Question about young Wizards

[closg00]

How many games of playing together will it take before the team is singing in unison? With the various injuries throughout the season and talent drop-off behind the starters, I think high 30’s or low 40’s wins is my guess today.

[Zonkerbl]

We are winning 50 if we get AJ.

THAT'S THE SPIRIT! HELL YEAH!!!

[Zonkerbl]

How many games of playing together will it take before the team is singing in unison? With the various injuries throughout the season and talent drop-off behind the starters, I think high 30’s or low 40’s wins is my guess today.

People overestimate how long it takes. You either do in about a month of training camp or you just don't. These are all incredibly smart people, if the coach implements a system that makes sense and everybody buys into it, it will click pretty quickly. Showtime and the triangle took a long time for the players to learn because it was so counterintuitive. I don't expect Keefe to try to do that with a young team.

[payitforward]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

[Zonkerbl]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

yeah but you're assuming that the zards would have won 17 games last season even if they played Sarr, Young, AD, Bilal, and George, which they DID NOT. Come on. With McCollum, this was a team capable of 33 wins. A starting five of Sarr, Young, AD, Bilal/Tre, and George, with a bench of Bub, Riley, and the rookie is easily a 42 win team. Depends on how much help they get for the bench at the one and the four through the draft and FA, I contend that the draft will solve one of those two problems and the management team will be able to get help through FA for the other. 42 wins *guaranteed*, maybe more. It's not even close to the biggest win total turnaround in history and entirely achievable. A 27 win improvement to 44 wins would be the 12th biggest win total turnaround in NBA history. NBD.

I agree it's unlikely that a rookie will come in and add 8 wins but I endorse the optimism.

Well, ok, there's a few things that could go wrong. For example, we draft a PF and don't get much help at PG, Young's defense sucks, Keefe can't come up with a defensive system to account for it, Zards start the season with a ten game losing streak. I think Keefe will figure it out, the front office will come through with the personnel they need, and the zards will surprise everybody and skip right over the play in.

I'm tired of being a mopey mumfrey about this team. I am rooting for them to do extremely well, to exceed everyone's wildest expectations next season.

[Zonkerbl]

lol ok gemini lied to me. Man LLMs can't do math!!! It would actually be the 7th largest win turnaround in nba history. Miami Heat did exactly that in 2008.

### All-Time Largest Single-Season NBA Turnarounds (Verified)

| Rank | Team | Season | Win Increase | Record Change |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | **Boston Celtics** | 2007-08 | **+42** | 24–58 to 66–16 |
| 2 | **San Antonio Spurs** | 1997-98 | **+36** | 20–62 to 56–26 |
| 3 | **San Antonio Spurs** | 1989-90 | **+35** | 21–61 to 56–26 |
| 4 | **Phoenix Suns** | 2004-05 | **+33** | 29–53 to 62–20 |
| 5 | **Milwaukee Bucks** | 1969-70 | **+29** | 27–55 to 56–26 |
| 6 | **Detroit Pistons** | 2024-25 | **+28** | 14–68 to 42–40 |
| 7 | **Potential Wizards** | **Next Season** | **+27** | 17–65 to 44–38 |
| 8 | **Phoenix Suns** | 1988-89 | **+27** | 28–54 to 55–27 |
| 9 | **Miami Heat** | 2008-09 | **+27** | 15–67 to 42–40 |
| 10 | **New Jersey Nets** | 2001-02 | **+26** | 26–56 to 52–30 |
| 11 | **Chicago Bulls** | 1995-96 | **+25** | 47–35 to 72–10 |
| 12 | **Golden State Warriors** | 2012-13 | **+24** | 23–43 to 47–35 |

2008 Miami Heat had Dwayne Wade returning from injury, traded Shaq for Shawn Merion, and it was Erik Spoelstra's first year. And they drafted Beasley, who was a bust but did score 14 ppg for them his rookie year.

[Kanyewest]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

A couple things. 1. Wemby wasn’t exactly the most healthy pick. He missed a lot of games due to injuries including when he had a season ending blood clot.

2. The Spurs were still content on losing games to accumulate assets and made trades for the future like trading Murray for picks and trading Dillingham for unprotected picks. Wizards mandate appears to be to win games if they are going to go with Davis/Young.

But yeah, would love to see Davis/Young healthy. The range of team outcomes is wide given their injury history.

