The Sky Is Not Falling

[milellie111]

I don't watch many Wizards games, but I have noticed just how inefficient John Wall is as a pick and roll ball handler. What's the deal there?

Floor spacing

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

[TGW]

I don't watch many Wizards games, but I have noticed just how inefficient John Wall is as a pick and roll ball handler. What's the deal there?

Floor spacing

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Yup. We've been begging for half-decent stretch four for years now. Not one on the roster.

We've also been begging for a half decent backup point guard as well...and still it's a problem.

[TGW]

LOL da troll came out of hiding.

[payitforward]

To-date this season, 17 teams have a positive SRS (combination of scoring differential and strength of schedule). They range from Golden State at +9.55 to Milwaukee at +0.20. Washington is 13th at +0.89. So, the Wizards have been a bit less than a point per game better than average so far this season.

We also have the 13th best record in the NBA. IOW, we are just slightly better than an absolute average NBA team. Right now, in the West, we'd be out of the playoffs.

This is what Ernie has accomplished in a 5-year "rebuilding process" in which he had an *extraordinary* set of resources to work with -- an exceptionally large number of high lottery picks, 2 ping-pong ball jumps by luck, some very large salaries to expire or buy out, etc. It's a pathetic result he's achieved.

Moreover, it's not even as good as it looks, because we are one of the oldest teams in the league: we have only 2 players on our roster from whom we can even hope for big jumps in productivity (Beal and Porter) and only one player whom anyone would rank among the best players in the league right now. There's not much untapped future productivity on the roster compared to most teams in the league.

Unless we get extremely lucky (which could happen of course), it looks to me like we'll be rebuilding pretty much from scratch again as soon as Durant doesn't come here. Wall will be into the 2d half of his career, Gortat will be at the point where his productivity would be expected to fall significantly from then forward. Beal and Porter will be as good as they are. And that's that.

If Ernie is still here, God forbid, the focus will be on a good veteran FA and some reasonable role players -- in order to hang on to our mediocrity.

If we are lucky and have a new GM, it'll more likely be a pretty deep rebuild. The few real assets I mention above will all be on the table for trades.

We'd better hope our 2015 and 2016 drafts are really outstanding. Inasmuch as Ernie is managing the '15 draft, we can probably count that one out.

[payitforward]

Sure this team can be frustrating at times but when they are on a roll, few teams play with as much heart and passion as the Wizards.

Thanks, but we're all Wizards fans here, milellie -- you really don't need to remind us that it's fun to watch our team win.

For that matter, isn't it kind of obvious that every fan loves his team? That's what it means to be a fan: short for "fanatic."

[payitforward]

I would fire Scott Brooks tomorrow right along side Wittman! The fact is if you put Wittman on the Spurs or the hawks or GS those teams probably loose 10 more games. If you give this team those HC's we probably win 10+ more games.

Coaches don't have that much impact. There's research from David Berri showing that only a handful of coaches have a statistically discernible effect on individual player production -- good or bad.

If I recall right, Wittman showed up near the bottom, meaning that players tended to be less productive when Wittman was coaching than they were for other coaches. But, the effect wasn't a lot -- definitely not in the 10+ win range.

Just for a sense of perspective, I'm able to convert my stat into individual wins (I call them kWins -- I would have used eWins (e for "estimated") but someone else was already using it). Anyway, last season, there were just 13 players who contributed 10 or more kWins to their team. I think it's a stretch to think a coach has the impact of an elite player.

But you have to take into effect that the effect stacks per player. The miss use of Beal and Porter, the poor distribution of minutes the lack of creativity. Sitting Gortat, playing certain guys when others should be played. All of that happens almost every game. I absolutely think that 10 games is pretty close to Wittmans impact on this season.

Yes, and the research *does* take that into account. And the result is coaches simply don't have all that much impact. And the difference between the very worst and very best isn't 10 games (i.e. in an 82 game season).

Think about it: assume for a moment that you have an average team -- total productivity on roster (keeping minutes played in the equation) is average. And that team has an average coach. That team is likely to win about 41 games.

Now I fire the coach and hire the best coach in the league -- Popovich. Now the team is going to win 51 games? I don't think so, no. The Spurs this year are likely to win 51 or 52 games. You'd have to believe they have an average roster in terms of player productivity.

