Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
payitforward wrote:We are 35-46. Kyle Kuzma is one of the big reasons why we are so bad. The fact that the Wizards consider it important to re-sign him tells you more about how bad the team's FO is than just about any other fact.
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:The idea that Kuzma "developed" this year -- that he got better -- is completely ridiculous. It's amazing to me that anyone can think it. In fact, he wasn't good last year, & he got a whole lot worse this year.
Who is this post directed at? Who said Kuzma has improved this year?
leswizards wrote:payitforward wrote:We are 35-46. Kyle Kuzma is one of the big reasons why we are so bad. The fact that the Wizards consider it important to re-sign him tells you more about how bad the team's FO is than just about any other fact.
Kuzma was first in mpg and total minutes played. Wuj is directly responsible for that. Yet, if anyone criticizes wuj, you attack them and attempt to deconstruct their arguments. Wuj is a bigger problem than Kuzma was. But Kuzma was a huge problem too.
NatP4 wrote:leswizards wrote:payitforward wrote:We are 35-46. Kyle Kuzma is one of the big reasons why we are so bad. The fact that the Wizards consider it important to re-sign him tells you more about how bad the team's FO is than just about any other fact.
Kuzma was first in mpg and total minutes played. Wuj is directly responsible for that. Yet, if anyone criticizes wuj, you attack them and attempt to deconstruct their arguments. Wuj is a bigger problem than Kuzma was. But Kuzma was a huge problem too.
I’m the resident Kuzma hater, and not a big fan of WUJ, but I’m not sure we can really blame him too much for Kuzma’s playing time/usage. He had a choice of Rui/Kuzma/Gill/Todd at the 4 spot all year long. Eventually he decided to pivot to the Porzingis/Gafford lineup, which was a good choice.
He didn’t really have great options. I think it would be a similar result if you substituted any other coach in place of WUJ. The roster is mediocre
leswizards wrote:payitforward wrote:We are 35-46. Kyle Kuzma is one of the big reasons why we are so bad. The fact that the Wizards consider it important to re-sign him tells you more about how bad the team's FO is than just about any other fact.
Kuzma was first in mpg and total minutes played. Wuj is directly responsible for that. Yet, if anyone criticizes wuj, you attack them and attempt to deconstruct their arguments. Wuj is a bigger problem than Kuzma was. But Kuzma was a huge problem too.
leswizards wrote:Wuj only played Gafford 20.6 mpg while playing Kuzma 35 mpg. Neither Rui nor Deni are very good, but both are better than Kuzma. He also could have upped Gill and taj’s mpg. Again, not great players, but both are more productive than Kuzma. He had options but he went Kuzma.
payitforward wrote:leswizards wrote:Wuj only played Gafford 20.6 mpg while playing Kuzma 35 mpg. Neither Rui nor Deni are very good, but both are better than Kuzma. He also could have upped Gill and taj’s mpg. Again, not great players, but both are more productive than Kuzma. He had options but he went Kuzma.
Meh....
For one thing, Gafford has shown over 3 seasons that he's only capable of 20 minutes a game at full effort. Don't know why, but it's been true since he entered the league.
Taj is no better than Kuz at this point; maybe even a bit worse.
Gill had a career high in minutes. Yes, objectively, he's better than Kuzma -- but imagine what he would do to the usage levels of Beal, KP, et. al. You'd see declines in their efficiency for sure.
Point is that in the end this is on the FO. They supply the players. There wasn't a way to juggle this roster to produce more wins this season. What's needed is to change this roster.
If we see Kuzma return, it'll be even more obvious.
AFM wrote:That's hilarious. DC media is the softest in the country. Go play for the Knicks and see how it is.
payitforward wrote:The idea that Kuzma "developed" this year -- that he got better -- is completely ridiculous. It's amazing to me that anyone can think it. In fact, he wasn't good last year, & he got a whole lot worse this year.
Did he improve as a scorer this year? No, he got worse. Per 36 minutes he took 3.1 more shots & .2 more FTAs to produce 3.3 more points. His below average TS% of '21-22 went down. From "bad" he went to "worse." Guys who take a lot of shots at below average efficiency cause their teams to lose.
FAH1223 wrote:
Chaos Revenant wrote:payitforward wrote:The idea that Kuzma "developed" this year -- that he got better -- is completely ridiculous. It's amazing to me that anyone can think it. In fact, he wasn't good last year, & he got a whole lot worse this year.
Did he improve as a scorer this year? No, he got worse. Per 36 minutes he took 3.1 more shots & .2 more FTAs to produce 3.3 more points. His below average TS% of '21-22 went down. From "bad" he went to "worse." Guys who take a lot of shots at below average efficiency cause their teams to lose.
So the idea behind this, not that i agree with it (because I agree that Kyle Kuzma is a bad basketball player) is that efficiency, all things being equal, scales inversely with volume. So a player taking 3.1 more shots and essentially having the same efficiency as last year constitutes improvement as a basketball player.
Chaos Revenant wrote:...The presumption here is that yes, Kuzma takes a lot of shots at below average efficiency, but the shots that he takes would be replaced with even worse shots, because the players that would be taking those shots are either taking a ton of shots themselves (Beal and KP), or are even worse at creating shots (most of the rest of the roster). However, the counterfactual is that maybe this is just an assumption, and you would get more mileage out of, say, getting Daniel Gafford more shots (.739% TS), or creating more open 3s for Corey Kispert (.657% TS%), or even forcefeeding Beal and KP more (.593 and .627 TS% respectively), even if it seems that those routes have obvious downsides (Gafford and Kispert being worse at creating their own offense).
Chaos Revenant wrote:payitforward wrote:The idea that Kuzma "developed" this year -- that he got better -- is completely ridiculous. It's amazing to me that anyone can think it. In fact, he wasn't good last year, & he got a whole lot worse this year.
Did he improve as a scorer this year? No, he got worse. Per 36 minutes he took 3.1 more shots & .2 more FTAs to produce 3.3 more points. His below average TS% of '21-22 went down. From "bad" he went to "worse." Guys who take a lot of shots at below average efficiency cause their teams to lose.
So the idea behind this, not that i agree with it (because I agree that Kyle Kuzma is a bad basketball player) is that efficiency, all things being equal, scales inversely with volume. So a player taking 3.1 more shots and essentially having the same efficiency as last year constitutes improvement as a basketball player. However, this assumes that those shots can't be replaced at a higher efficiency than .547% TS%. The presumption here is that yes, Kuzma takes a lot of shots at below average efficiency, but the shots that he takes would be replaced with even worse shots, because the players that would be taking those shots are either taking a ton of shots themselves (Beal and KP), or are even worse at creating shots (most of the rest of the roster). However, the counterfactual is that maybe this is just an assumption, and you would get more mileage out of, say, getting Daniel Gafford more shots (.739% TS), or creating more open 3s for Corey Kispert (.657% TS%), or even forcefeeding Beal and KP more (.593 and .627 TS% respectively), even if it seems that those routes have obvious downsides (Gafford and Kispert being worse at creating their own offense).
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
TGW wrote:Uh oh...Wes Jr says he wants them to play "faster". Sounds familiar.