[Zonkerbl]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

A couple things. 1. Wemby wasn’t exactly the most healthy pick. He missed a lot of games due to injuries including when he had a season ending blood clot.

2. The Spurs were still content on losing games to accumulate assets and made trades for the future like trading Murray for picks and trading Dillingham for unprotected picks. Wizards mandate appears to be to win games if they are going to go with Davis/Young.

But yeah, would love to see Davis/Young healthy. The range of team outcomes is wide given their injury history.

Also the 22-23 spurs getting Wemby is equivalent to the year before last when the zards selected Sarr and then got 17 wins the following year (this last season). The jump to 34 wins is the best analogue to what will happen next season. I still contend this wasn't a true 17 win team though, this is a team that seems to have gotten permission from the league to tank fairly obviously given how badly they were screwed by the lottery the previous season. There's about 20 wins worth of talent that was withheld from playing this last season. Sarr. Trae. AD. Not to mention George and Bilal pulled up mysteriously lame several times.

[The Consiglieri]

oh hell no. The wizards have not won more than 49 games in 25 years. I want to see a plus .500 season NEXT SEASON. I want PLAYOFFS. Over the next five years we can discuss championship contention. I went through two seasons of rooting for this team to fail. I'm not putting up with that ish any longer!

Really? Im baffled by that, for me, 1980-2022 was like 50,000,000,000x worse than 2023-2026. We actually had a clear direction, clear directive, obvious, planted flag objectives to reach, and the full power and authority of the team was directed towards those goals with no exceptions. That has literally never happened in my Wizards fandom ever (admittedly I only started paying attention around 1984 or 1985, so I had a slightly discounted misery tour versus some of you).

I literally could not care less that we were rooting to fail the past 3 seasons. Who cares? We literally were guaranteed failure the previous 40, what the ---- was that? No direction, no purpose beyond raising the floor of ticket sales, and the false hope illusory moments of Webber-Wallace-Howard, and Beal/Wall, and the Hibachi, which combined was like maybe 5 or 6 years of hope out of 42 or 43 seasons?

These last 3 years were literally nothing at all, I could wipe this off like shower water drops off my forearm, easy as hell. 1980-1994, 1998-2010, that was torture, 2018-2022, that was torture. 2023, 2024, 2025, and a couple of months of 2026? Who gives a ----? It was and is literally a blink in the eye compared to 1980-2022, which was basically for the oldsters amongst us, literally half or more of our lives, this was 3 years.

I could tank another 5-10 years, and as long as the strategy and approach made sense, I'd be 1000% with it.This was and is nothing. It's amazing how quickly people forget the aimlessness of the EG/Sheppard years, or the Abe Decades etc, literally no direction for decades on end. That is infinitely worse in my view. Like being a Saints or Bucs fans in 1980. Or a Snyder Redskins fan. Now there's direction, hope and possibility. That's been true literally for like 2 years of my wizards/boulez watching life (1997, and 2015 or whatever). The past 3 seasons have been the happiest (other than lottery '23, and lottery '25 nights) I've been as a wizards fan bar none other than probably '95-'97.

[The Consiglieri]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

A couple things. 1. Wemby wasn’t exactly the most healthy pick. He missed a lot of games due to injuries including when he had a season ending blood clot.

2. The Spurs were still content on losing games to accumulate assets and made trades for the future like trading Murray for picks and trading Dillingham for unprotected picks. Wizards mandate appears to be to win games if they are going to go with Davis/Young.

But yeah, would love to see Davis/Young healthy. The range of team outcomes is wide given their injury history.

In all the praising of the Spurs this year, it was nice for Zach Lowe to allude in one sentence to the fact that the Spurs resurgence is 1000% luck, and like .1% genius. He mentioned the key element that defines everything for them: They moved up in the draft 3 consecutive years ('23, '24 and '25) two of which were amongst the most top heavy loaded drafts of this century, landing 2 of the best 3 players from those respective classes. They are what they are but it needs to be underlined that ALL OF THEIR SUCCESS is lottery luck. ALL OF IT. Sure they had some other pieces, but subtract Wemby and Harper from this team and they are a .350 team at best, add Castle to that, and they are just as bad as the tanking Big 4. It was ALL lottery luck. All of it. So annoying. As if they hadn't had enough luck in the nineties, aughts and the previous decade. God I hate this league.

