Official 2023 Wizards OFFSEASON Thread

[payitforward]

This is all well and good, PIF. But when your formula ends up with you concluding/declaring that DeAndre Jordan had a better season than KP, then there is something very, very wrong with it.

Nah.
My little roll up doesn't say who had "a better season," it says what guys did in the time they were on the floor. Period.

It doesn't have a voice. It doesn't have an opinion. But it also doesn't lie. What numbers mean always requires interpretation.

Jordan didn't play a whole lot, being in his 15th season. & I have no idea what situations got him minutes. But, looking at his numbers just now, I see that he posted a .77 FG%, which is kind of great for a guy in his 15th year, wouldn't you agree? On top of which, for every 3 shots he missed he got 4 offensive rebounds!

Guy's at the end of a great career.

[nate33]

What I do know is that it produces results that very much jibe with how smart GM's, front offices, and media guys rank players....

Not as a challenge, but... how do you know that? I.e. where do you come by the knowledge.

Because the rate at which players make All-Star Games and All-NBA teams (decided by coaches, media and players) is very much in lockstep with the ratings of EPM. Likewise, the guys at the top of the EPM list make max money, and the guys at the bottom of the list make the vet minimum.

[Silvie Lysandra]

Meh. EPM says Kuzma was better than Delon Wright.

Also has Luka Garza over Quickley, Sabonis, Middleton, Anthony Edwards, Jalen Brunson, Jamal Murray, and Michael Porter Jr.

Luka Garza played 243 minutes. No system can be very accurate on a sample size that small. Statistically, the guy was awesome. The dude averaged 27 points and 9 boards per 36 on a 65% TS%.

And Kuzma over Wright is exactly the type of thing that EPM gets right. I love Wright and think he is underrated, and I agree that Kuzma gets overrated by a lot of regular fans, but I guarantee you if both guys were available in an expansion draft and they had the exact same salary, Kuzma would be taken over Wright by every GM in the league.

The thing with Kuzma is that he'd probably be a really good player per minute at like 15-18% usage. Basically someone who can come in and create offense off the bench with/against backups (being able to create offense, even inefficiently, is better than not being able to create it at all, and we have a lot of guys who can't create their own offense). And a 6-9 1-5 switchable wing player with above average overall D is one of the most valuable "types" if not the most valuable in the NBA. Unfortunately, he's a 28% usage guy, so he's actively making your team worse at that level of usage.

He's an ideal 4th-6th man on a contender, but he thinks he's a star and that's the problem.

with that said, if you replaced Antwan Jamison with him on the Arenas Wizards, they probably are a consistent 50 win team.

[payitforward]

Why in the world has Brandon Clarke played just 1090 minutes? He's the 5th best player in the league and his idiot coach won't play him? ...

Awwww nate... never did I take you for a mean guy! Poor Brandon Clarke tore his Achilles in early March, but you want to rake him over the coals?


If you recall the '19 draft, I wanted to trade down with Boston -- our 9 for their 20 & 22. Right?

Of course, no one knows whether that would have been possible. But, if the trade had been made, it would have gotten us either Brandon Clarke along with Grant Williams or Clarke plus Keldon Johnson & either Daniel Gafford or Cody Martin or Bol Bol. (I assume I don't need to spin out the details...).

Would that have been a good trade, nate? Cuz that's as far as anything "real" goes.
I.e. the above was definitely what I would have tried to do.

Here's another question: why are you picking a fight with me? Did I call you out for a message board tussle? I don't think so.

...Why isn't Walker Kessler on the Mr. Rushmore of greatest rookies of all time? The guy is basically Bill Russell in his first year, yet nobody has heard of him and Utah only played him 1700 minutes. ...

What!!??!! He's not? Wait, let me go look....
I sent out a drone, & the report is that they're carving him now!

More seriously, you don't question whether 1700+ minutes is a lot of minutes for a rookie taken #22 in the draft, do you? Kessler played more than Jalen Duren, Jeremy Sochan, Dyson Daniels, Johnny Davis, Ousmane Dieng, AJ Griffin, Mark Williams, Ochai Ogbaji, Dalen Terry, & Christian Braun -- all of whom were taken before him. In fact, he played more minutes than 7 of the 14 lottery picks.

