2013-2014 Washington Wizards Playoffs Thread.

[Nivek]

A "dick," huh? What is this, junior high?

But ok, I'll play along. ... If dickdom = possessing a vigorous and irreverent skepticism toward received ideas, then I adore being a dick. I relish being a dick. Dick, c'est moi ...

But to the point:

All the hosannas for Morey, all the oceans of praise for his maneuverings, all the worshipful appreciation of his fancy metrical work -- and they're gone in round 1.

And Grunfeld moves on.

Yeah, there is an irony about Morey's team getting beat. His approach is a good one, though.

Grunfeld moving on is a lot about the good fortune of being in the East, of course. I don't think Houston would be out in the first round if they were in the East. Or if they seeded the playoffs 1-16 instead of by conference. Hmm...

Here's what that would look like:

Code: Select all

SEED    1st RND
1       SAS
16      CHA

8       GSW
9       MEM

5       MIA
12      CHI

4       IND
13      PHX

6       HOU
11      TOR

3       LAC
14      WAS

7       POR
10      DAL

2       OKC
15      BRK


Man, that would be kinda fun. I'm glad the NBA doesn't do it that way -- Wiz would have had the Clippers in round 1.

I appreciate the advanced numbers. But this is a far more mysterious game than baseball. Far more irreducible. Morey doesn't have the answer. No one does. There's no one key to the lock; there are many. I don't object to the crunching of the data -- to the idea of looking differently and in a much more nuanced way at the game. I object to the cult of it, and to the smug certainty of a John Hollinger -- whose team, I would like to point out, is sitting, while the squad of the Reviled One plays on.

I'd agree with most of this. This is actually the approach of most teams. It's Morey's approach too, if you listen to what he says (and/or talk with some of the guys working for him).

Does this mean I prefer keeping Grunfeld? It doesn't. I'd much rather see him go.

Attaboy.

(Inefficient chucker, btw = Lillard. The buzzer beater.)

And, this is where metrics may be worth something. Lillard isn't an inefficient chucker. He's an excellent shooter and a superb offensive player. That buzzer beater was roughly a 40% attempt based on his history.

[fishercob]

A "dick," huh? What is this, junior high?

But ok, I'll play along. ... If dickdom = possessing a vigorous and irreverent skepticism toward received ideas, then I adore being a dick. I relish being a dick. Dick, c'est moi ...

But to the point:

All the hosannas for Morey, all the oceans of praise for his maneuverings, all the worshipful appreciation of his fancy metrical work -- and they're gone in round 1.

And Grunfeld moves on.

Yeah, there is an irony about Morey's team getting beat. His approach is a good one, though.

Grunfeld moving on is a lot about the good fortune of being in the East, of course. I don't think Houston would be out in the first round if they were in the East. Or if they seeded the playoffs 1-16 instead of by conference. Hmm...

Here's what that would look like:

Code: Select all

SEED    1st RND
1       SAS
16      CHA

8       GSW
9       MEM

5       MIA
12      CHI

4       IND
13      PHX

6       HOU
11      TOR

3       LAC
14      WAS

7       POR
10      DAL

2       OKC
15      BRK


Man, that would be kinda fun. I'm glad the NBA doesn't do it that way -- Wiz would have had the Clippers in round 1.

I appreciate the advanced numbers. But this is a far more mysterious game than baseball. Far more irreducible. Morey doesn't have the answer. No one does. There's no one key to the lock; there are many. I don't object to the crunching of the data -- to the idea of looking differently and in a much more nuanced way at the game. I object to the cult of it, and to the smug certainty of a John Hollinger -- whose team, I would like to point out, is sitting, while the squad of the Reviled One plays on.

I'd agree with most of this. This is actually the approach of most teams. It's Morey's approach too, if you listen to what he says (and/or talk with some of the guys working for him).

Does this mean I prefer keeping Grunfeld? It doesn't. I'd much rather see him go.

Attaboy.

(Inefficient chucker, btw = Lillard. The buzzer beater.)

And, this is where metrics may be worth something. Lillard isn't an inefficient chucker. He's an excellent shooter and a superb offensive player. That buzzer beater was roughly a 40% attempt based on his history.

This is a good and important discussion, and because it's the two of you, it's entertaining also.

I thought of this forum yesterday when reading this article about Grace Kelly's breasts. It speaks to the power of confirmation bias and the dangers of relying on our observations. My conclusion is that looking at aggregated data is really, really important.

But it's not absolute. And while I don't think anyone is making the argument that it specifically is, The Data led John Hollinger to pen this passage in his evisceration of the OkaRiza trade (emphasis added):

For that, they get a middling but overpaid starting center, and a grossly overpaid wing defender with perhaps the worst shot selection in basketball. Alas, his only rival in that department will be starting alongside him. Which brings us to another reason to hate this trade: It did nothing to solve Washington's biggest problem, shooting. If anything, it exacerbated it.

