2025-26 Lineup Thread -- How's it shakin out?

[dobrojim]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

This list drives me a little nuts.

To me it could not be more obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers, hence why would it not be obvious to everyone on this board, I wonder?

Of course, he'll have to do it 2 years in a row to establish himself; that's fair. All the same, he was substantially better than Sarr, Bilal, Kyshawn, Cam & Bub.

I thought you would jump on this. Perhaps you missed
my reply to this in which I pointed out that JC had
the best PPA on the team other than Poole in 24-25.

I also observed that JC is a little older and probably
won't improve as much as the kiddie corp will. If we
were trying to win now as opposed to in 2-4 years,
JC would likely be less of an afterthought re our
rotations. My question remains whether he has now
realized most of his potential or will he continue to
get better. That's why I used the term dilemma
previously.

[dckingsfan]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

Mine is (with a cut-off of a birthdate in 2003)
1. Tre
2. Bilal
3. Sarr
4. Cam
5. George
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Tristan

Given up on:
1. AJ
13. Branham

[GoneShammGone]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

Mine is (with a cut-off of a birthdate in 2003)
1. Tre
2. Bilal
3. Sarr
4. Cam
5. George
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Tristan

Given up on:
1. AJ
13. Branham

Seems pretty harsh to have totally given up on AJ. What was it that pushed you over the edge?

[dckingsfan]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

Mine is (with a cut-off of a birthdate in 2003)
1. Tre
2. Bilal
3. Sarr
4. Cam
5. George
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Tristan

Given up on:
1. AJ
2. Branham

Seems pretty harsh to have totally given up on AJ. What was it that pushed you over the edge?

Summer league, and how good Bub and Tre look.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'm really enjoying watching this team being assembled and developed. Can't wait for post 26 draft when we select another high pick and the tanking is finished. Shifting from purposeful losing to building a winning culture can't come soon enough.

I hope I'm still vertical and above room temperature to witness it.

I feel the same. I hope to see it.

i don't like the irony. "First you win, then you get good."

After the tanking, the team must transition into having a mediocre record. A record of 41-42 will become a high-water mark after years of tanking.

So, in 2028, we hope to be back where we were in 2017.

The difference will be that the foundation being built will hopefully have us more like the Bullets with Webber and Juwan vs the Bulls, as oppose the Bradley Beal led barely floating franchise.... Same records but completely different trajectories....
And our talent accumulation should get better as theoretically players from year to year are going to continually improve.....
So that's where having so many additional picks, management that signs players preemptively and with vision, and talent development should all be colliding into a substantially different product than we've grown accustomed to since the 80's.....

We shall see, I'm excited to see it develop......

So, in 2028, we hope to be back to where we were in 1997.

I couldn't resist.

[DCZards]

Mine is (with a cut-off of a birthdate in 2003)
1. Tre
2. Bilal
3. Sarr
4. Cam
5. George
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Tristan

Given up on:
1. AJ
2. Branham

Seems pretty harsh to have totally given up on AJ. What was it that pushed you over the edge?

Summer league, and how good Bub and Tre look.

AJ definitely had a rough SL. But to put things in context it was SL and AJ was being asked to play primarily PG…something he’s currently not very good at it.

Too early to give up on him, imo.

[doclinkin]

Seems pretty harsh to have totally given up on AJ. What was it that pushed you over the edge?

Summer league, and how good Bub and Tre look.

AJ definitely had a rough SL. But to put things in context it was SL and AJ was being asked to play primarily PG…something he’s currently not very good at it.

Too early to give up on him, imo.

Yeah. I expect the team wanted to give AJJ a look in summer league to see if he was playable in that role, especially given he had a few 5+ assist games. If the answer is 'no' then okay. But you are who you defend. If they can run AJJ against the small quick PGs on defense, and play him as an off ball scorer on offense, that's workable. We have big guards who have the size to D up on 2's and 3's anyway. Plus off ball playmakers, including Sarr. AJJ will play better with team chemistry. Time. A clearly defined role. Ballhandling lead guard is just not a strength for him. Shrug.