[The Consiglieri]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

A couple things. 1. Wemby wasn’t exactly the most healthy pick. He missed a lot of games due to injuries including when he had a season ending blood clot.

2. The Spurs were still content on losing games to accumulate assets and made trades for the future like trading Murray for picks and trading Dillingham for unprotected picks. Wizards mandate appears to be to win games if they are going to go with Davis/Young.

But yeah, would love to see Davis/Young healthy. The range of team outcomes is wide given their injury history.

Also the 22-23 spurs getting Wemby is equivalent to the year before last when the zards selected Sarr and then got 17 wins the following year (this last season). The jump to 34 wins is the best analogue to what will happen next season. I still contend this wasn't a true 17 win team though, this is a team that seems to have gotten permission from the league to tank fairly obviously given how badly they were screwed by the lottery the previous season. There's about 20 wins worth of talent that was withheld from playing this last season. Sarr. Trae. AD. Not to mention George and Bilal pulled up mysteriously lame several times.

It wasn't and you're right. It seems clear they needed to get McCollum the hell out of here lol, he was too good, but unfortunately the rest of the NBA were idiots, and let the Hawks get him for peanuts. The weirdest thing about this season is the like nearly 70% of the wins we had came in a 2ish week run in December, and a week+ run before the all star break in late January and early February, I think 11 or 12 of the 17 wins were all in those like 3 weeks or so, the other 20 or so weeks of the season we were like 4-65 or whatever.

But if we'd played to win, I think we were probably a 23-25 win team. With health and a good lottery, we should jump to 30-35 wins. I'm not buying .500, but I think we can approach .450 or so.

[payitforward]

In '22-23 the Spurs went 22-60. Then they added Wemby and... went 22-60 again in '23-24. The following year, '24-25, they went 34-48.

In '24-25 we went 15-67. This year, it was 17-65. But some of you are suggesting we'll win in the low 40s next year. Some are even suggesting 50 wins if we get Dybantsa.

I guess that means he'd have a huge impact as a rookie. Unlike Wemby.

If we win 28 games next year, that'll be a 70% jump. A huge jump.

yeah but you're assuming that the zards would have won 17 games last season even if they played Sarr, Young, AD, Bilal, and George....

Actually, that's a fair point. tho I guess we'd have to assume that the Spurs were *not* tanking when they won 22. Maybe....

I agree it's unlikely that a rookie will come in and add 8 wins but I endorse the optimism.

Me too -- in my case, I don't connect it to a big win total next year.

Another model might be Portland: in '23-24 they won 21 games. They added Deni & jumped to 36 wins. A similar jump would push us to 30 wins. A rookie wouldn't do that, but you make a solid point in respect of continued improvement across a young core.

I.e. a lot of guys might well make significant jumps next year: Sarr, George, Bub, Riley, Tre, Jamir, Bilal. Thinking of it that way -- rather than on the model of "Dybantsa takes us to 45 wins, wow..." wch I just don't buy for any of the potential high pick names -- makes more sense.

Plus, there's the fact that the Spurs went from 34 wins to 62 wins in a single season (i.e. Wemby's third year).

So, on reconsideration, not driven by a fabulous rookie but by our very young roster's development, we can hope to take a huge jump. Still, keep in mind that from 17 to 34 IS a huge jump! Don't you think it would be odd to find ourselves disappointed by doubling our wins?

OTOH, as to this...

I'm tired of being a mopey mumfrey about this team. I am rooting for them to do extremely well, to exceed everyone's wildest expectations next season.

...same here -- & I'm not mopey at all. I'm enthusiastic about the future!

[payitforward]

I still contend this wasn't a true 17 win team though, this is a team that seems to have gotten permission from the league to tank fairly obviously given how badly they were screwed by the lottery the previous season....

Aaah.... There's a lot of unverifiability in those little words "seems" & "obviously." I.e. this claim introduces a speculative element into the claim about our likely (or even potential) win total for '26-27.

There's about 20 wins worth of talent that was withheld from playing this last season. Sarr. Trae. AD. Not to mention George and Bilal pulled up mysteriously lame several times.

You noticed, I hope, that Atlanta got better - not worse - when Trae left?

OTOH, we were at 16-39, i.e. on a 24-win pace, before closing out the season by going 1-23. Which gives credence to your idea that we lost games on purpose, an idea I have always had difficulty believing.

