We need to go back to last years style of play

[gtn130]

When teams press you the answer isn't to go faster......especially in half court sets. It's causing the turnovers.

We don't have a leader willing to slow down the game when needed by holding the ball and barking out instructions. Nene or Pierce did so routinely last year.

The Humphries experiment is a waste of time.

They're playing at nearly the exact same pace as Golden State.

They don't have Golden State's personnel.

Yeah and that's a reasonable argument. What I don't agree with is that what the Wizards are attempting to do is fundamentally wrong.The team is literally trying to follow the template that GSW created last season.

We aren't succeeding -- maybe we don't have the personnel, maybe we aren't implementing the scheme correctly, maybe our players are still growing into their new roles, maybe it's just short term negative variance to start the season. My point, though, is that there is validity to what we're trying to do, and abandoning the offense after six games is a terrible idea, especially when considering that our offense was bad last year, and the system this year at least plays to strengths of Wall and Beal.

Wittman isn't breaking new ground or trying to revolutionize basketball -- he's doing what half the league is doing this year and it's copying GSW by creating space and taking a bunch of 3s.

[gtn130]

It's also a bit of a no-brainer to get Wall out and running. We have the fastest player on the court. Maybe we should have him, you know, like run?

Wall should run when it's advantageous to run. The fact that he's fast doesn't necessarily mean it's advantageous for the Wizards to play at a fast pace. Again -- play at a tempo that allows the TEAM to be efficient because it's efficiency that wins.

Nobody would ever disagree with this. He's running at times when he shouldn't and making mistakes that lead to turnovers, but that doesn't mean playing at a faster pace is a bad overall idea.

[gtn130]

Just for the heck of it, I ran some quick numbers on the relationship between pace and efficiency so far this season. Basically, about 8% of the variation in offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) can be explained by pace. About 3% of the variation in defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions). Overall, less than 1% of variation in scoring margin can be explained by pace. Small sample size sure, but these numbers are basically the same for SEASONS worth of data.

When Wall is sprinting down the court it likely creates more space by virtue of the fact that nobody is set.

Also, if Washington actually has an edge on offense this year then maximizing their number of offensive possessions is advantageous. The Suns played their seven seconds or less offense primarily for that reason -- they wanted more offensive possessions.

There's no advantage if the additional possessions are turnovers. IF Washington gains advantage by playing at a faster pace, they should do so -- obviously. As I mentioned in my season preview (and in the post above the one you quoted), there's no evidence showing that playing fast causes a team to be better on offense (or defense). Good offensive teams play fast, but so do bad ones and mediocre ones. Good offensive teams play slow, but so do bad ones and mediocre ones.

"Playing fast" is a stupid goal because it has nothing to do with winning. A team should play at a pace where it can be efficient on offense and defense.

If your offense is really good, you want more possessions. That's a legitimate reason to play faster. I'm not saying that applies to the Wizards, but it could in the future if they get better.

And I think you can make an argument that playing faster can create more space.

[Illmatic12]

It's also a bit of a no-brainer to get Wall out and running. We have the fastest player on the court. Maybe we should have him, you know, like run?

Wall should run when it's advantageous to run. The fact that he's fast doesn't necessarily mean it's advantageous for the Wizards to play at a fast pace. Again -- play at a tempo that allows the TEAM to be efficient because it's efficiency that wins.

Nobody would ever disagree with this. He's running at times when he shouldn't and making mistakes that lead to turnovers, but that doesn't mean playing at a faster pace is a bad overall idea.

To add, Washington is leading the league in transition frequency:

http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/transition/?dir=1&PT=team&OD=offensive&sort=Time

They're also 5th in transition PPP (ahead of GSW)

Clearly, Washington has the personnel to score in transition - according to the numbers, they are clearly succeeding in creating some sort of advantage over other teams in the league by running. I don't think it should be abandoned. Just need to focus more on cutting out the TOs.


