Official 2023 Wizards OFFSEASON Thread

[DCZards]

Other than that, we have a steadily declining asset in Beal, a multiple team cast-off in KP, & a few journeyman types. We are certainly not heading upwards, & in fact it's likely we keep heading down for some years to come.

Cast off? Seems like you never miss an opportunity to disparage KP. What’s up with that?

[payitforward]

Other than that, we have a steadily declining asset in Beal, a multiple team cast-off in KP, & a few journeyman types. We are certainly not heading upwards, & in fact it's likely we keep heading down for some years to come.

Cast off? Seems like you never miss an opportunity to disparage KP. What’s up with that?

Fair question. & the answer isn't far to seek: I'm over-reacting to the idea that at the deadline last year, somehow against all logic we acquired "a star" in return for a basket of spare parts.

We went 35-47 in '21-22. This year, w/ KP, we went 35-47 again. IOW, we are going nowhere. If anything (especially if we really do keep kuz for "a bag"), you can expect us to slide further, to become a 20-something win team.

Nonetheless, I can/should moderate my rhetoric. Especially since, in fact, I *like* KP.

[nate33]

Other than that, we have a steadily declining asset in Beal, a multiple team cast-off in KP, & a few journeyman types. We are certainly not heading upwards, & in fact it's likely we keep heading down for some years to come.

Cast off? Seems like you never miss an opportunity to disparage KP. What’s up with that?

Fair question. & the answer isn't far to seek: I'm over-reacting to the idea that at the deadline last year, somehow against all logic we acquired "a star" in return for a basket of spare parts.

We went 35-47 in '21-22. This year, w/ KP, we went 35-47 again. IOW, we are going nowhere. If anything (especially if we really do keep kuz for "a bag"), you can expect us to slide further, to become a 20-something win team.

Nonetheless, I can/should moderate my rhetoric. Especially since, in fact, I *like* KP.

The on/off data for Porzingis is arguably the most accurate data sample on the roster because he has played almost exactly as many on minutes as off (2121 versus 1786), and his backup is a competent player (Gafford) rather than some 10th man caliber scrub.

Porzingis led the team in on/off differential. The on/off data says that the Wizards have a +1.6 point differential with Porzingis on the floor, and a -4.6 point differential when he is off the floor.

The Pythagorean Win Percentage Calculator says that a +1.6 point differential translates to 45 wins and a -4.6 point differential translates to 29 wins. So Porzingis for 48 minutes a night is worth 16 more wins than the absence of Porzingis. Since he only played 54.2% of the total minutes, he was statistically worth an additional 9 wins.

[dobrojim]

In the past Broom has pointed out that our top 3 players have PPAs that
would be one notch per player lower than what you see on really good teams ie
our best player has a PPA that would be 2nd best on a good team,
our 2nd best would be 3rd best on a good team...

What we need is a true superstar level player. Mgmt wants fans to
think either Beal or KP are superstar level and that Kuz is an AS level player.
None of these things are true.

Acquiring superstar level talent is very difficult and therefore rarely happens.
Teams without superstars are almost never championship contenders.

What PPA scores mean (in most seasons — understanding that the levels can fluctuate from season to season and by position):

225+ — league Most Valuable Player candidate
175+ — typically All-NBA level
150+ — usually the minimum score for All-Star level
100 — average
75 — lower-end of the rotation (see below)
45 and below — replacement level

Wizards PPA

Bradley Beal SG 29 WAS 36 32.9 165
Kristaps Porziņģis C 27 WAS 50 32.5 146
Monte Morris PG 27 WAS 50 28.1 137
Daniel Gafford C 24 WAS 56 18.7 129
Delon Wright PG 30 WAS 29 22.5 120
Kyle Kuzma PF 27 WAS 53 34.9 103
Jordan Goodwin PG 24 WAS 40 18.1 97
Kendrick Nunn SG 27 WAS 11 18.4 96
Corey Kispert SG 23 WAS 50 27.2 91
Deni Avdija SF 22 WAS 56 26.3 81

Our 2 best players top out at below AllNBA level

The top 4 EC teams all have at least one player near or above 200. (PHL has 2)
They (the top 4 EC teams) also had at least 50 wins in reg season. We last
had a 50 win team in...oh wait, that would be never.

apologies if all this is obvious. My main point is that in order to get better,
you need to get better players. Acquiring the best players is hard and/or
requires a certain amount of luck ie winning the lottery in a year when
a generational talent is available. Convincing an AllNBA player to sign with
you is exceedingly rare for mid-level or worse teams. Acquiring via trade
is also quite rare.