Hands says that Wittman has already cost us @ 8 games (hope I'm remembering that right...). In other words, really we're better than Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Portland, OKC, the Clippers, Houston, San Antonio & Dallas.

Not critiqueing Hands here -- it's just that, like I say, fan="fanatic"

[FAH1223]

Floor spacing

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikePradaSBN/status/580511755631198211[/tweet]

[montestewart]

Floor spacing

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

I was thinking more along the lines of trades, but tell me more about these player executions.

[hands11]

It's unlikely they'll maintain their recent level of play. Their defense was down around 96 points per 100 possessions for several games, which isn't sustainable. Their offense has been bouncing around league average all season. They just had a three-game stretch of well-above average offensive efficiency. That's unlikely to continue either. When I look at the small sample size of their recent play, they look ripe for some regression to the mean on both ends of the floor.

Agreed they'll revert to means.

What I wonder, however, is if they're going to play with some swagger at the end of games. There really isn't a lot of difference between winning and losing save for end of games execution.

If they give up 98 or 99 points per 100 possessions, and can maintain merely average offensive efficiency on the west coast trip; then games are going to come down to closing out quarters. I think if Wall can have Beal and Pierce engaged, and if the big men roll to the basket the Wizards should be able to win games they might otherwise lose. Swagger, mojo, confidence, flow ... whatever you want to call it can go their way.

I want to see them be competitive and have some breaks go their way.

Even allowing 98-99 points per 100 possessions isn't realistic. That'd be one of the league's best defenses since the NBA implemented the new defensive rules in 2004-05.

If they somehow could be that good defensively, AND be average on offense, they'd go something like 11-4 to close out the season and get to 50 wins. And they'd be a tough out in the playoffs. An average offense this year and a defense that good would be a 57-58 win team over an 82-game schedule.

But, they're not that good.

This is exactly the point I have made. There is more to gain in Ws by improving their offense then the diminishing returning of improving their defense. Besides. I think there is an emotional element to the all work and no play approach of Randy.

No player wants to just lock in on defense and not have the enjoyment of a good offense. Some better offense would actually energize the defense.

I think Randys all defensive message wear this team down.

[hands11]

I would fire Scott Brooks tomorrow right along side Wittman! The fact is if you put Wittman on the Spurs or the hawks or GS those teams probably loose 10 more games. If you give this team those HC's we probably win 10+ more games.

Coaches don't have that much impact. There's research from David Berri showing that only a handful of coaches have a statistically discernible effect on individual player production -- good or bad.

If I recall right, Wittman showed up near the bottom, meaning that players tended to be less productive when Wittman was coaching than they were for other coaches. But, the effect wasn't a lot -- definitely not in the 10+ win range.

Just for a sense of perspective, I'm able to convert my stat into individual wins (I call them kWins -- I would have used eWins (e for "estimated") but someone else was already using it). Anyway, last season, there were just 13 players who contributed 10 or more kWins to their team. I think it's a stretch to think a coach has the impact of an elite player.

Not with elite players that much, but coaches are the conductor of the orchestra. And while while some data might not capture the true impact on a team, there is a cumulative additive impact. And lots of games are won or lost the margin at critical moments. Like a boat sailing off course by 1 degree early in the journey, it will take you miles off course as time goes on.

There is simply no rational way to say coaching doesn't have an important impact. That just doesn't makes any sense. Of course it does. There are way more non elite players then their are elite players. Strategy and cohesiveness of execution has to mater. There are just to many examples in life of why leadership is important.

[gambitx777]

Coaches don't have that much impact. There's research from David Berri showing that only a handful of coaches have a statistically discernible effect on individual player production -- good or bad.

If I recall right, Wittman showed up near the bottom, meaning that players tended to be less productive when Wittman was coaching than they were for other coaches. But, the effect wasn't a lot -- definitely not in the 10+ win range.

Just for a sense of perspective, I'm able to convert my stat into individual wins (I call them kWins -- I would have used eWins (e for "estimated") but someone else was already using it). Anyway, last season, there were just 13 players who contributed 10 or more kWins to their team. I think it's a stretch to think a coach has the impact of an elite player.

