Question about young Wizards

[penbeast0]

How many current Wizards players were actually good draft picks for their spot over the last 3 years? I would check this by looking at the player picked and the 3 picked after him. If only none of those picked in the next 3 spots are better it was a great pick, if only 1 of the next 3 is better it was a good pick, if 2 then it was a bad pick, and if all 3 were better that player was a disastrous selection.

#2 Sarr
#6 Tre
#7 Bilal
---------
#14 Bub
#21 Riley
#24 Kyshawn
---------
#42 Vukcevic
#43 Watkins

[Dark Faze]

Sarr - Generally 1 or 2 in most redrafts.

Tre - You can make arguments for Egor, Fears, Queen, but I don't think it's definitive either way, so good pick so far.

Bilal - Keyonte George is clearly better, and I'd say Podz, Lively, and Jaime are better as well. But none other than Keyonte are so much better that it's worth losing sleep over. Keyonte went too late for him to be a realistic "miss" for the FO.

Bub - Kyshawn George (lol), Tristan Da Silva, Jaylon Tyson, Jared McCain, Kalel Ware. You could argue Bub over one or two guys there maybe. I wouldn't lose sleep over these yet, but would have certainly kept Deni...

Riley - Not gonna bother looking. Win.

Kyshawn - Win.

Not gonna look into the 40's for the other guys. Ultimately I'd say the FO has done a good job of maximizing value of the actual draft selections.

[closg00]

#2 Sarr - No-brainer
#6 Tre - Fears was my pick, Queen would have worked, but Tre is going to really good once he matures
#7 Bilal - Lively was my pick. Wizards made the same mistake at this pick as they did with the Johnny Davis vs Duren pick, afraid to pull someone up above where they were supposed to drafted. Today, I am not sure that Bilal will be more impactful than Lively, but they both are injury-prone right as they are about to break-through perhaps. Bilal and Lively may end up being equal in talent.
---------
#14 Bub - I wouldn't have done the trade for a guard, and I wrote that. Ware was who people who didn't support the trade discussed the most. I would not keep Bub given how tight rosters are, we need someone who get do a bit more at his slot.
#21 Riley -
#24 Kyshawn
---------
#42 Vukcevic - Fine pick at 42. Needs big man coaching badly, and only useful when he is hot from 3.
#43 Watkins It pained me that Maxime Reynaud went the pick before. I would have taken Rocco Zikarsky w/o hesitation, he would be getting more minutes than Watkins next-season, and going forward. Watkins is a fine pick at 43

[pcbothwel]

Picks range from Great (Sarr) to neutral (Bub).
Everyone is on the Kyshawn & Riley train, which is great... But im on the Bilal train. He's going to be a starting wing on a contender and a top 5 player in the 2023 draft class. LOCK HIM UP... He's my breakout candidate next year.

[payitforward]

It's way too early to make the judgment about these guys as players. As picks, otoh, it's a little different.

Bilal -- you can argue for Lively as a better pick, sure. But suggesting that a guy taken literally 10 spots later (Keyonte George) would have been a better pick is kind of silly.
Vukcevic was by no means a good pick. A whiff.
Sarr was clearly the right pick at #2; at least it sure looks that way.
Bub was an excellent pick at 16; he's going to turn out to be an excellent player despite his being in all your doghouses right now. OTOH, this question is unrelated to any question about the trade that landed us the pick we used on him.
Ky was clearly a good pick.
It's too early to make a call on Tre -- even tho so many here would like to declare victory.
Will & Jamir both look really promising!

[payitforward]

Anyone you think has drafted better overall Will in these last 3 drafts?

Which seems like a more important question. I can't come up with anyone who's been overall better.

[nuposse04]

It's way too early to make the judgment about these guys as players. As picks, otoh, it's a little different.

Bilal -- you can argue for Lively as a better pick, sure. But suggesting that a guy taken literally 10 spots later (Keyonte George) would have been a better pick is kind of silly.
Vukcevic was by no means a good pick. A whiff.
Sarr was clearly the right pick at #2; at least it sure looks that way.
Bub was an excellent pick at 16; he's going to turn out to be an excellent player despite his being in all your doghouses right now. OTOH, this question is unrelated to any question about the trade that landed us the pick we used on him.
Ky was clearly a good pick.
It's too early to make a call on Tre -- even tho so many here would like to declare victory.
Will & Jamir both look really promising!