Edit: Wall is 7th in total transition points (on 1.00 PPP), Beal is 11th (with a whopping 1.42 PPP). This style of play is helping our guards, particularly Beal who is incredibly efficient/prolific in transition, far more than he is in the half court.

[Dark Faze]

The turnovers will start to drop. I'm not as worried about that. I'm worried about finding stretch 4's that can actually defend. I think Otto is that guy for one. The other would need to be added via trade.

[TheSecretWeapon]

If your offense is really good, you want more possessions. That's a legitimate reason to play faster. I'm not saying that applies to the Wizards, but it could in the future if they get better.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned previously: pace doesn't correlate with an offense being good or bad. A team should play fast if its personnel and helps it be more efficient. If a team is more efficient playing at a slower pace, then it should play at a slower pace. I don't think the Wizards trying to play faster is necessarily a bad thing, and I'm definitely willing to give it more time before suggesting changes. So far, the Wizards are shooting the ball decently (which they did last season at a slower pace), and committing loads of turnovers -- even more than last season (they were below average even then).

The only thing that really supports the notion of playing faster are shooting percentages by time on the shot clock. Basically, percentages are typically best early in the shot clock, and get worse as time runs down. So, it makes sense to push the ball up the floor as quickly as possible every possession looking to catch a defender who's out of position or create advantage. If there's no advantage, flinging up a shot in the name of playing fast doesn't make any sense. Work the defense and get a good shot.

And I think you can make an argument that playing faster can create more space.

A) I don't think so. Making threes stretches defenses.
B) Creating space shouldn't be a goal. "More space" is a byproduct of a well-run offense. Good shooters getting and making shots creates space, which opens opportunities to attack the hoop. And vice versa.

No matter a team's pace number, I think the ball should be pushed up the floor as quickly as possible every possession. But, I'd rather see the emphasis be on getting good shots (at-rim, threes and free throws) rather than "playing fast."

[TheSecretWeapon]

Wall should run when it's advantageous to run. The fact that he's fast doesn't necessarily mean it's advantageous for the Wizards to play at a fast pace. Again -- play at a tempo that allows the TEAM to be efficient because it's efficiency that wins.

Nobody would ever disagree with this. He's running at times when he shouldn't and making mistakes that lead to turnovers, but that doesn't mean playing at a faster pace is a bad overall idea.

To add, Washington is leading the league in transition frequency:

http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/transition/?dir=1&PT=team&OD=offensive&sort=Time

They're also 5th in transition PPP (ahead of GSW)

Clearly, Washington has the personnel to score in transition - according to the numbers, they are clearly succeeding in creating some sort of advantage over other teams in the league by running. I don't think it should be abandoned. Just need to focus more on cutting out the TOs.


Edit: Wall is 7th in total transition points (on 1.00 PPP), Beal is 11th (with a whopping 1.42 PPP). This style of play is helping our guards, particularly Beal who is incredibly efficient/prolific in transition, far more than he is in the half court.

All this is fine, but kinda irrelevant. The game isn't about who has the most transition points or is most efficient in transition. And, (I know this is the Internet so what people write/say has to be misconstrued and turned into something it's not) I'm not saying the Wizards should slow down. I'm saying setting a goal of playing fast is stupid. The goal should be to have an efficient offense. The team should play at a pace that's conducive to having an efficient offense.

And, the relevant research into what makes offenses good indicates that PACE is irrelevant. What's relevant is making shots, avoiding turnovers, and drawing fouls.

[Illmatic12]

Nobody would ever disagree with this. He's running at times when he shouldn't and making mistakes that lead to turnovers, but that doesn't mean playing at a faster pace is a bad overall idea.

To add, Washington is leading the league in transition frequency:

http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/transition/?dir=1&PT=team&OD=offensive&sort=Time

They're also 5th in transition PPP (ahead of GSW)

Clearly, Washington has the personnel to score in transition - according to the numbers, they are clearly succeeding in creating some sort of advantage over other teams in the league by running. I don't think it should be abandoned. Just need to focus more on cutting out the TOs.


