Deni Avdija

[dobrojim]

Meant to put this in the offseason plan thread

#sowizards is perfect for this time of year when we see multiple teams assemble rosters
that produce wins in some cases by spinning straw into gold. It's not all that unusual for
teams still playing to have one or more players that we could have gotten, yeah hindsight
is 20/20 but there are definitely examples of teams that evaluate and recruit talent
much better than we do. Ownership/management ought to really think about why this is.
No one thinks it's easy. But almost no one thinks they shouldn't do better. It's not just
bad luck that it happens repeatedly.

[Dolevi]

That is pretty much where I am at... Deni improved but not to the level that I would have hoped.

Seems like every year one of our offseason "hopes" is that one of the youngsters breaks through. Given that we are a bad team, I would hope we would have plenty of players with the potential.

Code: Select all

Isaiah Todd      20
Deni Avdija      21
Vernon Carey     21
Corey Kispert    23
Daniel Gafford   23
Rui Hachimura    24

I have no hope for Todd or Carey and Hachimura is getting to the end of the period where potentially will have a large jump. So, of course we are hoping for Deni to be the one to make the jump.

#sowizards

Okay but you need as a team to give him the ball to run plays not just when it's garbage. Maybe if KCP Neto and Ish will stop with their **** game and you will have more ball movement in the team, he can make the jump. You can't ignore the situation and the USG%. Deni needs not just to be given a lot of minutes (25-30+ MPG), but also needed to be used right in offense, that's something else which we haven't seen yet when we're competitive. He won't make any jump unless his USG% will go up (together with P&R actions as a Ball Handler). We all agree that 3&D isn't his type of game, so if you wanna see what he's capable of, you need at least to try and give him a real chance. His role gotta get bigger.. Let's see what will happen next season, how the rotation will be, the players, the roles. Let's see.

[dckingsfan]

That is pretty much where I am at... Deni improved but not to the level that I would have hoped.

Seems like every year one of our offseason "hopes" is that one of the youngsters breaks through. Given that we are a bad team, I would hope we would have plenty of players with the potential.

Code: Select all

Isaiah Todd      20
Deni Avdija      21
Vernon Carey     21
Corey Kispert    23
Daniel Gafford   23
Rui Hachimura    24

I have no hope for Todd or Carey and Hachimura is getting to the end of the period where potentially will have a large jump. So, of course we are hoping for Deni to be the one to make the jump.

#sowizards

Okay but you need as a team to give him the ball to run plays not just when it's garbage. Maybe if KCP Neto and Ish will stop with their **** game and you will have more ball movement in the team, he can make the jump. You can't ignore the situation and the USG%. Deni needs not just to be given a lot of minutes (25-30+ MPG), but also needed to be used right in offense, that's something else which we haven't seen yet when we're competitive. He won't make any jump unless his USG% will go up (together with P&R actions as a Ball Handler). We all agree that 3&D isn't his type of game, so if you wanna see what he's capable of, you need at least to try and give him a real chance. His role gotta get bigger.. Let's see what will happen next season, how the rotation will be, the players, the roles. Let's see.

You make good points, but...

Deni had lots of shot opportunities that he didn't convert both at the three point line and little bunnies. He made some progress with his shot but not a jump.

And his usage did go up to 16% from 12% and that led to a higher assist/TO ratio - good for him but his handles limited his effectiveness as a shot creator.

His defense was really solid at the beginning of the year but as the year progressed and as he put more effort into the offensive side of the ball (and was scouted on D) his effectiveness dropped.

Yes, his role need to change, but... he can improve substantially even without the role change and he needs to do so in a big way.

[payitforward]

Of course, there's no way to calculate YODA for Deni -- the formula uses college numbers.

Note as well that it makes no adjustment for strength of college schedule.

Still it can be useful for comparing guys who play more or less the same strength of schedule (same conference, etc.) & all the more so if you happen to be looking at two guys on the same team.

Especially if they play the same or similar positions -- i.e. it'd be to decide between picking the PG of a team vs. the team's C simply by comparing their YODA numbers, because, in general, bigs always put up better raw numbers, shoot far higher FG%s, etc.

