole year before making any significant changes. Let's wait and see what happens.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,721
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#58 » by nate33 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:23 pm

I would prefer to trade Okafor rather than Booker.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 9,929
And1: 3,903
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#59 » by DCZards » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:24 am

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:I don't have a crystal ball but I told you what I didn't like about Flip one month after he became coach. I told you about Faried about a year and a half before the draft. I did say Wall would struggle and Cousins was going to be a stud.


My bad, CCJ. How could I forget how often you've been right in the past, especially when you remind us of that at least 3-4 times a week.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,177
And1: 4,149
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: The "Culture Change" and Defense 

Post#60 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:36 pm

nate33 wrote:I would prefer to trade Okafor rather than Booker.


Hm, yeah. He's a much more valuable asset, although overprices. Maybe if you package him with Booker you can get a solid starter and backup in return. Just switch same quality PFs for similar quality SFs or SF/backup PG.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.

Return to Washington Wizards