I think it was fine to draft Bub...to say he will be an excellent player doesn't seem to based in evidence/reality so far.

Of the young guys we have drafted I'd say him, Vuc and Jamir will be the least coveted. If Jamir can get any semblance of a jumpshot, i'd love to keep him around. His defense is great.

[payitforward]

You are certainly free to question whether Bub will develop -- not my job to stop you!

OTOH, as I have pointed out, he had a better rookie year than Tre is having, & -- like it or not -- his overall numbers this year are also better than Tre's. Yet, I read no critiques of Tre here.

When Tre plays badly, he's "hit a rookie wall." I never read that remark even a single time about Bub last year -- tho Bub was a younger rookie even than Tre.

Now... that's fine too! No big deal. Fans get to like whoever they like, obviously. But, Bub absolutely lit it up last night, right? & when I see a player do that, why... I realize he's *capable of doing that!* Hence, my optimism about the kid gets some support.

I'm hopeful of seeing Tre do something that gives me solid reason to be optimistic about him! Don't get me wrong -- I'm not predicting failure for a young kid who just turned 20...! That would be silly, wouldn't it?

Yes it would -- & it's also silly about the 20-year-old with a neighboring locker -- i.e. Bub.

[leswizards]

You are certainly free to question whether Bub will develop -- not my job to stop you!

OTOH, as I have pointed out, he had a better rookie year than Tre is having, & -- like it or not -- his overall numbers this year are also better than Tre's. Yet, I read no critiques of Tre here.

When Tre plays badly, he's "hit a rookie wall." I never read that remark even a single time about Bub last year -- tho Bub was a younger rookie even than Tre.

Now... that's fine too! No big deal. Fans get to like whoever they like, obviously. But, Bub absolutely lit it up last night, right? & when I see a player do that, why... I realize he's *capable of doing that!* Hence, my optimism about the kid gets some support.

I'm hopeful of seeing Tre do something that gives me solid reason to be optimistic about him! Don't get me wrong -- I'm not predicting failure for a young kid who just turned 20...! That would be silly, wouldn't it?

Yes it would -- & it's also silly about the 20-year-old with a neighboring locker -- i.e. Bub.

A is better than B, ergo A is good.

Is not necessarily logically the same thing as:

A is better than B, ergo B is bad.

Since in this case the data lead you to believe that A (in this case Bub) is better than B (ie, Tre), and from that you have concluded logically the first statement, when very well you might should have logically derived the latter statement.

[payitforward]

For starters, "A is better than B" does not imply "A is good." Nor does it imply "B is bad."

In fact, it doesn't "imply" anything. "Ergo" nothing.

Nor did I say that Bub is a better player than Tre (indeed, what I said was that it was way too early to make a final call on either guy). Nor did I suggest that Bub's numbers are/were good: in fact, I said the opposite, that up to now both these guys have been bad. Which does not prevent Bub's numbers from being the better of the two.

What I actually did:

1. I made a judgment: "Bub was an excellent pick at 16"
and
2. I made a prediction: "he's going to turn out to be an excellent player...."

The two are not related in the slightest. A guy can be "an excellent pick" & not work out as an excellent player. Equally, a guy can be a non-optimal pick or even a bad one for where he was taken, & turn out to be an excellent player all the same: life is like that sometimes.

Obviously, of course, what you'd like is to make an excellent pick & also have the guy turn out to be an excellent player.

Equally obvious is the fact that if you make a non-optimal pick, you'd still like the guy to become an excellent player all the same. I.e. even if you weren't smart, you can still hope to get lucky.

In the case of Tre too, btw, there's good reason to think he was the right pick at 6. I have never denied that.

[willbcocks]

When Tre plays badly, he's "hit a rookie wall." I never read that remark even a single time about Bub last year -- tho Bub was a younger rookie even than Tre.

Bub didn't hit the wall last year. His stats were fairly similar year round, or he even played better towards the end of the year. Then he started this year off looking totally lost, shooting terrible from 2 point range, turning the ball over a lot, not getting ot the line, not playing D (but actually shooting really well from 3 point range!). So in terms of performance, there's probably some recency bias at play, but also some legitimate questions about a lack of improvement.