More useful to compare a couple of guards or a couple of forwards.

PPA and YODA are obviously different tools. YODA attempts to be predictive of what to expect going forward.
PPA is descriptive of present level of performance.

No. That's flat out incorrect.

YODA is a simple weighted average of box-score stats. The only difference it can have from any other weighted average -- e.g. PER -- is to give various stats slightly different weights from the weight given by the other one.

As such, all it can do is give players a number that says how good the player has been in the past, up to now. I.e. it is "descriptive of present level of performance."

The only sense in which YODA can be seen as predictive is the common-sense (& usually correct) one that the guy who got more rebounds this season is more likely to get more rebounds next season than the guy who got fewer rebounds this season. Ditto for higher FT% or anything else.

& the same for negative stats. The guy who turned it over more this season is likely to turn it over more next season than the guy who turned it over less this season.

Exactly how Kevin calculates PPA I don't know, but I do know that, like YODA, it's a weighted average of box score stats.

I like Kevin, but he's no better at weighting box score stats than anyone else. You weight them based on statistical regressions that establish, at least to some degree, their relationship to something positive -- wins would seem to make the most sense. After that, it's basically just doing arithmetic.

PPA also includes a position adjustment of some kind -- how else can you determine who's "better" between two guys who play altogether different positions that produce altogether different mixes of stats?

Is there some other "secret sauce" involved? Ala the "Raptor," "Lebron," etc. mystery meat nonsense? I doubt it -- Kevin's not a statistician. Basically, he's a fan & a writer.

[payitforward]

I think Kevin's YODA prospect analyzer does adjust for height relative to their likely NBA position.

No. Here's the YODA formula:

Per 40 minutes,

1. add up:
total points scored by the player
.3 x the player's defensive rebounds
.7 x the player's offensive rebounds
the player's steals
.5 x the player's assists + blocks
-- That gives you a first number.

2. Now, add up:
.7 x missed field goals by the player
made field goals by the player
the player's turnovers
.5 x the total of the player's free throw attempts + fouls
-- Which gives you a second number.

3. Subtract the second number from the first number. The result is the player's YODA.

Love it when you are definitively wrong

The base formula can be simplified to: points + 0.3 x defensive rebounds + 0.7 x offensive rebounds + steals + 0.5 x (assists + blocks) - 0.7 x field goals missed - field goals made - turnovers - 0.5 x (free throw attempts + fouls). Additional steps include accounting for age, level of competition, position and physical attributes such as length and athleticism. All inputs come from publicly available information.

Good job leaving out the part where I wrote that you could only use the calculated YODA number to compare guys at the same position.

As to the rest, what do you imagine "accounting for age" can possibly mean? You give the guy an extra rebound if he's young, cuz you feel sure he'll get more next year? Ridiculous.

I like Kevin; he's smart & seems to be a nice guy. But you know what happens in Kevin's life if he's wrong when he says player A is better than player B?

I do:

Spoiler:

Nothing happens. Absolutely nothing. Just like you, doc, & just like me. Which is why there's no reason to take his analyses any more seriously than either of ours.

[payitforward]

Love it when you are definitively wrong

The base formula can be simplified to: points + 0.3 x defensive rebounds + 0.7 x offensive rebounds + steals + 0.5 x (assists + blocks) - 0.7 x field goals missed - field goals made - turnovers - 0.5 x (free throw attempts + fouls). Additional steps include accounting for age, level of competition, position and physical attributes such as length and athleticism. All inputs come from publicly available information.

PIFsplaining to me something that WizardsKev and I discussed when he was generating the concept. IIRC I was the one who suggested he analyze the player relative to the biggest position they would probably play in the NBA. He agreed and came up with a correction.I think I also suggested he look at player's age, since successful younger players tend to have a higher ceiling the earlier they show that success. But I read that in a paper so that is someone else's brainstorm. (This was back when Kev was active on the APBRMetrics.org nerd stat bball board I think).