Per 40 minutes, the kid averaged over 15 rebounds & @4 blocked shots. Didn't do much shooting, but at least they went in: he posted a .702 TS%.

Seems kinda mean-spirited to criticize Walker Kessler just b/c you feel like giving me a hard time!

...look at Memphis! They have the greatest front line of all time that would put the 86 Celtics to shame! I mean, Xavier Tillman, Brandon Clarke and Steven Adams! What a trio? Oh wait. You're telling me that 2 of those guys come off the bench? And they also have 2 OTHER All-Stars (Morant and JJJ) but only managed 51 wins?...

To be serious for a minute (it won't last, I promise), it's definitely interesting how hard it is to keep improving. The Grizz won 33 games in '18-19, 1 more game than the Wizards. Then they installed a new FO & proceeded to blow up.

Yes, they were helped hugely by having the #2 pick in the 2019 draft. Yet, how often does that fuel the kind of jumps they made in the next 3 seasons? Not very. Now they seem to have hit a real rough patch. It'll be interesting to see how they manage things going forward.

...And I hope Jarred Vanderbilt never gets tired of carrying that scrub Lebron James through the playoffs....

Oh nate... do you have any idea how much money the Vanderbilts have?

...just perhaps, you need to re-evaluate the way you look at things and stop being so smug when someone has the temerity to argue that Porzingis is better than Walker Kessler and Nikola Vucevic.

It's always good to re-evaluate the way one looks at things. & -- take me seriously here -- I don't mind when someone points out my flaws; I've got plenty of them (many are a lot more significant than my flaws as a basketball "analyst"!!).

Nor am I too old to learn.* Of course, as the saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." I would have no trouble suggesting some areas where you too might "re-evaluate the way you look at things."

As to the 2 guys you mention: Walker Kessler is a rookie. He's not "better" or "worse" than anyone, but he did have a good rookie season. He rebounded extremely well, he posted a .701 TS%, & he blocked 173 shots in 1700 minutes! No reason to take any of that away from him. OTOH, Vucevic has been in the league since 2011. His best years are behind him, for sure, but he's had a good career.

As to the Wizards, here's a serious issue I'd love for you to take on: obviously, a team's record reflects how its players perform on the court. Now, some of that performance, good or bad, may reflect either good or bad ways the coach utilizes the player -- but, still, it's what happens on the court, what the players do, in 82 games that produces the team's record. Given where you rank KP (@24th to 28th best among the 450+ players in the league) & Beal (@ 40th best in the league if I remember rightly; otherwise, please correct me), how should one explain the Wizards 35-47 record?


* Recently, I got interested in why the single-currency "Euro" experiment has failed so badly. So I'm in the middle of this 700+ page book: https://www.amazon.com/EuroTragedy-Drama-Nine-Ashoka-Mody/dp/0199351384/

A couple of years, as it became clear that the enlightenment & its values was under serious attack, I decided to learn more about how it developed in the first place & read https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Enlightenment-Philosophy-Modernity-1650-1750/dp/0199254567/

[payitforward]

What I do know is that it produces results that very much jibe with how smart GM's, front offices, and media guys rank players....

Not as a challenge, but... how do you know that? I.e. where do you come by the knowledge.

Because the rate at which players make All-Star Games and All-NBA teams (decided by coaches, media and players) is very much in lockstep with the ratings of EPM. Likewise, the guys at the top of the EPM list make max money, and the guys at the bottom of the list make the vet minimum.

Ok ok ok -- hey, I just thought you might have some site in mind where the subject of who's using what methodologies w/in Front Offices was beig discussed!

For a front office, I imagine the value of epm has little to do with the fact that they can use it to get a good idea of who the 10 (or even 20 or 50) best players are in the league.

Instead, I would guess that when they have player decisions in-house, draft decisions, or trade assessments to make, then methodologies like epm can be extremely informative. & I would be kind of surprised if any team that uses epm doesn't also assess these situations using other analytical frameworks as well -- looking, for example, for cases where they agree. But, also investigating cases where they disagree both to learn why & to be able to take a backward look at cases to see what turned out to be a valuable tool in what kind of situation.