IOW, we're doomed (Dr Smith, Lost in Space).

[DCZards]

Other than that, we have a steadily declining asset in Beal, a multiple team cast-off in KP, & a few journeyman types. We are certainly not heading upwards, & in fact it's likely we keep heading down for some years to come.

Cast off? Seems like you never miss an opportunity to disparage KP. What’s up with that?

Fair question. & the answer isn't far to seek: I'm over-reacting to the idea that at the deadline last year, somehow against all logic we acquired "a star" in return for a basket of spare parts.

We went 35-47 in '21-22. This year, w/ KP, we went 35-47 again. IOW, we are going nowhere. If anything (especially if we really do keep kuz for "a bag"), you can expect us to slide further, to become a 20-something win team.

Nonetheless, I can/should moderate my rhetoric. Especially since, in fact, I *like* KP.

I don’t know why the Mavs didn’t get (or demand) more for KP. It probably had something to do with his inability to stay healthy or his fit with Luka.

As far as being cast-off by "multiple teams,” well the Knicks did get two first-round picks for KP. I wouldn’t exactly call that being cast off.

[Kanyewest]

Cast off? Seems like you never miss an opportunity to disparage KP. What’s up with that?

Fair question. & the answer isn't far to seek: I'm over-reacting to the idea that at the deadline last year, somehow against all logic we acquired "a star" in return for a basket of spare parts.

We went 35-47 in '21-22. This year, w/ KP, we went 35-47 again. IOW, we are going nowhere. If anything (especially if we really do keep kuz for "a bag"), you can expect us to slide further, to become a 20-something win team.

Nonetheless, I can/should moderate my rhetoric. Especially since, in fact, I *like* KP.

I don’t know why the Mavs didn’t get (or demand) more for KP. It probably had something to do with his inability to stay healthy or his fit with Luka.

As far as being cast-off by "multiple teams,” well the Knicks did get two first-round picks for KP. I wouldn’t exactly call that being cast off.

Yeah KP demanded out of NY IIRC

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[pcbothwel]

Yeah you are! You think we should be adding talent around Beal & Porzingis. Your words, old friend! & familiar they are!

PIF... I think you need to read the Subject of this Thread.
This is NOT the "What should Wizards do in 2024?", nor is it the "Should we trade Beal?" Thread.
This is the "2023 Wizards Offseason Thread"

So "Keeping Beal and KP" is about what I think we should do in the 2023 Offseason.
We should Resign KP(Assuming Fair deal), SnT Kuz, and NOT make any trades where we trade our picks/prospects.
We should also attempt to find another Steal with the MLE like we did with Delon last year.

Trading Beal can wait until the deadline. At that point teams will have more flexibility for trades, so we get the best deal for Beal assuming no major injury or regression.
Teams Im looking at:
GSW: I think they lose to the Kings in 6 and their young core has evaporated compared to projections a year ago. They need to make a big move NOW or this iteration is done. Something around Klay and picks (Klay would go to a 3rd team like LAC/LAL).

Boston: Brown & White for Beal & Monte...?

NYK: They have the filler contracts (Barrett/Fournier) and picks. Very interesting to me.

NOP: Man, That CJ extension looks bad now. He had a great 26 games with them to end last year, locked in a 2-year extension and regressed. Beal being 2 years younger actually fits their timeline really well as a team looking to make a 2-3 year run. That said, all their picks look late and for me to give them Beal while paying a CJ 100M over the next 3 years will take some assets.

[payitforward]

The on/off data for Porzingis is arguably the most accurate data sample on the roster because he has played almost exactly as many on minutes as off (2121 versus 1786), and his backup is a competent player (Gafford) rather than some 10th man caliber scrub.

Porzingis led the team in on/off differential. The on/off data says that the Wizards have a +1.6 point differential with Porzingis on the floor, and a -4.6 point differential when he is off the floor.

The Pythagorean Win Percentage Calculator says that a +1.6 point differential translates to 45 wins and a -4.6 point differential translates to 29 wins. So Porzingis for 48 minutes a night is worth 16 more wins than the absence of Porzingis. Since he only played 54.2% of the total minutes, he was statistically worth an additional 9 wins.