Tre on the other hand was shooting above 40% from three -- and on a lot of long or difficult threes -- at the end of december, plus 90% plus from the free throw line. After the all star break he's been at 31% from 3, lower percentages from two, and worse from the free throw line. Steals are down, assist/turnover down. So that's why we say he's hit the wall. His performance had been pretty good for a rookie at the end of december--now it's not.

Beyond the stats, we're also assessing skills and position and projecting because these guys are so young. Tre's percentages earler in the year before the "wall" were marksman, defense-bending level. He was also showing signs of a handle and ability to finish in the lane and midrange. So we can project, if he puts in the time and effort to develop, an archetype of a very valuable player.

Bub was solid enough in year one, but his skills package doesn't fit as neatly into a valuable archetype, especially not a starting player archetype. He's also taken a step back in year two in terms of performance. That's why people are down on him.

Tre's like Coulibaly--he has a clear archetype, but if his performance next year and the year after stall, we'll probably be down on him too.

[nuposse04]

Tre has had his own issues this season, and their roles are quite different. That said, save for assists which I would expect Bub to be better, Bub did nothing else in his rookie year that was particularly impressive. I assume you still live and breathe by WP so his rebounding numbers are what excite you about him. I will say, I do wish Tre brought more in that regard, he's too eager to leak out, probably because of his scoring mentality. What tre does afford, is way better gravity, teams actually pay attention to him.

Bub has improved certain things, but he's allergic to the paint for some reason this season, and plays hot potato quite a bit (his clock awareness seems pretty poor at times). I can live with some offensive incompetence which he has basically exuded most of the year...but his defense hasn't been exactly pleasant to watch. That and he cannot consistently run a pick n roll effectively (if there is data to refute this, I'd like to see it but all his pocket passes seem like an adventure).

I'd like him to do well, seems like a good kid...but to project someone will turn into an excellent player when they have had two objectively **** seasons... well...that seems optimistic. I hope he has a good summer, cause lord knows we need some competent guard play. That or he will end up in China.

[payitforward]

Both perfectly sensible posts. That said, the overall fact remains: to this point, neither Bub nor Tre has been anything close to good overall, but Bub's numbers (both last year & this) are better than Tre's.

That last point is fact, but I'm not suggesting it means much -- instead I'm using it as a rhetorical tool to disrupt a seemingly automatic ("groupthink") string of remarks in Tre's favor. I don't *want* Tre to play badly any more than I want Bub (or any Wizard) to do so.

But I also don't want to extend a combative thread about things that, in truth, we can't really assess yet. Peace!

[nate33]

That said, the overall fact remains: to this point, neither Bub nor Tre has been anything close to good overall, but Bub's numbers (both last year & this) are better than Tre's.

That last point is fact, but I'm not suggesting it means much -- instead I'm using it as a rhetorical tool to disrupt a seemingly automatic ("groupthink") string of remarks in Tre's favor.

It’s not a “fact” and it’s irritating as hell that you keep framing these debates this way. It is merely an opinion that you have formulated because you favor one specific method for analyzing player statistics. That method is not the only method, and it’s not even a very well adopted method by most advanced stat nerds.

You would get into a lot less arguments if you would stop framing things this way, but you can’t see seem to do it. You sure as hell aren’t convincing anybody of anything by insisting every one of your analyses is based on fact, implying that everybody else is a clueless idiot who knows nothing about the NBA.

[penbeast0]

Let me put in the reasonable comps, ie. the next 3 guys drafted so we can see how they are doing relative to their peers. I will also put in this year's win shares (there may be better measures but it's a first cut). One huge advantage our players have had is that they were all given a lot of opportunity to show what they can do so far; one reason I have been so supportive of the Dawkins/Keefe years.

#2 Sarr 2.0 -- Reed Sheppard 4.3, Stephon Castle 4.6, Ron Holland 2.5, Sarr looks bad through this lens (though the other 3 are guards)
#6 Tre -0.3 -- Fears 0.0, Egor Demin 0.9, Collin Murray-Boyles 3.1, Tre not shooting that well and not developing at anything else
#7 Bilal 0.9-- Jarace Walker 0.2, Taylor Hendricks 1.0, Cason Wallace 4.4, Wallace the clear best pick so far
---------
#14 Bub -0.2 -- Ke'lel Ware 5.5, Jared McCain 1.2, Dalton Knecht 0.3, Bub has been pretty awful
#21 Riley 0.4 -- Drake Powell 0.0, Asa Newell 1.0, Nique Clifford -0.4, As expected, Riley looks decent though Newell has looked better
#24 Kyshawn 0.8 -- Pacome Dadiet 0.2, Dillon Jones 0.1, Terrance Shannon 0.3, As expected this pick looks good
---------
#42 Vukcevic 0.6 -- Rayan Rupert 0.5, Sidy Cissoko 1.2, GG Jackson 1.2 Two players clearly doing more, bad pick
#43 Watkins 0.7 -- Brooks Barnhizer 0.4, Rocco Zikarsky 0.1, Amari Williams 0.2 Doing more than the other 2nds picked just after him, despite his shot not being great