[payitforward]

What happens when you roll out a lineup of 5 players who "can't get his own shot"?

What happens when the guy who "can get his own shot" shoots a low percentage?

When that's your roster, rebuild.

But... look, of course it's an overstatement to say "get his own shot" is a myth. I know that! I'm just reacting to the tendency to view basketball -- the game with a constantly-moing ball & both the most, & most interesting, interactions & interdependencies among players -- as if it could be reduced to that.

On occasions, sure. Say, tonight, if you have Jimmy Butler. But, that's not what you build to reach.

[9 and 20]

Quick question to maybe settle this and to put in a Wizards context - who is better between Porzingis and Gafford? Anyone that answers Gafford is wrong and a nerd.

Separately, I hope the Knicks get bounced soon. Beal-Randle-Brunson makes too much sense. Add in Mitchell Robinson and one more guy and that's a pretty good team. Fits in with the Knicks of the 90's, kind of a half court, bruising kind of team. I'd take more or less whatever the Knicks want to give - Toppin, I guess, so we relive the Rui/Deni/Kuzma drama because wasn't that fun.

We got Kwame Brown last time there was a major, non-Grunfeld jr, change in the GM. Hopefully we get the number one pick again this year and the new kid comes over with the cake obsession. All will then be forgiven with the Terd, even if I'm sure he will make some gloating, really hard to swallow comments if we do win the lottery.

[GoneShammGone]

Quick question to maybe settle this and to put in a Wizards context - who is better between Porzingis and Gafford? Anyone that answers Gafford is wrong and a nerd.

I realize this isn't your point, but it does bother me when people compare these two guys like its an either/or. They can play together! The great part about Porzingis is that he can work outside the paint, and do a reasonable job guarding fours on the perimeter. The Wizards were way better when they played these two guys at the same time. I want to see more!

(And yes I think KP is better... but I'm still a nerd.)

[nate33]

As to the Wizards, here's a serious issue I'd love for you to take on: obviously, a team's record reflects how its players perform on the court. Now, some of that performance, good or bad, may reflect either good or bad ways the coach utilizes the player -- but, still, it's what happens on the court, what the players do, in 82 games that produces the team's record. Given where you rank KP (@24th to 28th best among the 450+ players in the league) & Beal (@ 40th best in the league if I remember rightly; otherwise, please correct me), how should one explain the Wizards 35-47 record?

It's not difficult at all.

There are 5 starters on each team, and 30 teams in the league, so, in a simplistic model, one would expect the top 150 players in the league to be starting. For argument's sake, let's assume a hypothetical player distribution as follows: the best player on each team is a top 30 player; the 2nd best player on each team ranks somewhere in the 31-60 range; the 3rd best player would rank in the 61-90 range, etc.

In that scenario, the best team in the league might have the 1st, 31st, 61st, 91st and 121st best players in the league as their starting lineup. They might not have those exact rankings, maybe they have the 60th best guy as their #2 player and the 92nd best guy as their #3, but on average, it looks something like that.

Likewise, the mid-tier team with a 41-41 record might have the 15th best player, the 45th best player, the 75th best player, the 105th best player and the 135th best player. You get the idea.

The Wizards were the 23rd best team in the league going by SRS (strength adjusted point differential). So in this model, I would expect our best player to be the 23rd best player in the league. Our 2nd best guy would be 53rd, our 3rd best is 83rd, etc.

Well, I think Porzingis is right around 23rd, maybe a little lower in the 24-28 range, but thereabouts. Beal is probably a bit better than 53rd. EPM has him 41st, so let's go with that. Our 3rd best guy, Kuzma, ranks 74th by EPM, which has him 9 slots better than what one would expect from the 3rd best guy on the 23rd best team in the league. We can see why Ted calls them the Big Three. They're actually pretty respectable relative to the league. The 26th, 41st and 74th best players should form a top 3 core good enough to be 17th best team in the league - an 8th/9th seed.