I.e. I think of "tanking" as a higher-level decision -- I struggle to believe that our guys (or guys on any team) step on the floor w/o intending to do their absolute best to win the game. Am I wrong about that? I hope not.

[Zonkerbl]

What are you *talking* about Trae was *injured* of course they got better when they added McCollum to a team Trae was not currently playing for that's an absolutely insane thing to say

And what a simple minded thing to say about tanking. I can see why Nate gets irritated with you. Please go read my posts in the Keefe thread about tanking.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm sure the starting five of Bub Carrington, Leaky Black, Will Riley, Anthony Gill, and Julian Reese played their ever loving little hearts out during that 1-23 stretch. Who cares? Literally none of those players will start next year! Black, Gill, and Reese will be lucky to get any playing time at all! But you attribute next season's success on the performance of this group? Why???

[payitforward]

What are you *talking* about Trae was *injured* of course they got better when they added McCollum to a team Trae was not currently playing for that's an absolutely insane thing to say

And what a simple minded thing to say about tanking. I can see why Nate gets irritated with you. Please go read my posts in the Keefe thread about tanking.

You know... I've enjoyed reading your posts in the politics thread, & you & I agree on a broad range of matters -- political, social & economic. & I've been pleased as well by your increased input in the team-centered threads over the last few months.

Indeed, I'm quite sure we have reasonably similar backgrounds socially, although -- largely because of how much older I am than you -- it's unlikely that the difficulties attendant to that background have had as direct & significant an impact on your life as they have had on mine (tho of course the word "unlikely" indicates no conclusive pov on the issue). One aspect of that background is, surely, a particular pleasure in debate -- in "difference" itself I would even say.

All the same, I don't believe I have ever -- or ever would -- call you or something you write "simple-minded," & I'm not interested in being characterized that way. By you or anyone. Nor have I been so characterized with any frequency in my many years roaming this great big dirt-ball. For that matter, recruiting nate to your point-of-view w/o bothering to consult him beforehand doesn't do much to advertise the depth or significance of your POV. Nate & I differ about any number of subjects (as do you & nate for that matter!), but we respect one another's intelligence & make some effort to understand one another. We can butt heads but I don't recollect any name-calling.

As to the particular point which seemed to bother you -- by indicating disagreement -- let me repeat it & offer at least a little empirical support for it. As I wrote, when Bub, Alex, Ky, Will, et. al. step on the court, I think there's no question that they do it with the intention of winning & that they lend their best efforts to that goal. We don't win very often, because our players are not capable of winning very often. Not now, not in the current state of their development. Indeed, the idea that they step on the court & fail to put forth their best effort goes against every interest each individual among them surely holds dearest -- namely, to be the best player he is capable of being &, accordingly, to construct for himself the most significant NBA career possible.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that it really could not be otherwise, let me point to a single -- but significant -- piece of evidence: the first time Golden State played the Wizards of this new era, Draymond Green remarked that he could not remember a game against a Wizards team that fought so hard to win.

I have no reason, Zonk, to engage in any debate with you except insofar as it may be based in fact -- to whatever degree either of us is able to discern it. I'm right about some matters, & there can be no doubt that I am wrong about other things as well. I hope you are willing to make a similar statement about yourself. Perhaps we can help improve one another -- the goal, I think, of social discourse -- rather than characterizing one another negatively. Peace.

[montestewart]

lol ok gemini lied to me. Man LLMs can't do math!!! It would actually be the 7th largest win turnaround in nba history. Miami Heat did exactly that in 2008.

### All-Time Largest Single-Season NBA Turnarounds (Verified)

| Rank | Team | Season | Win Increase | Record Change |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | **Boston Celtics** | 2007-08 | **+42** | 24–58 to 66–16 |
| 2 | **San Antonio Spurs** | 1997-98 | **+36** | 20–62 to 56–26 |
| 3 | **San Antonio Spurs** | 1989-90 | **+35** | 21–61 to 56–26 |
| 4 | **Phoenix Suns** | 2004-05 | **+33** | 29–53 to 62–20 |
| 5 | **Milwaukee Bucks** | 1969-70 | **+29** | 27–55 to 56–26 |
| 6 | **Detroit Pistons** | 2024-25 | **+28** | 14–68 to 42–40 |
| 7 | **Potential Wizards** | **Next Season** | **+27** | 17–65 to 44–38 |
| 8 | **Phoenix Suns** | 1988-89 | **+27** | 28–54 to 55–27 |
| 9 | **Miami Heat** | 2008-09 | **+27** | 15–67 to 42–40 |
| 10 | **New Jersey Nets** | 2001-02 | **+26** | 26–56 to 52–30 |
| 11 | **Chicago Bulls** | 1995-96 | **+25** | 47–35 to 72–10 |
| 12 | **Golden State Warriors** | 2012-13 | **+24** | 23–43 to 47–35 |

2008 Miami Heat had Dwayne Wade returning from injury, traded Shaq for Shawn Merion, and it was Erik Spoelstra's first year. And they drafted Beasley, who was a bust but did score 14 ppg for them his rookie year.