Respectfully, nate...

1. Everybody's on/off data is equally accurate unless it's been mis-recorded somehow. Assuming a reasonable sample the numbers should reveal... something!
2. OTOH, for many (maybe most) of the minutes when player C1 (a starting C) is off the floor, replaced by C2 (a second best Center), other personnel changes are also in place. So that bit isn't easily associated simply w/ the value of C1. There's no direct way to directly compare the two sets of on/off data to derive any information.
3. In any case, that's not how you use a PWPC -- try doing it using Jokic's numbers below! !

All the same, the on-court & on/off numbers do tell us something about the player! They must!

KP is +1.6 on the floor with an on/off of +6.2.
So, let's look at that same pair of numbers compared w/ a list of other NBA Centers, most of whom I picked more or less haphazardly:

Kristaps Porzingis: +1.6 +6.2
Mason Plumlee (on the Clippers): +1.6 +1.1
Onyeka Okongwu: +2.3 +3.4
Walker Kessler: +2.8 +6.8
Andre Drummond: +3.2 +2.1
Kevon Looney: +5.1 +6.4
Mitchell Robinson: +6.5 +6.4
Nic Claxton: +5.2 +9.1
Jarrett Allen: +4.9 +7.9
Jakob Poeltl: +8.8 +0.2
Steven Adams: +9.5 +8.3
Robert Williams: +10.2 +4.5
Joel Embiid: +9.1 +10.2
Nikola Jokic: +12 +22

Comments?

[GoneShammGone]

In the past Broom has pointed out that our top 3 players have PPAs that
would be one notch per player lower than what you see on really good teams ie
our best player has a PPA that would be 2nd best on a good team,
our 2nd best would be 3rd best on a good team...

What we need is a true superstar level player. Mgmt wants fans to
think either Beal or KP are superstar level and that Kuz is an AS level player.
None of these things are true.

Acquiring superstar level talent is very difficult and therefore rarely happens.
Teams without superstars are almost never championship contenders.

What PPA scores mean (in most seasons — understanding that the levels can fluctuate from season to season and by position):

225+ — league Most Valuable Player candidate
175+ — typically All-NBA level
150+ — usually the minimum score for All-Star level
100 — average
75 — lower-end of the rotation (see below)
45 and below — replacement level

Wizards PPA

Bradley Beal SG 29 WAS 36 32.9 165
Kristaps Porziņģis C 27 WAS 50 32.5 146
Monte Morris PG 27 WAS 50 28.1 137
Daniel Gafford C 24 WAS 56 18.7 129
Delon Wright PG 30 WAS 29 22.5 120
Kyle Kuzma PF 27 WAS 53 34.9 103
Jordan Goodwin PG 24 WAS 40 18.1 97
Kendrick Nunn SG 27 WAS 11 18.4 96
Corey Kispert SG 23 WAS 50 27.2 91
Deni Avdija SF 22 WAS 56 26.3 81

Our 2 best players top out at below AllNBA level

The top 4 EC teams all have at least one player near or above 200. (PHL has 2)
They (the top 4 EC teams) also had at least 50 wins in reg season. We last
had a 50 win team in...oh wait, that would be never.

apologies if all this is obvious. My main point is that in order to get better,
you need to get better players. Acquiring the best players is hard and/or
requires a certain amount of luck ie winning the lottery in a year when
a generational talent is available. Convincing an AllNBA player to sign with
you is exceedingly rare for mid-level or worse teams. Acquiring via trade
is also quite rare.

IOW, we're doomed (Dr Smith, Lost in Space).

This sums it up perfectly. The Wizards will never compete until the roster is transformed with a game-changing talent acquisition. The only really plausible way to do this is through the draft, and any competent GM would try their best to maximize the chances at achieving this through acquiring as many high draft picks as possible in the short and medium term. Of course, we don't have that. We have a disinterested ownership who has given a mandate to continue mediocrity at all costs. So the only thing left for us as fans to hope for is that 8% chance at the top pick every year that we get from finishing three games out from the play-in tournament. FWIW, if you model a binomial experiment with a success chance of .08, the expected number of years you would have to wait to win is only 9! And once you get up to 20 years, the chances of having at least one success is something like 99%. So there is hope, we just have to wait a decade (or two).

