Predict the Wizards Record '13-'14 season.

[hands11]

In what thread does that mental masturbation not take place ?

And I didn't talk about changing GMs which would affect player moves, I spoke about coaching only.

Also, if I was simply trying to defend my prediction vs engaging in Wizards/Basketball conversation, why would I not take advantage of Maynor as an excuse for less wins when that topic was posted ? Instead spent the time to research if he did or not and pointed out that I don't see that Maynor cost them any loses.

So the question still stand for anyone else is interested in chiming in. Would be interesting to see what kind of projections people make.

And no, it doesn't effect peoples projected wins totals already made here. That wasn't the point of the questions. Those people projected Randy's coaching more accurately which was part of the formula to figure out.

[dckingsfan]

Really hands, you can't take it to another thread? Is it that hard - you have the Wittman thread, you can't put it there? You are a poster, so you can obfuscate this thread as well - you have every right. But really?

Here, I will do it for you...

[Nivek]

As for Maynor. He wasn't the cause of the Ls that I can identify. Look over the game box scores, his minutes and what else was going on in those games. See how many Ls you would contribute to Maynor.

This is pretty silly, but in a sense, I agree. Maynor was who he was -- who he always was. It's not his fault he sucked, it was the front office's fault for thinking he'd be any good. But, Maynor's suckitude most definitely did contribute to losses because he was unusable. That caused them to use Garrett Temple, who was just as bad, but a favorite of the coach. And, it led them to eventually trade a future 2nd round pick for one of the oldest players in the league so they could have a solid backup PG.

So, I put responsibility for Maynor on the front office, but I think it's nonsense to say Maynor didn't cause losses.

[payitforward]

Are you of the opinion that coaching doesn't matter much if at all ?

Randy or Pops or Tibs. Wouldn't matter. They would have the exact some record ?

Hands, do the teams we play have coaches too? What if their coaches were better? What if instead of looking at losses and finding, in retrospect, things RW could have done to win -- instead you looked at our wins and found things the opposing coaches could have done to take the games away?

Isn't it obvious to you that you could as easily do the 2d thing as the 1st? It's in the nature of a loss to give you lots of places to find fault with a coach -- ours when we lose, the other guys' when they lose.

I'm not arguing that Wittman is an outstanding coach; there's no reason to think that. And, yes, Popovich -- measured over a long stretch, not a single game -- seems to get slightly more out of players than an average coach. Emphasis on "slightly." Which means that if he were our coach, he'd likely get slightly more out of our guys than e.g. Wittman does. Hence, over a long stretch (more than one season) we'd have a few more wins w/ him as coach than w/ Wittman.

But I'd rather have Wittman and Tim Duncan than have Popovich and Kevin Seraphin -- adding a tremendous player would give us way more extra wins than adding a tremendous coach. And it's easier (not easy -- "easier") to find a tremendous player than a tremendous coach. After all, we aren't going to replace Wittman with Popovich!

[payitforward]

As for Maynor. He wasn't the cause of the Ls that I can identify. Look over the game box scores, his minutes and what else was going on in those games. See how many Ls you would contribute to Maynor.

This is pretty silly, but in a sense, I agree. Maynor was who he was -- who he always was. It's not his fault he sucked, it was the front office's fault for thinking he'd be any good. But, Maynor's suckitude most definitely did contribute to losses because he was unusable. That caused them to use Garrett Temple, who was just as bad, but a favorite of the coach. And, it led them to eventually trade a future 2nd round pick for one of the oldest players in the league so they could have a solid backup PG.

So, I put responsibility for Maynor on the front office, but I think it's nonsense to say Maynor didn't cause losses.

+1

And we haven't seen the last loss he's caused either. Or, rather, that Ernie caused by signing him (and then having to give up an asset to replace him).

[hands11]

As for Maynor. He wasn't the cause of the Ls that I can identify. Look over the game box scores, his minutes and what else was going on in those games. See how many Ls you would contribute to Maynor.

This is pretty silly, but in a sense, I agree. Maynor was who he was -- who he always was. It's not his fault he sucked, it was the front office's fault for thinking he'd be any good. But, Maynor's suckitude most definitely did contribute to losses because he was unusable. That caused them to use Garrett Temple, who was just as bad, but a favorite of the coach. And, it led them to eventually trade a future 2nd round pick for one of the oldest players in the league so they could have a solid backup PG.

So, I put responsibility for Maynor on the front office, but I think it's nonsense to say Maynor didn't cause losses.

Good point.