Missing from your list (I knew this one off the top of my head and looked it up to verify). Wonder if your source skipped others.
**Boston Celtics** | 1979-80 | **+32** | 29–53 to 61–21 |

it's worth mentioning that for many/most of those teams on the list, the turnaround was attributable to a dramatic addition or two (draft, trade, FA, star returning from injury). I suppose Trae and AD (trade plus returning from "injury") plus a good rookie or two could qualify.

[payitforward]

I'm sure the starting five of Bub Carrington, Leaky Black, Will Riley, Anthony Gill, and Julian Reese played their ever loving little hearts out during that 1-23 stretch. Who cares? Literally none of those players will start next year! Black, Gill, and Reese will be lucky to get any playing time at all! But you attribute next season's success on the performance of this group? Why???

Ok that is a fair point too!

Here's hoping we do reach 40+ wins next year!
Presaged by a Democratic landslide in the November elections.

[Zonkerbl]

What are you *talking* about Trae was *injured* of course they got better when they added McCollum to a team Trae was not currently playing for that's an absolutely insane thing to say

And what a simple minded thing to say about tanking. I can see why Nate gets irritated with you. Please go read my posts in the Keefe thread about tanking.

You know... I've enjoyed reading your posts in the politics thread, & you & I agree on a broad range of matters -- political, social & economic. & I've been pleased as well by your increased input in the team-centered threads over the last few months.

Indeed, I'm quite sure we have reasonably similar backgrounds socially, although -- largely because of how much older I am than you -- it's unlikely that the difficulties attendant to that background have had as direct & significant an impact on your life as they have had on mine (tho of course the word "unlikely" indicates no conclusive pov on the issue). One aspect of that background is, surely, a particular pleasure in debate -- in "difference" itself I would even say.

All the same, I don't believe I have ever -- or ever would -- call you or something you write "simple-minded," & I'm not interested in being characterized that way. By you or anyone. Nor have I been so characterized with any frequency in my many years roaming this great big dirt-ball. For that matter, recruiting nate to your point-of-view w/o bothering to consult him beforehand doesn't do much to advertise the depth or significance of your POV. Nate & I differ about any number of subjects (as do you & nate for that matter!), but we respect one another's intelligence & make some effort to understand one another. We can butt heads but I don't recollect any name-calling.

As to the particular point which seemed to bother you -- by indicating disagreement -- let me repeat it & offer at least a little empirical support for it. As I wrote, when Bub, Alex, Ky, Will, et. al. step on the court, I think there's no question that they do it with the intention of winning & that they lend their best efforts to that goal. We don't win very often, because our players are not capable of winning very often. Not now, not in the current state of their development. Indeed, the idea that they step on the court & fail to put forth their best effort goes against every interest each individual among them surely holds dearest -- namely, to be the best player he is capable of being &, accordingly, to construct for himself the most significant NBA career possible.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that it really could not be otherwise, let me point to a single -- but significant -- piece of evidence: the first time Golden State played the Wizards of this new era, Draymond Green remarked that he could not remember a game against a Wizards team that fought so hard to win.

I have no reason, Zonk, to engage in any debate with you except insofar as it may be based in fact -- to whatever degree either of us is able to discern it. I'm right about some matters, & there can be no doubt that I am wrong about other things as well. I hope you are willing to make a similar statement about yourself. Perhaps we can help improve one another -- the goal, I think, of social discourse -- rather than characterizing one another negatively. Peace.

I ain't reading that

[DCZards]

You noticed, I hope, that Atlanta got better - not worse - when Trae left?

C'mon PIF, Trae played all of 10 games with the Hawks this season. Him leaving had no impact whatsoever on them getting better or worse. They got better because Johnson continued to improve, they added NAW who blew up, and CJ improved their guard play.