[nate33]

The on/off data for Porzingis is arguably the most accurate data sample on the roster because he has played almost exactly as many on minutes as off (2121 versus 1786), and his backup is a competent player (Gafford) rather than some 10th man caliber scrub.

Porzingis led the team in on/off differential. The on/off data says that the Wizards have a +1.6 point differential with Porzingis on the floor, and a -4.6 point differential when he is off the floor.

The Pythagorean Win Percentage Calculator says that a +1.6 point differential translates to 45 wins and a -4.6 point differential translates to 29 wins. So Porzingis for 48 minutes a night is worth 16 more wins than the absence of Porzingis. Since he only played 54.2% of the total minutes, he was statistically worth an additional 9 wins.

Respectfully, nate...

1. Everybody's on/off data is equally accurate unless it's been mis-recorded somehow. Assuming a reasonable sample the numbers should reveal... something!

By "accurate", I mean it's a more useful data set than normal due to the large sample size of both on and off, and fewer confounding factors (like his replacement being unusually bad). It's the least "noisy" of a data set one can hope to find in a single season sample size.

So, let's look at that same pair of numbers compared w/ a list of other NBA Centers, most of whom I picked more or less haphazardly:

Kristaps Porzingis: +1.6 +6.2
Mason Plumlee (on the Clippers): +1.6 +1.1
Onyeka Okongwu: +2.3 +3.4
Walker Kessler: +2.8 +6.8
Andre Drummond: +3.2 +2.1
Kevon Looney: +5.1 +6.4
Mitchell Robinson: +6.5 +6.4
Nic Claxton: +5.2 +9.1
Jarrett Allen: +4.9 +7.9
Jakob Poeltl: +8.8 +0.2
Steven Adams: +9.5 +8.3
Robert Williams: +10.2 +4.5
Joel Embiid: +9.1 +10.2
Nikola Jokic: +12 +22

Comments?

Yes. Above-average bench players tend to fare well because they outplay their average bench opponents. That explains the performance of guys like Plumlee, Okongwu, and to some extent Kessler. And there are some guys who have no credible backup, who will look good in this metric (Robinson, Claxton). Porzingis doesn't get the benefit of either of these scenarios since he is a starter and he has a credible backup.

I think the rating of other well-performing guys like Allen, Adams and Williams are representative of their actual impact. They're really good players. (As are Embiid and Jokic, of course.)

I also find it hard to believe that you "haphazardly" selected a group of centers who ALL have a positive on/off differential.

[payitforward]

...The Wizards will never compete until the roster is transformed with a game-changing talent acquisition. The only really plausible way to do this is through the draft, and any competent GM would try their best to maximize the chances at achieving this through acquiring as many high draft picks as possible in the short and medium term....

Except "acquiring... many high draft picks" is virtually impossible. You have to have something valuable to trade, & we don't.

...the only thing left for us as fans to hope for is that 8% chance at the top pick every year...

Nor does having even the #1 pick guarantee a "game-changing talent." Since '17: Fultz, Ayton, Zion, Edwards, Cunningham, Banchero. See any game-changers in that group?

Of course there's always pick #2: Lonzo, Bagley, Morant, Wiseman, Green & Holmgren.

...So there is hope, we just have to wait a decade (or two).

Maybe you're better off doing a good job with the picks you have? Including sometimes trading down?

After all, in '17 alone -- Donovan Mitchell, Bam Adebayo, John Collins, Jarrett Allen, OG Anunoby, Derrick White & Josh Hart were nowhere near being top picks.

In 2018, #s 10, 11, 27, 33, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 & 54 were all among the best out of that draft.
So, yeah, just do a good job. & that's the real problem. We don't tend to.

[payitforward]

Moved this here, as it's not really about who to pick in the draft but about constructing next year's roster.

I don't see the temping trade down scenarios this year...

I don’t see anyone projected in the 7-15 range as worthy of the 8/9 pick. 9 for 21&22 from Brooklyn would be my move...

I agree with Nat on this.

...Then package 42&59 and whatever else, to move up into the 30-35 range.

I don't think those 2 picks get you into that range. Maybe 36 or 37...?

Still, we do need 3 rookies -- & 4 would be preferable.
In fact, I'd say the only thing that can help the Washington Wizars is for a couple of long shots to hit. &, if you want to hit home runs, you have to take swings. Fortunately, we should have plenty of room to work with -- both on the roster & financially.