Edit: Wall is 7th in total transition points (on 1.00 PPP), Beal is 11th (with a whopping 1.42 PPP). This style of play is helping our guards, particularly Beal who is incredibly efficient/prolific in transition, far more than he is in the half court.

All this is fine, but kinda irrelevant. The game isn't about who has the most transition points or is most efficient in transition. And, (I know this is the Internet so what people write/say has to be misconstrued and turned into something it's not) I'm not saying the Wizards should slow down. I'm saying setting a goal of playing fast is stupid. The goal should be to have an efficient offense. The team should play at a pace that's conducive to having an efficient offense.

And, the relevant research into what makes offenses good indicates that PACE is irrelevant. What's relevant is making shots, avoiding turnovers, and drawing fouls.

I agree, "playing fast" shouldn't be the goal. I was merely pointing out that our guards are excelling in transition, and looking at the topic of this thread "We need to go back to last years style of play" clearly the numbers are telling us that it isn't that simple. For example, going back to last year's style of play means taking away Beal's most efficient play type.

There has to be a balance, I think we all agree on that.

[Dark Faze]

Hump shouldn't be starting, I do think the numbers reflect that opinion

[gtn130]

If your offense is really good, you want more possessions. That's a legitimate reason to play faster. I'm not saying that applies to the Wizards, but it could in the future if they get better.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned previously: pace doesn't correlate with an offense being good or bad. A team should play fast if its personnel and helps it be more efficient. If a team is more efficient playing at a slower pace, then it should play at a slower pace. I don't think the Wizards trying to play faster is necessarily a bad thing, and I'm definitely willing to give it more time before suggesting changes. So far, the Wizards are shooting the ball decently (which they did last season at a slower pace), and committing loads of turnovers -- even more than last season (they were below average even then).

The only thing that really supports the notion of playing faster are shooting percentages by time on the shot clock. Basically, percentages are typically best early in the shot clock, and get worse as time runs down. So, it makes sense to push the ball up the floor as quickly as possible every possession looking to catch a defender who's out of position or create advantage. If there's no advantage, flinging up a shot in the name of playing fast doesn't make any sense. Work the defense and get a good shot.

And I think you can make an argument that playing faster can create more space.

A) I don't think so. Making threes stretches defenses.
B) Creating space shouldn't be a goal. "More space" is a byproduct of a well-run offense. Good shooters getting and making shots creates space, which opens opportunities to attack the hoop. And vice versa.

No matter a team's pace number, I think the ball should be pushed up the floor as quickly as possible every possession. But, I'd rather see the emphasis be on getting good shots (at-rim, threes and free throws) rather than "playing fast."

What do you mean "not necessarily"? Yes, necessarily. If you're the Steve Nash Phoenix Suns and you're elite on offense and mediocre on defense, pushing the pace on offense to create more overall offensive possessions is absolutely the optimal approach.

[gtn130]

A) I don't think so. Making threes stretches defenses.
B) Creating space shouldn't be a goal. "More space" is a byproduct of a well-run offense. Good shooters getting and making shots creates space, which opens opportunities to attack the hoop. And vice versa.

No matter a team's pace number, I think the ball should be pushed up the floor as quickly as possible every possession. But, I'd rather see the emphasis be on getting good shots (at-rim, threes and free throws) rather than "playing fast."

Playing faster and pushing the pace equals more transitions 3s which are typically wide open.

[TheSecretWeapon]

What do you mean "not necessarily"? Yes, necessarily. If you're the Steve Nash Phoenix Suns and you're elite on offense and mediocre on defense, pushing the pace on offense to create more overall offensive possessions is absolutely the optimal approach.

No. The Suns were terrific on offense while playing at a pace THEY WERE COMFORTABLE PLAYING. That's the point. They didn't play fast for the sake of playing fast -- they did it because they had a unique personnel and there was strategic advantage to be gained. Their emphasis was still on getting good shots.