But you have to take into effect that the effect stacks per player. The miss use of Beal and Porter, the poor distribution of minutes the lack of creativity. Sitting Gortat, playing certain guys when others should be played. All of that happens almost every game. I absolutely think that 10 games is pretty close to Wittmans impact on this season.

Yes, and the research *does* take that into account. And the result is coaches simply don't have all that much impact. And the difference between the very worst and very best isn't 10 games (i.e. in an 82 game season).

Think about it: assume for a moment that you have an average team -- total productivity on roster (keeping minutes played in the equation) is average. And that team has an average coach. That team is likely to win about 41 games.

Now I fire the coach and hire the best coach in the league -- Popovich. Now the team is going to win 51 games? I don't think so, no. The Spurs this year are likely to win 51 or 52 games. You'd have to believe they have an average roster in terms of player productivity.

Hands says that Wittman has already cost us @ 8 games (hope I'm remembering that right...). In other words, really we're better than Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Portland, OKC, the Clippers, Houston, San Antonio & Dallas.

Not critiqueing Hands here -- it's just that, like I say, fan="fanatic"

I'm sorry but you can't sit here and say that Wittman has not coast us games. It's clear as day that he has. Look at GS. They had a good team, A play off team, dumped their HC and got a better one and look at where they are now. I'm not saying that this team is as good, but its the same situation. The HC effects the team on so many different levels and dimensions. If the HC had not impact then there would be no reason for any team to change the HC. So yeah This team probably wins 10 more games over the season with a better HC! I'll stick too that because I bet for sure if we go back at the end of the season and find 10 games that could have been won if it were not for Randy.

[dckingsfan]

Points to the above message:
1) The GM that hired Wittman should not hire the next coach
2) The above assertion that the coach caused 10 wins isn't measurable
-- Example, I would cite the extreme good health of the Wizards as compiled as unsustainable and added 10 wins to our total this year (hence why 46 wins was well thought out)
3) One can not argue that the offense is not cutting edge. Spacing is terrible and schema is even worse. But... the roster is also poorly assembled for this coaches strengths (namely defense). There isn't a defensive stopper on the team sans Wall. And we don't have wings that can break down the defense.

[fishercob]

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

I was thinking more along the lines of trades, but tell me more about these player executions.

You complete me.

[TGW]

I don't think Kerr is a better coach than Jackson. Curry and Thompson are simply better players than they were last season. I don't think Kerr, you, or me would have changed that.

In the Wizards case, while I do think coaching would make a difference, I don't think it would be a dramatic difference unless we're talking upper echelon of coaches. I think the people who predicted 50+ wins for this current team are using the coaching as an excuse. In reality, the team is where they should be considering the conference they play in and the quality of the players. Like I've said all along, we don't have any superstars. Wall is a stud, but his game is based on deferring, not carrying. Everyone else on the team is okay, but nothing special.

[Ruzious]

Caused by roster and coaching inadequacies.

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

I was thinking more along the lines of trades, but tell me more about these player executions.

They shoot em from the optimal range of 21 feet by order of Randy Wittman.

[dckingsfan]

Everyone else on the team is okay, but nothing special.

Which is a HUGE jump from previous years, remember the thinking:

Great = of moderate quality, value, ability, or performance

[TGW]

The players simply did not execute the gameplan tonight folks.

[payitforward]

Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching.

I was thinking more along the lines of trades, but tell me more about these player executions.

They shoot em from the optimal range of 21 feet by order of Randy Wittman.

I love this exchange -- HOF. And what better argument could you give for changing the team's name back to the Bullets?

But... take Millie's remark literally for a moment. He writes: "Roster is fine. Player execution is just as important as coaching."

The coaching is not the problem he seems to be saying. And it's not the roster either -- it's just the way the players execute. I.e. they're fine; they just don't play well.

So... what if we had some players that weren't so "fine" -- they just played better basketball? Would that be ok?

[hands11]

But you have to take into effect that the effect stacks per player. The miss use of Beal and Porter, the poor distribution of minutes the lack of creativity. Sitting Gortat, playing certain guys when others should be played. All of that happens almost every game. I absolutely think that 10 games is pretty close to Wittmans impact on this season.

Yes, and the research *does* take that into account. And the result is coaches simply don't have all that much impact. And the difference between the very worst and very best isn't 10 games (i.e. in an 82 game season).