No big deal. Summer league is the time to try things out. Kid is still super athletic and showed both poise and aggression jumping in to play late in the year. I seriously doubt the front office has given up on him. They'll just adjust their check list for him. He's got a little more work to do.

[payitforward]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

This list drives me a little nuts.

To me it could not be more obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers, hence why would it not be obvious to everyone on this board, I wonder?

Of course, he'll have to do it 2 years in a row to establish himself; that's fair. All the same, he was substantially better than Sarr, Bilal, Kyshawn, Cam & Bub.

JC is 2-4 years older than the players cited. With 4 years in the league..

Which means we might be able to have more confidence in the long-term significance of his performance.

...When evaluating the youth movement you’re projecting towards the future. Champ had the breakout year that you hope for in a player’s 3rd or 4th year. Whether it’s sustainable or a relic of a tank year, sure he has to establish that. He was a low usage role player on a losing team. Nobody was prepping to stop Champagnie.

No one prepping for any of them. Or, by definition, for anyone having "a breakout year."
"Low usage" -- more to performance than scoring, doc.

...But going forward, do you guess his performance going to be better than that of the age 23 versions of Sarr, Bilal, etc?

I don't "guess" unless absolutely necessary; it's a waste of time. Kid played great, so he gets my confidence & I give him more minutes. If he lets down, well... then he gets fewer minutes. Do I think he'll let down? Why would I think that?

IOW How *up* is his upside. Can he maintain his stat breakout in an increased role. Does the evidence point to it?

...It’s clear he played better as back up. In +/- JC was -12 as a starter this year. 8 points better against back ups. Played 31 games in each role....

Forgive me, but no that doesn't indicate that "he" played better as a back up. It indicates that the team did better against back up players.

...If you scroll through his splits he played well against weak teams and suffered against playoff teams. ...This mirrored the team, so sure maybe the whole team dragged down his numbers....

Duh. Or the better other team....

...But you’d expect one of the top dozen SF’s....

These judgments are not metaphysical. They are just reports on numbers. They are conclusions not other-worldly forces.

Guys don't put up better numbers because they are better. They are better because they put up better numbers. Forget this for a moment, & you are no longer analyzing anything. Kevin Durant doesn't put up great numbers because he's Kevin Durant -- the opposite: he's Kevin Durant because he puts up great numbers.

Better numbers indicate a better player. Worse numbers indicate a less good player. That's it. Beyond that, judgments like "good," "bad," "better," & "worse" have no meaning whatever. Period.

...drag the numbers the other way. As Middleton consistently did. Especially when JC was often playing instead of Kuzma who was universally terrible as always. You’d think that would elevate his +/- ...

Middleton played 300 minutes. Moreover, he was pretty bad in those minutes, posting a .526 TS% & rebounding poorly.

Over his career, of course, he has been outstanding -- even tho he was a mid-R2 pick, which obviously (according to some here) should make that fact virtually impossible.

...JC is a nice player who had a good year for us....

How about we make that "a good player who had a nice year for us."

...If he maintains or improves on that then awesome..., we lucked out.

& if he doesn't, too bad. & where will we look to find out whether he's gotten better, stayed the same, or declined? THE NUMBERS. That's where.

... If you compare his production at the same age to that of the young pups of the list, you better appreciate the idea that their respective breakouts may have even better results....

Sure, their breakouts -- if they break out -- may produce better (or not quite as good, or equally good) results. Or not. Or not all of them may develop well. Or, worse, none of them may.

None of which has any comparative impact on Justin Champagnie who was, by a tidy margin, the best player on the Wizards last year & one of the most productive forwards in the league. Just as I wrote.

[dckingsfan]

Yeah. I expect the team wanted to give AJJ a look in summer league to see if he was playable in that role, especially given he had a few 5+ assist games. If the answer is 'no' then okay. But you are who you defend. If they can run AJJ against the small quick PGs on defense, and play him as an off ball scorer on offense, that's workable. We have big guards who have the size to D up on 2's and 3's anyway. Plus off ball playmakers, including Sarr. AJJ will play better with team chemistry. Time. A clearly defined role. Ballhandling lead guard is just not a strength for him. Shrug.