I only looked at games to see who we played, did Maynor play and did we win or lose. I saw nothing that stood out showing that we lost games because of Maynor. Some games he played and we won. Some he played and we lost but most if not all those games where against teams that were good that we would lose to often anyway. Then there were games where Beal or Nene or both were out. So nothing jumped out regarding Maynor causing loses. Then there were the DNPs.

But you bring another level to those DNPs which is that they had to play Temple which is an interesting point.

Having done some recent posts about Wiz vs CHI I can say this about Temple. It was Randy using him properly in the 2nd line that helped them beat CHI twice, so used properly, Temple can actually help you win games given they had other horses i.e. Nene was available. Actually, if you look at last year, Wall/Temple started a number of games that they won while Beal was out injured or coming off the bench.

I remember a lot of debate about Randy simply using his bench incorrectly. Something he eventually figured out that resulted in some wins. The way to use Temple, Webster, Booker, Ves and Kevin wasn't to put them on the floor together. It was to weave them in with other starters by pulling a starters early and rotating through. If you did it like that you could get your starters the rest they needed, without disrupting the offense and defense. Temple and Ves are serviceable defenders and Webster, Booker and Kevin are serviceable offensive players. Never thought I would say that about Booker but that is what he has become. Anyway, that isn't a terrible bench if you mixed them in properly. It is if you put them all on the floor together at the same time. And don't forget, Webster is part of that bench. Temple, Webster, Booker, Ves and Kevin. Its not terrible like some make it out to be. But it does lack ball handling and a true back up SG. And some experience.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... ric-maynor

Still hard to identify the games lost do to Maynor playing or not playing vs other factors like Wall or Beal playing bad. Now all that is not to say having a better or additional back up PG wouldn't help. Miller does help, but its not like he is the perfect back up either since he isn't a good defender. Miller has better court vision and he can post up sometimes. But if you need a perimeter defender, Temple is still better. Back ups are rarely offensive and defensive players. That's why they are back ups. But the combo of Miller and Temple provides some of both and Miller is clearly better then Maynor.

[hands11]

Are you of the opinion that coaching doesn't matter much if at all ?

Randy or Pops or Tibs. Wouldn't matter. They would have the exact some record ?

Hands, do the teams we play have coaches too? What if their coaches were better? What if instead of looking at losses and finding, in retrospect, things RW could have done to win -- instead you looked at our wins and found things the opposing coaches could have done to take the games away?

Isn't it obvious to you that you could as easily do the 2d thing as the 1st? It's in the nature of a loss to give you lots of places to find fault with a coach -- ours when we lose, the other guys' when they lose.

I'm not arguing that Wittman is an outstanding coach; there's no reason to think that. And, yes, Popovich -- measured over a long stretch, not a single game -- seems to get slightly more out of players than an average coach. Emphasis on "slightly." Which means that if he were our coach, he'd likely get slightly more out of our guys than e.g. Wittman does. Hence, over a long stretch (more than one season) we'd have a few more wins w/ him as coach than w/ Wittman.

But I'd rather have Wittman and Tim Duncan than have Popovich and Kevin Seraphin -- adding a tremendous player would give us way more extra wins than adding a tremendous coach. And it's easier (not easy -- "easier") to find a tremendous player than a tremendous coach. After all, we aren't going to replace Wittman with Popovich!

Of course having an elite player like TD has a huge impact. So would having Lebron or MJ. Players matter. So does how they fit together. That wasn't the topic up for debate. Its wasn't about how do better players improve wins. It was how do better coaches improve wins given a set of talent. In this example, the Wizards. One way to set up a debate like that is to set factors and solve for 'X" You introducing other variables doesn't allow for a clean debate over the questions presented.

I chose Pops and Tibs because they are two of the best. They are least likely to make mistakes and most likely to maximize a given set of talent. You means test using them to find your outer limit of what is possible for roster. What they can get out of it is the max you are going to get out of it. I listed both to introduce a little variance so people could solve for two great coaches. Other great coaches could be used but I figured those two were enough for the purpose of debate and it would be interesting to see the projected delta in wins between the two given the Wizards roster. That allows for the variable that might be fit of coach and roster.

[nate33]

I only looked at games to see who we played, did Maynor play and did we win or lose. I saw nothing that stood out showing that we lost games because of Maynor. Some games he played and we won. Some he played and we lost but most if not all those games where against teams that were good that we would lose to often anyway. Then there were games where Beal or Nene or both were out. So nothing jumped out regarding Maynor causing loses. Then there were the DNPs.