Think about it: assume for a moment that you have an average team -- total productivity on roster (keeping minutes played in the equation) is average. And that team has an average coach. That team is likely to win about 41 games.

Now I fire the coach and hire the best coach in the league -- Popovich. Now the team is going to win 51 games? I don't think so, no. The Spurs this year are likely to win 51 or 52 games. You'd have to believe they have an average roster in terms of player productivity.

Hands says that Wittman has already cost us @ 8 games (hope I'm remembering that right...). In other words, really we're better than Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Portland, OKC, the Clippers, Houston, San Antonio & Dallas.

Not critiqueing Hands here -- it's just that, like I say, fan="fanatic"

I'm sorry but you can't sit here and say that Wittman has not coast us games. It's clear as day that he has. Look at GS. They had a good team, A play off team, dumped their HC and got a better one and look at where they are now. I'm not saying that this team is as good, but its the same situation. The HC effects the team on so many different levels and dimensions. If the HC had not impact then there would be no reason for any team to change the HC. So yeah This team probably wins 10 more games over the season with a better HC! I'll stick too that because I bet for sure if we go back at the end of the season and find 10 games that could have been won if it were not for Randy.

And here is another thing wrong with the HC vs Roster evaluation issue as it was framed.

Lots of moving parts. Injuries to key players, etc. And a false choice. Both matter and in different amounts with different teams an different rosters.

Toronto, Cleveland, Chicago, Portland, OKC, the Clippers, Houston, San Antonio & Dallas.

That was PIFFs list. And my est is 8-10 over the course of a year. Call it the Randy FX

And I'm guessing where he got that list from by looking at the current records and just adding in 8-10 wins. Well, clearly its not that simple.

If you are comparing records, LAC, HOU, SAS, DAL, POR, OKC... They are all in the West. Harder schedule. SAS has been super injured. Same with OKC.

CLE.. They started the year like ass. They are way better then their record. Everyone knows that. And you are comparing the roster they have now. Not what they started the year with.

CHI.. without Rose and now Butler ? Yeah.. We would have a much better record then them.

I never understood the coaches doesn't matter argument. Just doesn't make any sense. Clearly they do. Coaches, GMs, Project Managers, Generals... They matter a great deal.

I understand if you have great players like those Lakers teams the players are good enough to have a great team just based on talent and the coaching is more about tweaking after they install the offense and the defense. At that level, coaching also matters regarding keeping egos in check and keeping teams focused, hungry and challenged year after year. Still lots to do regarding the coaching. Its different stuff. Plus those better coaches can actually attract players to some degree. And other great coaches that work with the players.

You think coaching matters for ATL ? For the DET bad boys team ? You think it matter for the USA vs Russia Hockey Team ?

The players vs coaching is a false argument. Of course players matter. Its not this or that. Its both.

8-10 wins is on the upper end of the scale as to how much a coach would help a set of players. It would take a really bad coach.. we have that.. and a set of players that actually have some talent. We have that as well. So in our example, we have the extremes.

Not every set of players though. Using SAS as an example is a pretty weak example. That team and franchise is so well coached and established for so long that its instilled in the fiber of the players as a team. Losing Pops or a average coach won't erase that in a year. Hell, even a bad coach would likely just copy the established line ups that were there.

But I remember when the Skins were a team and a franchise like SAS. Looks at the Skins now. Years of bad coaching after Gibbs and bad leadership killed the institutional knowledge players would pass from one to another. It doesn't live there anymore and they are struggled to develop it again.

[dckingsfan]

Roster moves matter more than coaches - and no, you couldn't suck 8 more wins out of this team - we were NEVER that good. Maybe if Beal takes a jump - but he really hasn't. Maybe if Porter will ready to take the reins from PP - but he isn't. Maybe if we had a real stretch 4, but we don't. Maybe if we had wings or a backup PG that could really break down the D - but we don't. Maybe if we had a rim protector other than Gortat - nope.

And you are telling me that this is a mid-50 win team? And we have had really good luck in the health area. We haven't missed that many games compared to the norm and especially the norm for the age of this team. And Temple and Butler have played out of their heads or we would be a 30 win team.

Let's face it - this GM got it right on Wall - and then not much else. The drafting, the rest of the roster, the front office, the coaching staff, the player development, the roster balance, the roster built for this coach

ALL STINK

[/RANT]