The problem like Dat2U pointed out several pages ago, is the depth. There is a huge gap behind our Big Three. Our 4th best starter, Gafford, ranks 135th by EPM. An average team's 4th and 5th best starter should rank 105th. Essentially, we don't have a 4th starter. We have a 5th starter masquerading as a 4th starter. That weakness is enough to pull down what should be a roughly league average team based on our top 3 guys. Morris ranks 142nd by EPM which is back in line with what one would expect from a 5th best starter.

Now factor that our 2nd best player missed almost half the season and our record is explained perfectly. I'll add that our bench is horrible by EPM. Wright is good (95th by EPM) but he played just 1200 minutes. The rest of our bench is really bad. Goodwin ranks 220 by EPM (played 1100 minutes). Avdija is 257th (played 2000 minutes), and Kispert is 293rd (played 2100 minutes).

[NatP4]

That’s not a big 3.

According to EPM, Cleveland has 3 guys in the top 38. Boston has 3 guys in the top 46. Knicks have 3 guys in the top 54, and 5 in the top 63. Milwaukee has 3 guys in the top 36. Toronto has 3 guys in the top 53. Philly has 3 in the top 57. Brooklyn is complicated, but of course KD&Kyrie are highly ranked, but so are Bridges, Johnson Claxton, Dinwiddie. All above Kuzma. Chicago has Lavine/Caruso/Derozan.

So out of the top 10 seeds in the East, the only two teams that do not have 3 guys ranked higher than Kuzma, are Miami and Atlanta.

If you swap out Kuzma with someone like Jarrett Allen/Brook Lopez/Nic Claxton/Steven Adams, then you have an actual big 3, and a playoff team.

Paying the 74th best player in the league 100 million is just idiotic.

[gesa2]

To add to Nate’s post, which I think is very accurate - the most important player ranking is your #1 player. It’s very hard to be a great team without one player that’s at least close to all NBA. And Porzingas’ season while much better than we expected, doesn’t come close to that. The 28th best #1 player doesn’t usually lead you to the playoffs.

[nate33]

That’s not a big 3.

According to EPM, Cleveland has 3 guys in the top 38. Boston has 3 guys in the top 46. Knicks have 3 guys in the top 54, and 5 in the top 63. Milwaukee has 3 guys in the top 36. Toronto has 3 guys in the top 53. Philly has 3 in the top 57. Brooklyn is complicated, but of course KD&Kyrie are highly ranked, but so are Bridges, Johnson Claxton, Dinwiddie. All above Kuzma. Chicago has Lavine/Caruso/Derozan.

So out of the top 10 seeds in the East, the only two teams that do not have 3 guys ranked higher than Kuzma, are Miami and Atlanta.

If you swap out Kuzma with someone like Jarrett Allen/Brook Lopez/Nic Claxton/Steven Adams, then you have an actual big 3, and a playoff team.

Paying the 74th best player in the league 100 million is just idiotic.

You are right. I didn't mean to imply that they were a big three capable of leading a team to success. They are a Mid-Three who are collectively a slightly above-average top 3 trio. Those guys, plus some decent depth wouldn't mean a championship. It would merely make us an average .500 team. They are a big three relative to the weakness of the rest of the roster, but not a Big Three in terms of being 3 actual stars. The real problem is, they are paid as if they are a true Big Three, which makes it all but impossible to build good depth around them.

I'm not arguing in favor of the Porzingis, Beal, Kuzma trio. I'm just explaining how it's possible to have Porzingis and Beal be top 30 and top 40-ish players respectively while still not being very successful overall.

[gesa2]

We are going to be mediocre until we get a tent pole star. Beal and Zinger are when at their best, fair #2s or 3s. True title contenders need even more than that. It’s really simple and most of us agree on this - we need to luck into a top 15 player or rebuild. Anything else is a repeat of the last 5 years, doomed to mediocrity as consigliere’s post describes

[NatP4]

To add to Nate’s post, which I think is very accurate - the most important player ranking is your #1 player. It’s very hard to be a great team without one player that’s at least close to all NBA. And Porzingas’ season while much better than we expected, doesn’t come close to that. The 28th best #1 player doesn’t usually lead you to the playoffs.