Let me respond a little more clearly & directly, doc:

You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

You don't have the actual data sets, or any real tools (statistical, historical, mathematical), or the nth part of the training required to take on any task of this nature. Best part is that you as much as blurt it out all on your own: thus, if a younger player who performs at X level is to be rated higher than a slightly older one who performs at the same level, we must assume that a younger player who performs at X level will predictably perform at an X+ level when he reaches that second guy's age.

Please demonstrate. Don't forget to account for the young guys who, for whatever reason, are worse when slightly older.

When I say demonstrate, btw, i mean show me some real work -- some real math run against some real data tables. & I mean done by you. Not pick-an-expert stuff.

You can't do it, can you? In fact, you won't even admit that fact. You won't respond at all to the substance of the request b/c you are unable to. Instead you'll figure out a way to get a mocking slant.

You & I have known each other a long time now, doc. Fond as I am of you, I assume the same from you. So don't take umbrage, just be real.

Oh... 1 basic point behind all this: Kevin Broom is a journalist, & he's damx good at that! He has a consistent & I think intelligent POV. I read him regularly & I usually agree with him (must be why I think his POV is intelligent, huh?).

But, that's got nothing whatever to do with the question at hand. Kevin Broom possesses no intellectual property whatever. Nor is that an insult -- not at all! It's just a fact.

[payitforward]

Love it when you are definitively wrong
....

From the article you quote above:

"As usual, YODA disagrees with where some of the players appear to be ranked. For example, Anthony Edwards, who may be selected as high as second, ranks 10th in YODA. Meanwhile, Nate Hinton, who’s expected to be available in the second round — and who could go undrafted — ranks sixth.

"On Hinton, I did a ton of extra research, looking for a reason to downgrade him. Ultimately, I didn’t find it. He reminds me of other players who rated well in YODA, fell to the second round and went on to be productive professionals — players like Jae Crowder, Danny Green and Will Barton."

You will remember that I was a big fan of Hinton -- pretty sure you were too.

But, nothing could demonstrate more persuasively than the above sentences the difference between a journalist with an opinion (Kevin) & an analyst offering a result you can actually calculate on.

Nate Hinton was on a 2-way contract with Indiana this season. Would you rather have had him in there vs. Memphis the other night in place of Anthony Edwards? Hmmm, would you have? The guy who ranked 6th in draft potential according to Yoda?

On top of which, in his 2d para above, Kevin proceeds to commit the single most obvious error in thinking about a prospect that you can possibly make: the "he reminds me of..." some other time when I was right error.

Interesting to hear that Danny Green "rated well in YODA," btw. Danny was drafted in 2009. Feel free to point me to a reference to YODA in the Spring of 2009.

[dobrojim]

YODA = Ye Olde Draft Analyzer and is designed to rate potential draft picks based
on college statistics as well as physical attributes and age.

So it's whole purpose seems to me to be predictive. How good a draft prospect
is college player X?

[payitforward]

YODA = Ye Olde Draft Analyzer and is designed to rate potential draft picks based
on college statistics as well as physical attributes and age.

So it's whole purpose seems to me to be predictive. How good a draft prospect
is college player X?

Absolutely -- on the well known, & usually correct hypothesis that the past is the best predictor of the future. The best player today is likely to be the best player tomorrow.

Note that the language is "rate potential draft picks" -- who's best, 2d best, etc.

But, there is no real contradiction here; it's just ordinary words. When we say, "in the draft, it's good to take the bpa," we are saying "best player available," but it's no different from saying "guy we think is most likely to succeed at the highest level."

Not really different if we make a trade. We want the guy who we think will be the best, so we look for the best guy.

[dckingsfan]

When picking a player in the draft or analyzing Deni as a player (for example) we essentially use retrospective analysis (what the player did).

I don't see to much predictive analysis - or possibly I am looking in the wrong place. For example: this would be a set of retrospective data. Would we then assume we should see a smooth curve improvement?

Code: Select all

Season   Age   MP     PER      TS%   AST%   TOV%   DRB%    STL%   BLK%   USG%   WS/48   VORP
2020      20   1257    7.6   0.515    6.3    9.0   20.2    1.2    1.0    12.0   0.046   -0.4
2021      21   1984   11.6   0.536   11.8   12.0   20.5    1.5    1.9    16.3   0.058    0.1
2021      22   1984   15.6   0.557   17.3   15.0   20.8    1.8    2.8    20.6   0.070    0.6

Hardly, we see jumps, right. Then again, maybe we don't.