But, having a great offense and a mediocre defense doesn't call for playing fast to get more offensive possessions because...when your offensive possession is over, the other team immediately takes possession. And then they get another chance to score against your mediocre defense.

[gtn130]

No. The Suns were terrific on offense while playing at a pace THEY WERE COMFORTABLE PLAYING. That's the point. They didn't play fast for the sake of playing fast -- they did it because they had a unique personnel and there was strategic advantage to be gained. Their emphasis was still on getting good shots.

But, having a great offense and a mediocre defense doesn't call for playing fast to get more offensive possessions because...when your offensive possession is over, the other team immediately takes possession. And then they get another chance to score against your mediocre defense.

Wrong. If the Phoenix Suns average ~10 seconds per offensive possession instead of 22, they will have more offensive possessions in the game. This is an advantage for them, and I think you can figure out why.

[TheSecretWeapon]

No. The Suns were terrific on offense while playing at a pace THEY WERE COMFORTABLE PLAYING. That's the point. They didn't play fast for the sake of playing fast -- they did it because they had a unique personnel and there was strategic advantage to be gained. Their emphasis was still on getting good shots.

But, having a great offense and a mediocre defense doesn't call for playing fast to get more offensive possessions because...when your offensive possession is over, the other team immediately takes possession. And then they get another chance to score against your mediocre defense.

Wrong. If the Phoenix Suns average ~10 seconds per offensive possession instead of 22, they will have more offensive possessions in the game. This is an advantage for them, and I think you can figure out why.

I think we're at the agree to disagree point, but...

In their game against the Hawks, the Wizards had 101 possessions. How many possessions did the Hawks have?

Last season, the Wizards averaged 93.7 possessions per 48 minutes. How many possessions did their opponents average in games against the Wizards?

This season, the Wizards are averaging (so far) 102.1 possessions per 48 minutes. How many possessions per 48 minutes have their opponents averaged in games against the Wizards?

The answer to all three questions is this: about the same as the number of possessions the Wizards got.

Since the number of possessions between two teams in a game are about the same (there can be a 1-2 possession difference based on end-of-period exchanges in a given game), what decides who wins is which team is more efficient with their possessions. IF teams are very close in efficiency, one team could win by having that possible 1-2 possession difference in their favor because of end-of-period exchanges.

There's a theory that a dominant team should play faster because more possessions gives it more chances to assert its dominance, reduce variance, and decrease the odds of a fluky result. I say "theory" because in the record of actual games and seasons played, good teams have played at every kind of pace -- fast, slow and in-between. The same is true of bad teams. This is because what causes teams to win and lose how effectively it uses its possessions vs. how the opponent uses theirs.

Which brings me back to the point I think I've repeated a number of times: playing fast isn't a useful goal, UNLESS it can help a team be more efficient on offense. A team should play at a pace where it can minimize turnovers, get good shoots, and get to the free throw line. If that's at a super-fast pace, then it should play super-fast. If it's slower-paced, then it should play at a slower-pace.

[tontoz]

Hump shouldn't be starting, I do think the numbers reflect that opinion

I think Hump can play the S4 role but he needs to be a more willing passer. As others have pointed out he has a slow release and it is easy to run him off the line. Then he takes a couple of dribbles and when a defender rotates to him he shoots a pullup j which is just what the defense wants.

The defense is out of position so if he would just pass the ball to someone with more skill, meaning anyone, they could take advantage of it.

[Dark Faze]

Porter/Dudley or Oubre/Porter SF/PF combo

if you're not willing to go with one of those options then you need to back to Nene starting at PF

[LyricalRico]

Porter/Dudley or Oubre/Porter SF/PF combo

if you're not willing to go with one of those options then you need to back to Nene starting at PF

I'm also starting wonder if Nene at PF helps Gortat in some way we couldn't previously quantify?

Starting PF aside, it seems the new style is really hurting Gortat. Certainly you could say he should be rebounding and defending no matter what the offense is, but he seems like a guy that needs to be involved in the offense to play up to his potential everywhere else.