No big deal. Summer league is the time to try things out. Kid is still super athletic and showed both poise and aggression jumping in to play late in the year. I seriously doubt the front office has given up on him. They'll just adjust their check list for him. He's got a little more work to do.

Yep, lots of ifs to see if he can fit in somewhere.

I just don't see it (and I was just giving my list and opinion, pretty sure I don't have any influence on the FO or coaching staff - LOL).

Rooting for him but I think he will be displaced and have given up on him on my personal list. The Wizards will continue to add youngsters and move those that aren't quite there... I think he will be one of those that is moved on.

[GoneShammGone]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

This list drives me a little nuts.

To me it could not be more obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers, hence why would it not be obvious to everyone on this board, I wonder?

Of course, he'll have to do it 2 years in a row to establish himself; that's fair. All the same, he was substantially better than Sarr, Bilal, Kyshawn, Cam & Bub.

I thought you would jump on this. Perhaps you missed
my reply to this in which I pointed out that JC had
the best PPA on the team other than Poole in 24-25.

I also observed that JC is a little older and probably
won't improve as much as the kiddie corp will. If we
were trying to win now as opposed to in 2-4 years,
JC would likely be less of an afterthought re our
rotations. My question remains whether he has now
realized most of his potential or will he continue to
get better. That's why I used the term dilemma
previously.

Yeah, I'm worried about this. JC gets overlooked around the league (just look at the contract he signed). I'm afraid he is getting overlooked by the Wizards coaches/organization as well.

Look at it this way: there are 192 non-center minutes a game to go around. Based on what they did last year, I expect them to give starter's minutes to Bub, Kyshawn, Bilal, and Tre. So that's maybe 100-120 minutes right there. Then there's CJ, Middleton, Corey, and Whitmore. If all those guys are going to play rotation minutes, what's left for JC?

If they really plan on using JC appropriately, why go out and get Whitmore? Maybe the Wizards coaches see JC as just a role-player or bench depth? I hope not.

I'll feel better if Corey is traded, or when Middleton or CJ come down with some sort of mystery groin problem that keeps them out most games. My fear is that JC spends the pre-deadline part of the season playing sporadic bench minutes and getting forgotten.

[payitforward]

...JC is a little older and probably won't improve as much as the kiddie corp will....

Obviously, this is completely unknown.
You might well say that of two similar young players, if one is a year or so younger than the other, there is more improvement possible for that one.

But, "probable?" No.
For that matter, it's by no means clear that any of the '23-25 draft kids will be as good as Champagnie -- ever.

...If we were trying to win now as opposed to in 2-4 years, JC would likely be less of an afterthought re our rotations.

Which has nothing to do with the essential question of how good this kid is. OTOH, you have to go into every game trying to win it.

Tanking is the result of what you are doing to overhaul your roster. Tanking is not -- not by any mean! -- stepping away from the competitive character of every single contest! Once your guys are on the floor, you better be trying your damndest to win the game!

...My question remains whether he has now realized most of his potential or will he continue to get better. That's why I used the term dilemma previously.

Obviously, the better you are the closer you are to realizing whatever your ultimate potential is (assuming such a thing exists).

OTOH, an often under-appreciated fact is that the better you are the better you are!
Period! Unambiguously.

Right now, for example, Justin Champagnie is a zillion times better than Cam Whitmore. Claro?

If we think that taking floor time from Cam & giving it to Justin will be likely to get in the way of Cam improving, should we do it anyway? At this point?

No. Nor do we need to, given that there are 96 Forward-minutes available in every game.

Still, that's not how decisions about floor time should be, or are, made. You earn your floor time in practice. Then you prove you deserve it (and more) in the minutes you play. Whether your Cam Whitmore or Justin Champagnie. No other way works.

[joshuacf]

Leaving out the vets, Middleton, CJ, Kispert, Bagley, this would be my ranking of the youth movement of the team...

1. Sarr
2. Tre
3. Bilal
4. Kyshawn
5. Cam
6. Bub
7. Riley
8. Champagnie
9. Watkins
10. Tristan
11. AJ
12. D.Jones
13. Branham
....

This list drives me a little nuts.

To me it could not be more obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers, hence why would it not be obvious to everyone on this board, I wonder?