So, I see retrospective analysis as valuable when picking a player or deciding if to trade a player.

But since this is the Deni thread, how does Wiz management do predictive analysis to see if they should keep Deni (or any other player for that matter).

[doclinkin]

No. Here's the YODA formula:

Love it when you are definitively wrong

The base formula can be simplified to: points + 0.3 x defensive rebounds + 0.7 x offensive rebounds + steals + 0.5 x (assists + blocks) - 0.7 x field goals missed - field goals made - turnovers - 0.5 x (free throw attempts + fouls). Additional steps include accounting for age, level of competition, position and physical attributes such as length and athleticism. All inputs come from publicly available information.

Good job leaving out the part where I wrote that you could only use the calculated YODA number to compare guys at the same position.

As to the rest, what do you imagine "accounting for age" can possibly mean? You give the guy an extra rebound if he's young, cuz you feel sure he'll get more next year? Ridiculous.

Ha! A triple response! I knew if I poked long enough you'd finally respond to me quoting you by re-quoting me.

Though my posts tend to be too long to quote anyway .

The point of Kev's YODA formula was to try to guess which players you should draft, and rank them. It starts with the base formula, which then provides comparison of like players (size, age, strength of schedule, anthropometrics) to statistical averages and 'doppleganger' players (historically similar players).

If you have a PG who posts a significantly higher score than other PGs, you rank him higher than a player who scores better by the formula but whose own score is not greater than others at his own position. If you have a PG +5 you take him over a PF +1 even if the big guy will pull down more boards etc. It's not that hard.

Likewise statistical analysis showed that certain anthropometric measurements within a certain range seemed to be a baseline for a player's career. These too vary by position. Standing Reach for instance matters more than Height (and more than wingspan or Max Reach even), this is magnified in certain positions. Below a 9' standing reach you tend not to succeed at Center, if I remember it right. In this case, by my reckoning, it has more to do with minimum measurements than superior ones. (Wages of Wins loved Joey Dorsey, his sub 9' standing reach suggested he'd struggle as a Center, and I knew the Calipari DDM offense tends to inflate rebounding stats for bigs.)

What was interesting was to see that some of the measurements they used to do had a negative correlation with NBA success. Bench Press for instance. (Kevin Durant couldn't even push the 120lb bar once, longer arms have less leverage to shove the iron around).

Shuttle run and standing reach are the two that I look for with Bigs and forwards. In wing players and guards I do look at the max reach and standing jump as well. Basically everybody is trying to get to the same place: a circle 10 feet above the ground. Whatever makes it easier to get there, or easier to stop a guy from doing so, helps.

It was from these sorts of conversations (here and on APBR) that piece by piece WizKev/TheSecretWeapon/Nivek/Kev Broom assembled both YODA and PPA, on the boards. I am digging but can't find the thread on basketball and statistics where these things were discussed. Though they came up in a few threads.

Feel free to search all 17,000 posts

I did find the Draft Threads from that year.

Part 1
Part 2

Also this:

Remember, the "underrated" list Berri generated for his Wages of Wins blog is simply a comparison of other metrics to his own (Wins Produced). It's also not a measure of who's actually "good" -- it's a calculation of the biggest gap between a player's ranking using other measures and the player's ranking using Wins Produced. There's nothing wrong with the methodology -- so long as you accept the assumption that Wins Produced is a better metric than PER, NBA Efficiency, or scoring.

It just amused me that you were speaking so assertively on exactly what YODA is and is not when I was here when it was built. And had a small influence on since I tended to feed Kev my questions based on my own perceptions. I freely admit my google fu is stronger than my willingness to plod through the math. In the era of the internet it is only smart to defer to the collective intelligence. No matter how smart you are, there is someone out there who is specialized in that field and has put in years of work on it. The trick is finding the right one. I didn't have to find Kev. He was here when I showed up, I just got to feed him nuggets to see what he would do with it. Kev would actually show the rigor to put them in his spreadsheets. Right, I contributed none of the math. Just some questions and insight. I posed a few theories, batted ideas around, Kev did the proofs. Which is why this amused me greatly:

You don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

If we are talking about YODA, I do. But go ahead, feel free to instruct me on my own history. PIFsplain me something else why dontcha.