Maynor's on/off differential was -29.9 per 48 minutes. That is truly a mind-boggling number. That really has to be some sort of record. When he was on the floor, it was an abject disaster every single night. And don't blame the rest of the bench because Andre Miller is -3.3, despite playing nearly all of his games without Nene (which shortened the bench).

[nuposse04]

I only looked at games to see who we played, did Maynor play and did we win or lose. I saw nothing that stood out showing that we lost games because of Maynor. Some games he played and we won. Some he played and we lost but most if not all those games where against teams that were good that we would lose to often anyway. Then there were games where Beal or Nene or both were out. So nothing jumped out regarding Maynor causing loses. Then there were the DNPs.

Maynor's on/off differential was -29.9 per 48 minutes. That is truly a mind-boggling number. That really has to be some sort of record. When he was on the floor, it was an abject disaster every single night. And don't blame the rest of the bench because Andre Miller is -3.3, despite playing nearly all of his games without Nene (which shortened the bench).

I wonder, even though his contract wasn't particularly large, with such atrocious numbers, would he have the most negative contract in the NBA given his all around awfulness?

[dckingsfan]

And it all comes down to:

44 - dangermouse, nate33, gesa2, montestewart, TheKingOfVa360, Payitforward, Donkey McDonkerton
43 - Wallbeliever, Higga, BarnabyJones, willbcocks, DallasShalDune, rockymac52, Nivek, DaSwami

[dangermouse]

Lookin' Good

[doclinkin]

I'm pullin for Swami et al, because there's one or two on the 44 list who will be insufferable if they win

[hands11]

I only looked at games to see who we played, did Maynor play and did we win or lose. I saw nothing that stood out showing that we lost games because of Maynor. Some games he played and we won. Some he played and we lost but most if not all those games where against teams that were good that we would lose to often anyway. Then there were games where Beal or Nene or both were out. So nothing jumped out regarding Maynor causing loses. Then there were the DNPs.

Maynor's on/off differential was -29.9 per 48 minutes. That is truly a mind-boggling number. That really has to be some sort of record. When he was on the floor, it was an abject disaster every single night. And don't blame the rest of the bench because Andre Miller is -3.3, despite playing nearly all of his games without Nene (which shortened the bench).

I hear you. But go through the game log and find the games you can attribute to him as Ls.

It is possible for him to have been that terrible but it happened in game with won anyway or in games that were against good teams that we had other player also suck so we were likely to lose anyway.

I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't looked through the game log but Maynor's sink didn't show up in a way that I could see an clear connection to Ls. Maybe that was his defining skill. LOL

[dckingsfan]

I only looked at games to see who we played, did Maynor play and did we win or lose. I saw nothing that stood out showing that we lost games because of Maynor. Some games he played and we won. Some he played and we lost but most if not all those games where against teams that were good that we would lose to often anyway. Then there were games where Beal or Nene or both were out. So nothing jumped out regarding Maynor causing loses. Then there were the DNPs.

Maynor's on/off differential was -29.9 per 48 minutes. That is truly a mind-boggling number. That really has to be some sort of record. When he was on the floor, it was an abject disaster every single night. And don't blame the rest of the bench because Andre Miller is -3.3, despite playing nearly all of his games without Nene (which shortened the bench).

I hear you. But go through the game log and find the games you can attribute to him as Ls.

It is possible for him to have been that terrible but it happened in game with won anyway or in games that were against good teams that we had other player also suck so we were likely to lose anyway.

I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't looked through the game log but Maynor's sink didn't show up in a way that I could see an clear connection to Ls. Maybe that was his defining skill. LOL

How about we go through the game logs and look at a combination of Seraphin, Vesely and Maynor... bet that would be pretty damning.

[dckingsfan]

I'm pullin for Swami et al, because there's one or two on the 44 list who will be insufferable if they win

44 and 6th seed
or
43 and 7th seed

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm pullin for Swami et al, because there's one or two on the 44 list who will be insufferable if they win

If Donkey wins, he'll be hard to deal with.

Though a high-strutting Donkey is the perfect weapon to unleash on visiting Toronto posters.

[payitforward]

I'm pullin for Swami et al, because there's one or two on the 44 list who will be insufferable if they win

Two...?

[dckingsfan]

2-3 wins for me. 2-3 more than 41. I'm going.... 44 WINS

And thus the legend was born...

[doclinkin]

I'm pullin for Swami et al, because there's one or two on the 44 list who will be insufferable if they win

Two...?

Too late already in your case .

[Induveca]

I was way off, and couldn't be happier.