Of course, he'll have to do it 2 years in a row to establish himself; that's fair. All the same, he was substantially better than Sarr, Bilal, Kyshawn, Cam & Bub.

Genuinely curious, what is it about Champangie's numbers that jumps out at you?

Looking at the numbers, he's a very good rebounder for his position, and he's an efficient shooter. But his overall offensive numbers (14.6 points and 1.6 assists on a PER36 basis) don't jump off the page to me at all.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

This list drives me a little nuts.

To me it could not be more obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers, hence why would it not be obvious to everyone on this board, I wonder?

Of course, he'll have to do it 2 years in a row to establish himself; that's fair. All the same, he was substantially better than Sarr, Bilal, Kyshawn, Cam & Bub.

I thought you would jump on this. Perhaps you missed
my reply to this in which I pointed out that JC had
the best PPA on the team other than Poole in 24-25.

I also observed that JC is a little older and probably
won't improve as much as the kiddie corp will. If we
were trying to win now as opposed to in 2-4 years,
JC would likely be less of an afterthought re our
rotations. My question remains whether he has now
realized most of his potential or will he continue to
get better. That's why I used the term dilemma
previously.

Yeah, I'm worried about this. JC gets overlooked around the league (just look at the contract he signed). I'm afraid he is getting overlooked by the Wizards coaches/organization as well.

Look at it this way: there are 192 non-center minutes a game to go around. Based on what they did last year, I expect them to give starter's minutes to Bub, Kyshawn, Bilal, and Tre. So that's maybe 100-120 minutes right there. Then there's CJ, Middleton, Corey, and Whitmore. If all those guys are going to play rotation minutes, what's left for JC?

If they really plan on using JC appropriately, why go out and get Whitmore? Maybe the Wizards coaches see JC as just a role-player or bench depth? I hope not.

I'll feel better if Corey is traded, or when Middleton or CJ come down with some sort of mystery groin problem that keeps them out most games. My fear is that JC spends the pre-deadline part of the season playing sporadic bench minutes and getting forgotten.

I hope Champagnie ends up on a championship contender, like Portis and Gafford did.

The Wizards paid Justin. Now, I hope he becomes a role player on a good team. I don't foresee Justin having a rewarding role on the Wizards.

[payitforward]

....obvious that Justin Champagnie was our best player last year -- by a lot not a little! -- & one of the, say, top dozen 3's in the league.

It jumps out of the numbers....

Genuinely curious, what is it about Champangie's numbers that jumps out at you?...
Looking at the numbers, he's a very good rebounder for his position, and he's an efficient shooter. But his overall offensive numbers (14.6 points and 1.6 assists on a PER36 basis) don't jump off the page to me at all.

Fair question. & here's your answer. Please follow my simple logic & math attentively.

1. A better basketball player is one whose play in games makes it more likely that his team wins those games. I.e. a higher % of them.

Nothing else counts. Period. We are not assessing the floor routine of a team of gymnasts.

2. To win a basketball game a team must have more points on the scoreboard than its opponent when the whistle blows.

3. To have more points on the scoreboard than its opponent when the whistle blows, a team must do one or both of the following two things:

a. Either it must post a higher TS% than its opponent...
b. Or it must have had more opportunities to score (defined as FGAs + .5xFTAs) than its opponent.

4. In a particular game, a team that does one of those things, has a chance to win the game. A team that does both cannot lose the game. A team that does neither cannot win the game.

Please note that none of the above represents an opinion about anything. It's simple arithmetic. Nothing can make it incorrect, & there are no exceptions in the entire history of basketball games. Nor will there ever be an exception. Please go over the above in your mind until you are clear that it is absolute truth with zero possible exceptions.

5. From 1-4 above, we can conclude that "goodness" in a basketball player consists in that player's contribution to the above two factors i.e. his team's TS% &/or its number of opportunities to score.

Obviously, therefore, goodness in a player can be judged by 1) his TS% & 2) by the sum of every activity that increases his team's possessions or decreases opponents' possessions -- i.e. rebounds plus steals

6. So lets compare Justin on these factors with the results of an average NBA wing:

a. Compared to an average wing at 56.6%, Justin posted a 61.4% TS% -- that's a huge positive difference over an average wing.

b. How about possessions? What activities decrease the other team's possessions and/or increase those of your own team? & how did Justin do on those?