As for this:

Oh... 1 basic point behind all this: Kevin Broom is a journalist

Technically at the time he was a journalist by hobby. Ditto statistician. By income he was a PR flack for the RV industry. Not sure what he does now for $$ But:

But you know what happens in Kevin's life if he's wrong when he says player A is better than player B?

Many of the folks on the APBR message board (Association of Professional Basketball Researchers) ended up with jobs in front offices. Dean Oliver. A few others. Daryl Morey I think was on there. I forget who. I'm biased of course, but Kev should have been hired by the Wiz. He had contacts in the front office, I know he reached out, but he had been too accurate in his assessment of both Ernie and Ted. He was advocating for stats early on and was sneered at by the "eye test" types. Eventually they hired some "+/-" would be stat gurus, whose methodology Kev was not a fan of I think. (Though that might have been an argument between a couple of the other stat nerds on that board).

Every camp has their own pet stats. And I suppose their own pet Nerds. I like Kev's because I know the guy. We traded emails back and forth on script writing. He tugged my sleeve to a script editing program, he wrote in my fiction thread. Good times, good times. Sad that he quit realgm, I believe over some political disagreements. Shrug. But then I miss jmrosenth and pineappleheadindc and barelyawake and Induveca and fishercob and many others. They just have better things to do with their time than you and I do.

As for age in BBall players. My belief was that teams would do better to select productive upperclassmen since they waste less time developing during their rookie contract. And that you could get good value from picking players who showed a track record of improvement, often available later in the 1st/early 2nd round. I forget where Kev was on the issue. I was intrigued to find a paper presented at the Sloan MIT conference that suggested the opposite. Leastwise if you are looking to steal a potential HOF/MVP/All-star player outside of the lottery, look for players who're productive as freshmen. The superstars tend to show their skills early. Upside is real, but it can't be raw potential, has to show up in the box scores. Still, in that respect if you have a freshman who is rebounding worse than a senior, but is close and is otherwise a good player, you pick the freshman.

I suppose it is axiomatic though since the study was of NBA players, when they plateaued, and how many all-star selections they made etc. In the NBA few players entered the league directly from high school. If they did, they were clearly already damn good. Players like Kobe, LeBron, and KG skew the charts. Overseas players like Luka and Ricky Rubio were running teams at age 16. Stef Curry destroyed Georgetown as a freshman. Still, the question is, if you are looking for the next Giannis, get a young pup who is putting up decent numbers. Then pray they have the work ethic to live up to that talent I suppose.

In any case, given the work of others on the issue (better than me who will never publish a paper for MIT-SLoan, nor will you I expect, though I will not be surprised if Kev does some day) it seems reasonable to try to build that into a metric if you are trying to create a predictive statistical Holy Grail and analyze the future based on past patterns. To weight production by age and see if that helps you pick a long term winner.

[payitforward]

Joey Dorsey was the best basketball player named Dorsey since Jimmy Dorsey.

No tool is determinative, that must be obvious -- what a horrible world if any of them was.

I'm sure Kev has been right about draft picks many times. I know I have been. & so have you. & wrong as well.

Rui's YODA number was 10.75 -- just the calculated part.
Brandon Clarke's YODA number was 17.

Of course once you adjust for size, length, etc. it's obvious how much better a prospect Rui must be. Right?

[doclinkin]

Joey Dorsey was the best basketball player named Dorsey since Jimmy Dorsey.

No tool is determinative, that must be obvious -- what a horrible world if any of them was.

I'm sure Kev has been right about draft picks many times. I know I have been. & so have you. & wrong as well.

Rui's YODA number was 10.75 -- just the calculated part.
Brandon Clarke's YODA number was 17.

Of course once you adjust for size, length, etc. it's obvious how much better a prospect Rui must be. Right?

