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.