Oviously, the possession stats are the total of rebounds plus steals minus turnovers.

Last season, per 40 minutes, an average NBA wing posted a positive total of 5.1 for that combination.

Justin Champagnie's total per 40 minutes was 12.

Just considering the above, it should be obvious that, as I wrote previously, Justin Champagnie is one of the best young wings in the league.

There are other minor issues to consider in such a judgment, & I'll take them up in another post tomorrow morning. They do not change the above conclusion. They are:

1. other, minor stats
2. the fact that on average an NBA wing scored 3.6 more points than Justin per 40 minutes (by using 3.4 more possessions to do so).

[joshuacf]

Thanks for the response, PIF. I think you make a good case for why Champagnie should be looked at as a important piece of the core (especially considering his very favorable contract). The possession numbers you pointed out do reflect very well on Champagnie indeed.

I guess where we will probably disagree is the level to which shot volume plays a role in determining a good player.

In order to win a basketball game, you need to score more than your opponent. In order to do that, you need to take shots (on average, 90 a game per team). So in order to score more than your opponent, you need to get to (ideally) 90+ shots per game through some combination of shots per player.

And as I'm sure you would accept, there is an inverse relationship between volume of shots and shooting percentage. The more shots a player takes per 100 possessions, the harder it is going to be to for them to maintain a high true shooting %. This is because the more shots you take, the less selective you can be about shot quality; you must take more difficult, contested shots.

Again, in order to score the basketball on a possession, somebody has to take a shot on that possession. So a player of a certain skill level who is tasked with taking 2x shots per 100 possessions is inherently going to have a higher true shooting % than that same exact player who is tasked with taking x shots per 100 possessions.

So while I agree that Champagnie's 61.4% true shooting is very impressive, we must take into account that he only took 14.6 shots per 100 possessions. That put him 167th in the NBA last season out of 231 qualified players on Basketball Reference.

And to be clear, you 100% need efficient role players who can be efficient on limited volume. But you have young wings like Jalen Williams, Shaedon Sharpe, Deni, Devin Vassell, Risacher, who are taking 25-50% more shots than Champagnie is. So it is hard to rank Champagine above them based on the inverse nature of volume and efficiency that I mentioned earlier.

This isn't even getting into the age discussion and why that matters (it is just axiomatically true that younger, less experienced players have more room for growth than older, more experienced players), or non-quantifiable attributes like the ability for a player to create one's own shot and why that matters (see the point about somebody having to take a shot on each possession in order to score). But I hope you get where I'm coming from about volume.

[dobrojim]

Re AJJ
Before we get too impatient, let's keep in mind he
got probably about 30-40% of the minutes the rest of the kids got. I presume he was getting minutes in G
league which is better than no minutes but it's not NBA
minutes.

The other thing is he's athletic but scrawny weighing
in officially at 170. He'll probably look a lot different
if/when he puts on 20 lbs of muscle.

[payitforward]

Thanks for the response, PIF. I think you make a good case for why Champagnie should be looked at as a important piece of the core (especially considering his very favorable contract). The possession numbers you pointed out do reflect very well on Champagnie indeed....

Thanks.

...I guess where we will probably disagree is the level to which shot volume plays a role in determining a good player....

Right you are. No disagreement.

...a player of a certain skill level who is tasked with taking 2x shots per 100 possessions is inherently going to have a higher true shooting % than that same exact player who is tasked with taking x shots per 100 possessions....

Do you mean, I think, that you'll give the better shooter more shots? Sure.

...So while I agree that Champagnie's 61.4% true shooting is very impressive, we must take into account that he only took 14.6 shots per 100 possessions. That put him 167th in the NBA last season out of 231 qualified players on Basketball Reference.......

Absolutely! A given % is more impressive the higher the player's usage is.

...you have young wings like Jalen Williams, Shaedon Sharpe, Deni, Devin Vassell, Risacher, who are taking 25-50% more shots than Champagnie is. So it is hard to rank Champagnie above them based on the inverse nature of volume and efficiency that I mentioned earlier....