Pretty simple here, take the average ranking of the top 3 players from each team in the East.

Philly: 17
Milwaukee: 9.6
Boston: 13.6
Cleveland: 12.3
Toronto: 18.3
Knicks: 22.6
Brooklyn: 20

Chicago: 24.3
Washington: 23.3
Atlanta: 39
Miami: 29

Sure, the Wizards have a play-in level big 3, when healthy.

[Frichuela]

We are going to be mediocre until we get a tent pole star. Beal and Zinger are when at their best, fair #2s or 3s. True title contenders need even more than that. It’s really simple and most of us agree on this - we need to luck into a top 15 player or rebuild. Anything else is a repeat of the last 5 years, doomed to mediocrity as consigliere’s post describes

Hence our only realistic chance is to get lucky in this upcoming draft lottery, jump to a top 4 pick and pray to the basketball gods that we made the right pick of a future top 15 player….

[NatP4]

Average ranking of the top 2 players on each team in the East:

Philly: 3.5
Boston: 8.5
Cleveland: 9
Milwaukee: 6
New York: 20
Brooklyn: 14.5
Chicago: 22
Washington: 14.5
Atlanta: 31
Toronto: 14

Little better, still around the play in level big 2.

Porzingis ranks 7th in the East. Better than Cleveland, New York, Toronto, Brooklyn, Atlanta, and Chicago’s best player.

[DCZards]

Good stuff Nate & Nat.

[bsilver]

To add to Nate’s post, which I think is very accurate - the most important player ranking is your #1 player. It’s very hard to be a great team without one player that’s at least close to all NBA. And Porzingas’ season while much better than we expected, doesn’t come close to that. The 28th best #1 player doesn’t usually lead you to the playoffs.

Pretty simple here, take the average ranking of the top 3 players from each team in the East.

Philly: 17
Milwaukee: 9.6
Boston: 13.6
Cleveland: 12.3
Toronto: 18.3
Knicks: 22.6
Brooklyn: 20

Chicago: 24.3
Washington: 23.3
Atlanta: 39
Miami: 29

Sure, the Wizards have a play-in level big 3, when healthy.

Please explain how you came up with these #s. Probably me, but I'm not seeing it.

[NatP4]

We are going to be mediocre until we get a tent pole star. Beal and Zinger are when at their best, fair #2s or 3s. True title contenders need even more than that. It’s really simple and most of us agree on this - we need to luck into a top 15 player or rebuild. Anything else is a repeat of the last 5 years, doomed to mediocrity as consigliere’s post describes

Hence our only realistic chance is to get lucky in this upcoming draft lottery, jump to a top 4 pick and pray to the basketball gods that we made the right pick of a future top 15 player….

I’m somewhat hoping to land at 4 and take Ausar(if we don’t land 1 obviously). Then simply let Kuzma walk.

If Beal stays healthy, that’s a playoff team in my view. Not a mediocre play-in team, one of the actual top 5-6 teams. Healthy motivated Beal, alongside another player that can break down the defense and handle the ball, can still probably be a top 30-40 player in the league.

Think Ausar can be every bit as good as a SGA type of player.

[NatP4]

To add to Nate’s post, which I think is very accurate - the most important player ranking is your #1 player. It’s very hard to be a great team without one player that’s at least close to all NBA. And Porzingas’ season while much better than we expected, doesn’t come close to that. The 28th best #1 player doesn’t usually lead you to the playoffs.

Pretty simple here, take the average ranking of the top 3 players from each team in the East.

Philly: 17
Milwaukee: 9.6
Boston: 13.6
Cleveland: 12.3
Toronto: 18.3
Knicks: 22.6
Brooklyn: 20

Chicago: 24.3
Washington: 23.3
Atlanta: 39
Miami: 29

Sure, the Wizards have a play-in level big 3, when healthy.

Please explain how you came up with these #s. Probably me, but I'm not seeing it.

I just took the average ranking(in the East) of the top 3 players from each of the listed teams, according to the metric that Nate has been using, EPM.