Game Thread: WAS @ POR Tue Feb 8 10PM

[nate33]

What is wrong with Otto? Is he injured?

He has been dealing with a hip injury since January. It's definitely slowed him down a bit. He looked much quicker and more athletic in November and December.

[Throwback24]

What is wrong with Otto? Is he injured?

He has been dealing with a hip injury since January. It's definitely slowed him down a bit. He looked much quicker and more athletic in November and December.

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

[TheSecretWeapon]

What is wrong with Otto? Is he injured?

He has been dealing with a hip injury since January. It's definitely slowed him down a bit. He looked much quicker and more athletic in November and December.

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

[Throwback24]

He has been dealing with a hip injury since January. It's definitely slowed him down a bit. He looked much quicker and more athletic in November and December.

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

He hasn't played like it for quite a while which is why I'm asking.

Thanks anyway

[DCZards]

He has been dealing with a hip injury since January. It's definitely slowed him down a bit. He looked much quicker and more athletic in November and December.

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

If you want to compare the 93 minutes Anderson has played for the Wizards, then sure -- Anderson has played better. But, Anderson isn't likely to continue with an efg of .685 for much longer. By the end of the season, it'll be much more in line with how he's shot in the previous 6,293 minutes of his career: somewhere in the vicinity of 48-50% (efg). He's also probably not going to see his turnovers, rebounds and assists return to around career norms as well.

At career norms, Anderson rated well below average. So far this season, Porter rates solidly above average. Hench "much" better.

[Dark Faze]

Its not all about efficiency. Porter is such a non factor on offense most of the time.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Its not all about efficiency. Porter is such a non factor on offense most of the time.

Porter's usage rate is higher than Anderson's.

[payitforward]

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

If you want to compare the 93 minutes Anderson has played for the Wizards, then sure -- Anderson has played better. But, Anderson isn't likely to continue with an efg of .685 for much longer. By the end of the season, it'll be much more in line with how he's shot in the previous 6,293 minutes of his career: somewhere in the vicinity of 48-50% (efg). He's also probably not going to see his turnovers, rebounds and assists return to around career norms as well.

At career norms, Anderson rated well below average. So far this season, Porter rates solidly above average. Hench "much" better.

Yup

[payitforward]

I understand you guys are vying for a playoff spot but why not sit him out? You've got the luxury of playing Alan Anderson until he's 100% healthy.

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

I don't think it's even ambiguous: what are some things that would make Porter better than Anderson (that'd be Otto this year vs. Anderson last year - not his 93 minutes as a Wizard so far)?

If Otto scored more: check, he does
If Otto scored more efficiently: nope -- Alan Anderson had a bit higher TS% last year than Otto does this year
If Otto got more rebounds: check, he does (@ 40% more)
If Otto turned it over less: check, he does
If Otto got more steals: check, he does
If Otto fouled less: check, he does
If Otto blocked more shots: check, he does
If Otto got more assists: check, he does

Now... shooting efficiency is certainly important; but the difference isn't enough to make up for all the many things Otto does better than Alan did last year.

Of course, even though it's only 93 minutes, I can see why it's difficult not to be influenced by what Anderson's done in a few minutes this year. After all, I'm going to guess that, like most of us, Zards really hasn't had that much chance to pay attention to Anderson as a player over the years -- am I wrong about that, Zards?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

I don't think it's even ambiguous: what are some things that would make Porter better than Anderson (that'd be Otto this year vs. Anderson last year - not his 93 minutes as a Wizard so far)?

If Otto scored more: check, he does
If Otto scored more efficiently: nope -- Alan Anderson had a bit higher TS% last year than Otto does this year
If Otto got more rebounds: check, he does (@ 40% more)
If Otto turned it over less: check, he does
If Otto got more steals: check, he does
If Otto fouled less: check, he does
If Otto blocked more shots: check, he does
If Otto got more assists: check, he does

Now... shooting efficiency is certainly important; but the difference isn't enough to make up for all the many things Otto does better than Alan did last year.

Of course, even though it's only 93 minutes, I can see why it's difficult not to be influenced by what Anderson's done in a few minutes this year. After all, I'm going to guess that, like most of us, Zards really hasn't had that much chance to pay attention to Anderson as a player over the years -- am I wrong about that, Zards?

TheSecretWeapon, DCZards, and payitforward, I thought you guys knew by now ...



By Grunfeldian Logic, which is eerily similar to Boolean Algebra, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra, a player's merit comes from VETERAN status. If he's over 30 and a veteran, then he's an entity worthy of play and adulation. He's a ONE. Guys like Oubre, Portis, and Otto Porter rate ZERO. One is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS better than zero in Grunfeldian Logic. Any team's ONE is better than our zero to be draft picks for that matter.

Now, there's an interesting corollary at work with respect to Grunfeldian Logic. It's the Wittmanian Corollary. It calls for a coach to play veterans. Play rookies if and only if they're John Wall-approved jump shooters. (Because above all Wittman must appease John Wall!!!) Bradley Beal comes into play here. He plays.

Otherwise, Randy Wittman reinforces each and every brain fart of Ernie Grunfeld by IMMEDIATELY playing randomly acquired veterans or guys coming off injury MORE THAN TALENTED, YOUNG PLAYERS (zeroes in Witt's eyes, too, unfortunately). Dudes like Anderson, Dudley, and Morris would play more than Kawhi Leonard if he were on Porter's deal.

All these comparisons of who's better really don't matter.

ERNIE GONNA ERNIE. And then there's Wittman.

[DCZards]

A) Alan Anderson isn't 100%. He's still on a minutes restriction.

B) Porter is MUCH better than Anderson.

I disagree with B. I don't think Porter is MUCH better than Anderson...and at this point in their careers I'm not sure that Porter is even better than Anderson. I expect and hope that Porter will someday be MUCH better than Anderson.

If you want to compare the 93 minutes Anderson has played for the Wizards, then sure -- Anderson has played better. But, Anderson isn't likely to continue with an efg of .685 for much longer. By the end of the season, it'll be much more in line with how he's shot in the previous 6,293 minutes of his career: somewhere in the vicinity of 48-50% (efg). He's also probably not going to see his turnovers, rebounds and assists return to around career norms as well.

At career norms, Anderson rated well below average. So far this season, Porter rates solidly above average. Hench "much" better.

I'd love to see them utilize OP more....trust me on that.

I won't argue as to who is the better player statwise--Otto or Alan-- but a lot of what the Zards need right now on both ends of the court is best provided by AA, imo...including Anderson's experience and toughness.

And, after all, we only have AA's 93 minutes to go by right now ... and we agree he's played better than OP.

[DCZards]

Of course, even though it's only 93 minutes, I can see why it's difficult not to be influenced by what Anderson's done in a few minutes this year. After all, I'm going to guess that, like most of us, Zards really hasn't had that much chance to pay attention to Anderson as a player over the years -- am I wrong about that, Zards?

I'd like to see both OP and AA get quality minutes. Both are capable of helping the Zards win. For reasons that go beyond numbers. There is such a thing you know?