Looking at them by a numerical measure (and understanding the weakness of the numerical measure and that this doesn't account for age and ceiling), the young talent doesn't look nearly as strong as we here in the Wizards' development bubble would hope.

Sarr looks like an NBA player but not as good as those picked just after him, Bilal hasn't developed into a NBA caliber rotation guy yet, and Tre has not developed at all this year. Those are our top prospects.

Bub has been a bust this year, George looked good but still has big decision making issues (fouls, turnovers, shot selection), Riley has shown some offensive skills but not consistency. Those are our mid to late round picks.

Watkins has shown signs while the guys picked after him have shown little, but two of the 3 guys picked after Vukevic have developed into NBA rotation players despite being second round picks. That's our 2nd round.

Our guys have gotten minutes and opportunities they might not have gotten elsewhere but statistically by WS, they are not looking like the Dawkins draft team is above average. On the flip side, being in a tanking atmosphere with poor PG and team defensive play may be retarding some of our guys from developing.

The verdict I would say is still out. I just think we tend to overrate our own young guys a bit here on this board.

[penbeast0]

Here's the team we would have if we had foreknowledge (and were drafting for WS):

Reed Sheppard (Trae Young)
Cason Wallace/Jamir Watkins
Kyshawn George/GG Jackson
Collin Murray-Boyles/Asa Newell
Ke'lel Ware (Anthony Davis)

[montestewart]

That said, the overall fact remains: to this point, neither Bub nor Tre has been anything close to good overall, but Bub's numbers (both last year & this) are better than Tre's.

That last point is fact, but I'm not suggesting it means much -- instead I'm using it as a rhetorical tool to disrupt a seemingly automatic ("groupthink") string of remarks in Tre's favor.

It’s not a “fact” and it’s irritating as hell that you keep framing these debates this way. It is merely an opinion that you have formulated because you favor one specific method for analyzing player statistics. That method is not the only method, and it’s not even a very well adopted method by most advanced stat nerds.

You would get into a lot less arguments if you would stop framing things this way, but you can’t see seem to do it. You sure as hell aren’t convincing anybody of anything by insisting every one of your analyses is based on fact, implying that everybody else is a clueless idiot who knows nothing about the NBA.

One reason I've loved this board for so long is the breadth of perspective here, Wizards-centric but looking beyond my own team. Most people here love statistics in some way, and I started with baseball statistics in the early 70s, using Street and Smith's as a baseline to create my own baseball game with player probability profiles and dice rolls to determine outcomes (and my engineer parents helping me with the math). The Baseball Encyclopedia, and later Bill James' Baseball Abstracts showed me how primitive my approach was.

I was already somewhat aware of advanced basketball stats before I got to RealGM, but here I got a crash course not only in the breadth of advanced stats but in the breadth of approaches in interpreting the stats and persuading using these stats. Nate, PIF, Doc, and many others (including Nivek), both here and on the General and Player Comparison boards, have greatly expanded my appreciation and understanding of these stats, and I appreciate the time and the brains behind these analyses.

I have greatly appreciated the patient explanations and illustrations of positions, as well as concessions that there is room for argument, differing opinions, and blind spots, much more than the "I'm right, you're wrong" style arguments. The latter approach may somewhere possess inarguable facts, but without the accompaniment of illuminating persuasion, such a position has no wings with which to fly into the face of contrary thinking. Kapow!

[payitforward]

That said, the overall fact remains: to this point, neither Bub nor Tre has been anything close to good overall, but Bub's numbers (both last year & this) are better than Tre's.

That last point is fact, but I'm not suggesting it means much -- instead I'm using it as a rhetorical tool to disrupt a seemingly automatic ("groupthink") string of remarks in Tre's favor.