Kev/YODA liked Rui at #9 over Jackson Hayes and Sekou Douboya. Which has proven out. But suggested trading down for Brandon Clarke as possible better value if the team was willing to take a gamble.

Who should the Wizards draft, considering YODA?
The expert consensus is that the Wizards will choose either Texas big man Jaxson Hayes or French forward Sekou Doumbouya. Reports over the past few days indicate interim team president and the Wizards braintrust have a strong interest in North Carolina point guard Coby White, but they would likely need to trade up to the fifth or sixth pick to get him.

According to my analysis in YODA, neither Hayes nor Doumbouya should be the pick at nine, and trading up for White might be too pricey — especially for a team as resource-starved as the Wizards.

White is a good prospect who will probably be a good NBA player. Players most like him from previous drafts include Jamal Murray. But, Washington has so few marketable assets they would likely need to send the ninth pick plus a future first to get him, and that’s too much.

Hayes is a decent prospect who blocked shots, generated steals and converted around the basket. But, his rebounding was poor for a center, he’s not much of a passer (which also raises questions about his defense — research shows that for bigs, assists are an indicator of defense), he’s foul prone (5.7 fouls per 40 minutes), and he has little shooting ability away from the rim (zero three-point attempts). In many ways, the Wizards already have a talent like this in Thomas Bryant, if they re-sign him. Except, Bryant has a jump shot out to the three-point line.

The appeal of Doumbouya is his size and athleticism. He didn’t grade as a top 10 pick in YODA, however, because of subpar three-point shooting, elevated turnovers on a low usage rate, excessive fouling, and an overall lack of production. Doumbouya may become a good pro, but analytically, his 2018-19 season was lackluster. His profile isn’t one that usually indicates a high level of NBA success.

The Wizards may be wise to trade down, perhaps with Boston (picks 14, 20 and 22), Philadelphia (24, 33 and 34), San Antonio (19 and 29), Detroit (15 and 30) or Brooklyn (17 and 31). With some combination of those picks, Washington could take prospects likely to become rotation players at reasonable prices.

If they stay at nine, my analysis suggests they’d be better off selecting Gonzaga forward Rui Hachimura (outstanding shooter who can fill the much-coveted stretch-four role) or Georgian center Goga Bitadze (quality scorer inside with a knack for getting to the free throw line, and a good shot blocker — although foul prone).

Players from previous drafts most similar to Hachimura and Bitadze suggest a solid starter or high-minute bench player rather than a star, but that’s okay at nine. The same is true of most other players likely to be available at that spot...unless the Wizards are willing to accept considerable risk.

If the Wizards are able to trade down (or are willing to accept risk), they could consider players such as:

Brandon Clarke, F/C, Gonzaga — One of the strangest players I’ve analyzed. He has a center’s game, but in a body that’s about the size of a typical NBA shooting guard. Despite a smaller stature and short arms (for a basketball player), Clarke was wildly productive — second in the draft class in blocks per 40 minutes, and second in combined rebounds, steals and blocks per 40. The statistical production, which includes converting on 71% of his two-point attempts is at least in part due to his elite athletic ability. Somehow, with shooting guard size, he averaged 4.5 blocks per 40 minutes. And his production wasn’t a one-year fluke — he performed similarly (though not as well overall) in his two seasons at San Jose State. It’s an open question whether he can translate anything resembling his collegiate production into the NBA. The Wizards should not consider taking him ninth (unless they’re willing to accept that risk I mentioned), but if they can land a pick in the late teens or twenties, he’s a tantalizing prospect. Players from previous drafts most similar to Clarke include top five picks, several of which have been All-Stars or near All-NBA level. However, each of those players was a size appropriate to his NBA position.

But yeah, probably those YODA stats are not worth paying attention to.

Oh hell, this is the Deni thread, not the Rui thread or stat analysis thread. Here is what YODA said about Deni:

9. Deni Avdija, F, International — Promising forward whose shooting is suspect. The Wizards could do worse if he’s available at 9, though drafting him would likely necessitate trades. He’s probably a minimum of two seasons from being a contributor.

[badinage]

“Shooting is suspect”: that was true.