But... no one would rank Justin with Jalen Williams.
Yet no one sensible would rate Shaedon Sharpe anywhere near Justin. Not so far. But Sharpe is still very young.
& Justin is a zillion times better than Devin Vassell

High efficiency scoring on high volume is usually (tho not always) what makes us call a guy a star -- see KD or Steph as obvious examples. Williams may get there, the others you mention.... nneeennh. In any case, no one is calling Justin a star or a potential star.

...This isn't even getting into the age discussion and why that matters (it is just axiomatically true that younger, less experienced players have more room for growth than older, more experienced players)....

But more room for growth doesn't guarantee more growth!
Moreover, Justin just turned 24; still pretty young.

But, the most important point is that you are discussing abstract trajectories towards "stardom." I'm not making that kind of claim for Justin! I.e. you're proving me wrong about a claim I didn't/wouldn't make.

Meanwhile... the ability to create one's own shot is only useful if the shot goes in the bucket at a high rate. & higher volume is only useful if it doesn't mean lower %.

......non-quantifiable attributes like the ability for a player to create one's own shot and why that matters (see the point about somebody having to take a shot on each possession in order to score). But I hope you get where I'm coming from about volume.

1. More room to grow doesn't guarantee growth.
2. Ability to create one's own shot is only useful if the shot goes in the bucket at a high rate. Or, to put that analytically, everything that affects winning/losing absolutely must be quantifiable.
3. Higher volume is only useful if it doesn't mean lower %.

You leave out altogether the other half of my little demonstration -- creating possessions.

Efficient scoring is meaningless if you only get the ball after the other team scores!

[doclinkin]

Again, in order to score the basketball on a possession, somebody has to take a shot on that possession. So a player of a certain skill level who is tasked with taking 2x shots per 100 possessions is inherently going to have a higher true shooting % than that same exact player who is tasked with taking x shots per 100 possessions.

So while I agree that Champagnie's 61.4% true shooting is very impressive, we must take into account that he only took 14.6 shots per 100 possessions. That put him 167th in the NBA last season out of 231 qualified players on Basketball Reference.

Right. Also the player scoring those points isn’t doing so by himself in an empty gym. Five other guys are trying to stop him. And the coaching staff. Scouts. Etc.

Nobody is game planning to stop a low usage role player. The opponents best defender is elsewhere. The scouts didn’t dedicate the first 20 minutes of film on him. There’s no Champagnie Rules where a team has built itself with the focus on getting past the 6’6” front court player to advance in the playoffs.

Every team needs efficient role players. The measure of a star is whether they can maintain efficient scoring while the usage increases. Or ideally in the best players: improve both when the stakes are highest.

JC played worse as a starter. Better as a back up. The coaching staff will likely maintain his status as a bench player and let a superior athlete like Cam audition for a role as a starter. Or Kyshawn if he keeps putting on muscle. So that we can develop a mismatch against opponents and maintain that advantage when we go to the bench.

We are drafting ultra young, long, athletic, positional size — for a reason. Not because they are better today than an undersized 23 yr old forward, but because when, like JC, they do finally break out, their edge in size or bounce or muscle proves an advantage over other team’s starters.

Doesn’t mean JC isn’t an excellent role player. He too might get better. 23 year olds just tend to have less development in their tank than younger cats.

[nate33]

JC played worse as a starter. Better as a back up.

I agree with you completely on all the stuff about increased usage making it more difficult to maintain efficiency. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that JC actually played considerably better as a starter than a reserve.

As a reserve, he averaged 11.8 points, 7.5 rebounds and 2.0 assists per 30 minutes on a .563 TS%.
As a starter, he averaged 12.4 points, 8.0 rebounds and 1.0 assists in 30 actual minutes per game on a .638 TS%

Again caveats apply with the sample sizes and the lack of a scouting report, but JC has at least shown he can maintain his per-minute production over starters' minutes.

[payitforward]

Well put, nate.

Plus, at 24 and having just shown improvement it would be a sensible low-cost bet to regard him as capable of even more improvement.