Under the new CBA, we'll have 18 spots to work with, 3 of which are 2 way players.
Assuming a rational plan -- IOW, we do not re-sign Kuz -- we'll bring back 12 guys to the regular roster: Beal, KP, Gaff, Morris, Wright, Avdija, Davis, Kispert, Gill, Goodwin, Cooks & Todd.

Assuming a new deal for KP w/ a low starting number of $28m, those 12 will cost us $128m.
We also have Quenton Jackson who has a 2-way for next year.

Thus, we can add 2 rookies (e.g. the 21 & 22) to our regular roster, while adding 2 other rookies as 2-way players, & we'll still have roster room & lux tax room to add a FA -- or a player who comes in for Kuz in a sign/trade deal.

Of course, other changes are possible & likely: perhaps one of Wright or Morris will be traded? Perhaps we'll bite the bullet & pay Todd off to clear a roster spot? Perhaps we'll decide to give Jay Huff one of the 2-way spots for next year?

[payitforward]

Some of you (doc?) will recall me touting Kenneth Lofton Jr. as a player we should have picked up undrafted last off-season. The Grizzlies signed him as a 2way player -- making him the 5th rookie on their roster. (5 rookies -- after a 54 win season: that's a smart franchise).

They just signed Lofton to a 4 year regular-roster contract. To create a roster spot for him, they had to waive Kennedy Chandler -- another of their '22-23 rookies.

We should sign Kennedy Chandler to a 2way contract for next year. Right now. In fact... cut Todd & sign him to the regular roster.

Chandler only played 281 minutes this year. In every way but shooting he was very good. Shooting was his problem. But... in his one year at Tennessee, Chandler shot the 3-ball at .383 on substantial volume.

Chandler is still only 20 years old. He has a shot to be a good NBA player. This is free money.

[dckingsfan]

Perhaps we'll decide to give Jay Huff one of the 2-way spots for next year?

I would be good with this.

The way I see it right now is:

Wright/Morris/Goodwin
Beal/Kispert/Davis
Avdija
Porzingis/Gill/Cooks
Gafford/Huff

Todd - waste of space.

So indeed we could add 2 or 3 rookies and another 2-way and do a middle rebuild

If we keep coming up with Goodwins and Huffs, that wouldn't be terrible.

[payitforward]

...I also find it hard to believe that you "haphazardly" selected a group of centers who ALL have a positive on/off differential.

Actually, I "more or less" did -- I just started looking up guys & mostly that's what I found, though in fairness I wasn't looking up known bad players.

I wonder whether Centers tend to have better on/off numbers than some other positions.

Ditto, I wonder what the delta is between average on/off numbers for starters & subs (keeping in mind the obvious fact that by and large subs play against subs).

Plus I wonder what methods one could use to account for teammates. For example, let's say Joe is the starting 3 on a terrific team. He's likely to have better on/off numbers than Bill, the starting 3 on a crummy team.

Yet, it's possible that Bill is the better player of the two -- the other 4 starters on Joe's team might well be good enough that Joe's on/off numbers reflect their play vs. starters on other teams more than his own.

At the team level, ppg vs. the opponents' ppg is the equivalent of on/off, or so it seems.
&, overall, that differential does track with the teams' win/loss records.

But, it doesn't track anywhere near perfectly. At 40-42, Chicago was +1.2 against the league, while at 44-38, Miami was -0.3.

I'm not trying to make anything of that; it's just curious is all -- & probably a useful reminder not to put all one's eggs in the basket of a single kind of metric.

[dckingsfan]

Tommy replacement is now #1

[gambitx777]

I'd say the list would be

Bob Myers.
Bobby marks.
Kenny Smith.

Dark horse Gilbert arenas lol .

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[9 and 20]

Will Terd now hire a guy who wants to burn it all down or is a precondition for the job is building around Beal?

Terd might go nutty and make Beal a triple threat - player/coach/gm. Anything to keep the 38th best player in the league happy.

[pcbothwel]

I think the new GM will play it slow. There are no malcontents and the players get along.
I think a Beal trade is certainly in the table, but the first move needs to open up salary/flexibility. I really think this move means Kuz is 100%.
Once Beal secures the scoring title from Hayes and crosses 16k points, I think Ted will be fine with Beal being moved to contender. And so will Beal. Lol

Ted wont rank and trade every player over 25, but that’s fine if done correctly.
Keep KP, but trade Beal.
Keep Monte, but trade Delon.