It’s not a “fact” and it’s irritating as hell that you keep framing these debates this way. It is merely an opinion that you have formulated because you favor one specific method for analyzing player statistics. That method is not the only method, and it’s not even a very well adopted method by most advanced stat nerds....

I'm not in the business of irritating anybody, nate, & certainly not you: you've got lots of proof from me that I have a high opinion of you & your thinking.

As to "one specific method for analyzing... statistics" I'm not even sure how much "analyzing" I'm doing.

it's an fact, one that cannot be denied, that a) number of possessions (i.e. chances to score) and b) scoring efficiency (measured by TS%) account for the result of every single game. 100%. & all the games to come, for that matter. That's not "analysis." & I didn't make it up either!

All I'm doing is looking at the contribution of a given player to that team-level result: how efficiently does a given player score & at what volume, and how many possessions do they add overall.

It's obvious that there is much to discover beneath those numbers, & there's a world of stats offered (too often, alas, w/o the info necessary to understand how they are compiled) that seek to or, or claim to, reveal those secrets.

But none of them would suggest that TS% is anything but an important metric of a player, or that above average efficiency isn't made more significant by increased usage, or that gaining/losing possessions isn't one also.

You would get into a lot less arguments if you would stop framing things this way, but you can’t see seem to do it. You sure as hell aren’t convincing anybody of anything by insisting every one of your analyses is based on fact, implying that everybody else is a clueless idiot who knows nothing about the NBA.

I didn't create this argument, you did. & I don't think anyone here is a clueless idiot -- I'm pretty sure I respond respectfully to others' posts; I certainly try to.

All I did was point out that there was no reason to come to judgment on either of these 20-year old kids so early in their nba careers, even though neither of them has yet established himself in the league. If I gave the impression of saying anything more or anything other than the above, I'll be happy to apologize. But I can't find it.

What I don't understand is why you found this so troubling; I would have imagined you thought more or less the same thing! Am I wrong? Do you think that one of these kids has established himself as a good NBA player? If so, please explain.

[tontoz]

That said, the overall fact remains: to this point, neither Bub nor Tre has been anything close to good overall, but Bub's numbers (both last year & this) are better than Tre's.

That last point is fact, but I'm not suggesting it means much -- instead I'm using it as a rhetorical tool to disrupt a seemingly automatic ("groupthink") string of remarks in Tre's favor.

It’s not a “fact” and it’s irritating as hell that you keep framing these debates this way. It is merely an opinion that you have formulated because you favor one specific method for analyzing player statistics. That method is not the only method, and it’s not even a very well adopted method by most advanced stat nerds.

You would get into a lot less arguments if you would stop framing things this way, but you can’t see seem to do it. You sure as hell aren’t convincing anybody of anything by insisting every one of your analyses is based on fact, implying that everybody else is a clueless idiot who knows nothing about the NBA.

Exactly. Tre scores 50% more points per 36 than Bub did last year, with a higher TS, but somehow Bub was the better player because he got .8 more rebounds. Cool story bro.

The wizards have been 8 pts per 100 worse with Bub in the floor both seasons, but slightly better with Tre.

There is a reason I put him on ignore years ago.

[nate33]

All I did was point out that there was no reason to come to judgment on either of these 20-year old kids so early in their nba careers, even though neither of them has yet established himself in the league. If I gave the impression of saying anything more or anything other than the above, I'll be happy to apologize. But I can't find it.

This is the other infuriating technique you use. You make bold, condescending statements like “it’s a fact that Bub Carrington has better numbers than Tre Johnson” and then when called on it, you backpedal and say, “All I did was point out that there was no reason to come to judgment on either of these 20-year old kids so early in their nba careers”.

That’s not all you did. You informed the rest of us that Carrington is better than Tre as if it’s an irrefutable fact.

I recently gave you several reasons why that may not be the case, using multiple advanced summary metrics. You dismissed them all with the wave of your hand. Only you know the facts. Everyone else merely has misguided delusions.

I’m phone posting right now so I don’t want to take the time to explain why wins produced is not the end all and be all of advanced statistics. We’ve had this argument many times in the past, and I dare say I have come out on top on most of them. The last time we had this argument, wins produced had Brandon Clark, Robert Williams and Delon Wright as 3 of the best 10 players in the NBA.