payitforward wrote::) You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo! As evidenced in your notion that we might "prove to be formidable."
PIF... Im really confused about your position on Wall/Beal. Assuming Wall is healthy (no reason not to given the videos we've seen for what will be a year by the time the season starts), how would you compare Wall/Beal 16-17 to Wall/ Beal 20-21?
Let's see if I understand your question. Are you asking whether, assuming Wall is healthy, I think he'll be as good as he was in 2016-17?
He might be. He was younger then, of course. & he was in his 6th season -- a fairly typical career-point for a player to peak. He's older now. He's 30. &, whether a player recovers from an injury fully or not, injuries still take their toll. Do 30-year old players coming off of 2+ years lost in their careers usually return right at their peak? I can't think of one that did.
OTOH, of course he still might! But, it's not something I'd be willing to bet on -- tho I hope he does!
Of course you might mean something diffferent -- e.g. by this...
pcbothwel wrote:I.E. If you took Wall/Beal today and put them on the 16-17 team that won 49 games, how does that fall out to you?
...you might mean to ask whether Beal at his current level & Wall at his peak, combined w/ the guys we have on the team now, would make us a 49-win team again. Or, perhaps you really mean, "wouldn't that make us an even better team than 16-17?
The last two years we've been a 30 win team. Thus, essentially, you are asking whether adding back John Wall can create 19 more wins.
No, my friend, there is no chance of that whatever. In 16-17, Wall played 2800 minutes & was all on his own responsible for about 12 of our wins. This year, in about 2800 combined minutes, Ish, Payton & Shabazz accounted for something like 5 of our wins. Take them away & substitute peak John Wall & it looks like we are @ 7 wins to the good.
Of course, this is really abstract. It's hard to really know how close that is to true. But you can't just issue some kind of statement out of nowhere. You do have to use something to think about this stuff. & you do have to account for the fact that a team of average players, an average team, wins 41 games. I.e. it's not only really good players like John who account for wins. Better players just account for more of them.
Not to mention that you find it easy to ignore the incredible year Otto Porter had in 16-17. He -- not John & not Brad -- was the single largest contributor to our success. Every 16 possessions he used produced 20 points, plus he rebounded exceptionally well, stole the ball a lot, & basically never committed a turnover! (Of course, this will be denied: it always is -- but, it's true all the same)
pcbothwel wrote:Obviously, we have no idea and its all projection, but I Personally think its close to a wash given how much better/more dynamic Beal is. In fact, It could be better if Wall is actually better (By better, I mean better use of possessions due to less shots and smarter ones while Beal gets the attention.. similar to CP3, George Hill, Lowry, etc.)
As I wrote: "You have an admirably un-dentable belief in the "Wall-Beal" combo!" It's like the rest of the team doesn't exist. It doesn't even occur to you that it might matter whether Troy Brown continues to improve or whether Rui Hachimura actually plays anywhere near the level of an average NBA player. Or, whether we happen to come out of the draft with someone who is good immediately. Or, whether Bonga builds on a really terrific first season. Or anything about Thomas Bryant. Or whether re-signing Bertans might have any effect at all on the team (positive or negative). No mention of any of that -- it's all just John Wall & Brad Beal.
It really is kind of amazing -- & I am sincere in calling it "admirable." Now... if you were the Wizards GM it wouldn't be admirable (tho it'd be even more amazing). But, you're a fan. Your reserves of optimism are totally special!
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.