“Probably a minimum of two seasons from being a contributor”: that was not true; far from true. He earned major minutes as a starter in his first season. And — after returning from a devastating leg injury that curtailed his first season, he rehabbed, worked hard, and ended up playing all 82 games — something no one else on the team did, and only 4 other players in the league did; and not only played, but played big minutes; and turned himself into a very good defensive player (by at least one advanced metric, he ranked as the 4th best wing defender in the league), while also growing other parts of his game.

And the shooting is progressing — both from the FT line and from 3.

Hard to predict who will put in the work. Who will have the want-to. Who will accept coaching and ask for more. Who will hustle his axx of. Who will be an immensely likable teammate.

[dobrojim]

I think we would be more honest with ourselves if instead of a flat out statement that Deni
IS a very good defensive player we said he has shown signs he could become a good defensive player.

[badinage]

It’s not opinion. It’s borne out by stats.

As for being more honest with ourselves — I mean, if I were to do that, I wouldn’t watch this team or pay it any mind. I certainly wouldn’t come on a board like this.

[dobrojim]

Okay, I'll correct myself and agree with the following quote from Kev's season summary on Deni

The defense part of PPA sees Avdija as a good but not elite defender. This matches with both watching him play and with conversations I’ve had with assistant coaches and front office personnel around the league. As Avdija played more, the scouting reports reflected what folks who watch the Wizards play frequently observed: he doesn’t go for fakes, and he’s big, physical and moves his feet well, but he can be attacked with quick and decisive moves. And he’s prone to fouling.

A couple assistant coaches said they knew immediately if their players paid attention to the scouting report late in the season by how they attacked Avdija. The assistant coaches I talked with also said Avdija seemed relatively easy to frustrate — being called for fouls, teammates blowing assignments, his own mistakes, or simply being beaten by a good opponent seemed to get in his head. They said they were reaching this view by his on-court body language and behavior on the bench when he came out of a game.

[badinage]

Sure. I understand. He has weaknesses. He’s 21.

And I also understand that he will still have weaknesses at 27. Because he’s not Kobe or Lebron.

The vast majority of players in the league are flawed. Even very good players.

[dckingsfan]

Shouldn't the question be - given where Deni is - where do we think he will go in the next two years?

1) Will he improve his ball handling to be a true secondary initiator of the offense?
2) Will he improve his shooting to help stretch the defense?
3) Will he get better at finishing?

4) Will he continue to improve as a defender reducing the silly fouls and getting frustrated?

And that against the other forwards on the team.

[CntOutSmrtCrazy]

Okay, I'll correct myself and agree with the following quote from Kev's season summary on Deni

The defense part of PPA sees Avdija as a good but not elite defender. This matches with both watching him play and with conversations I’ve had with assistant coaches and front office personnel around the league. As Avdija played more, the scouting reports reflected what folks who watch the Wizards play frequently observed: he doesn’t go for fakes, and he’s big, physical and moves his feet well, but he can be attacked with quick and decisive moves. And he’s prone to fouling.

A couple assistant coaches said they knew immediately if their players paid attention to the scouting report late in the season by how they attacked Avdija. The assistant coaches I talked with also said Avdija seemed relatively easy to frustrate — being called for fouls, teammates blowing assignments, his own mistakes, or simply being beaten by a good opponent seemed to get in his head. They said they were reaching this view by his on-court body language and behavior on the bench when he came out of a game.

I think this a fair quote. With that said, I don’t think many have said Deni is consistently an elite defender at this point. He has well documented occurrences throughout the season were he has shown flashes of being an elite defensive player, but not for long enough stretches for you to believe “he’s totally got it,” not yet at least. He’s consistently been good though on a team that most of the veterans have either dogged it or have been turnstiles on defense.

I don’t think any of those flaws mentioned -complaining about fouls, frustration over teammates defensive efforts, making mistakes himself, and other mental miscues- are really all that damning or will hinder his ability to further improve on that end, and frankly you’d surmise would work themselves out with further maturation. Also, if you care a lick about playing defense and have ever played basketball when others are unwilling to even try, you’d understand his frustration too. That to me is more damning to the coaching staff and other players as we witnessed all season.