.

There was a pretty large data set from which to draw these conclusions about Ariza. And yet, since Wall's return from injury last season, he's been excellent -- specifically his shooting accuracy and shot selection.

And this is why the anecdote of Grace's cans tells me that while it is really important to look at aggregated data, Ariza's story also tells me that we're dealing with human beings -- they can improve their skills, they can be used differently, they respond to stimuli -- both positive and negative. Assembling a roster involves some science, but it still may involve just as much art.

By the way, it's the same confirmation bias (about Ernie's past performance) that led me and most here to discount the Drew Gooden signing as irrelevant. I think a more objective and perhaps nuanced analysis may have led us to believe that it would be a significant addition.

I will close with a great quote that I saw yesterday from an English philosopher named Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Go Wiz.

[deneem4]

15fta is being average between wall and Beal
**key factors in wizards success
48% 3pt shooting from beal...at 4.5 per game
55% 3pt shooting from ariza...at 5.7 per game
4.2 t/o between wall and beal

^^^these stats are coming against the 2 best defensive teams in the league

3.7 steals averaged between wall and beal
9.7 rebounds between wall and beal
8.2 rebounds by ariza

this is why the wizards are currently Unstoppable

.......Ignoring the rebounds and steals considering the bulls and pacers offensive reputation...
-offensively beal and Ariza have been lights out from long range, they're rebounding have been terrific as well
-Wall ball handling has been key...2 turnovers against top defensive teams...thats lower than chris Pauls with almost 1/2 of the turnovers
Lastly getting to the line wall has been to the line more than durant in these playoffs...Some may be garbage time fouls but point still remains...he's been attacking and playing aggressive smart basketball...

[Severn Hoos]

But it's not absolute. And while I don't think anyone is making the argument that it specifically is, The Data led John Hollinger to pen this passage in his evisceration of the OkaRiza trade (emphasis added):

For that, they get a middling but overpaid starting center, and a grossly overpaid wing defender with perhaps the worst shot selection in basketball. Alas, his only rival in that department will be starting alongside him. Which brings us to another reason to hate this trade: It did nothing to solve Washington's biggest problem, shooting. If anything, it exacerbated it.

.

There was a pretty large data set from which to draw these conclusions about Ariza. And yet, since Wall's return from injury last season, he's been excellent -- specifically his shooting accuracy and shot selection.

And this is why the anecdote of Grace's cans tells me that while it is really important to look at aggregated data, Ariza's story also tells me that we're dealing with human beings -- they can improve their skills, they can be used differently, they respond to stimuli -- both positive and negative. Assembling a roster involves some science, but it still may involve just as much art.

By the way, it's the same confirmation bias (about Ernie's past performance) that led me and most here to discount the Drew Gooden signing as irrelevant. I think a more objective and perhaps nuanced analysis may have led us to believe that it would be a significant addition.

I will close with a great quote that I saw yesterday from an English philosopher named Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Go Wiz.

So, pardon the removal of the anatomical references (male and female) from the above, but I wanted to focus attention ("eyes are up here, boys!") on your bolded section above.

Yes, there was a large amount of statistical data to consider. But that statistical data was in a specific context - or, in this case, two specific contexts, Houston and New Orleans. And that context included elements such as Trevor playing under a new contract, being asked to do certain things (or thinking he was supposed to be The Man, I don't have insight into what was being said in practice or on the bench), a fairly dysfunctional situation on the Hornets, etc.

So that data was accurate, and probably would have been fairly predictive if the context had remained the same. And I know any stats-smart guy from Nivek to Morey to Hollinger would tell you that as well. But when you change the environment, some portion of the predictive model goes out the window. How much? I'm sure there's a statistical model to answer that too, but in the end, we really can't say since the future is, well, in the future.

And that's not even accounting for the point about dealing with human beings - is the guy happy or miserable? Is he going through some personal situation to the point where his on-court performance suffers? (It's easy to see why those rumors about the Pacers are so quickly believed, whether or not they are true.) Does he get along with his coach?

In the absence of anything else, it's far better to use statistical modeling as a guide than not. But the key is much more about recognizing that what we don't know far exceeds what we do, and to be cautious in assuming certainty where we really have very little. [F.A. Hayek and Nassim Nicholas Taleb ("Black Swan") are two of my favorite authors on this point.]

[hands11]

I expect IND just lost there ref favorability rating which they have had all series.

This next game is going to either be called even or to the Wizards advantage.

Wizards earned their bones with that last win and they fit the marketing bill with Beal and Wall.

I think the NBA would now like to see this go game 7 and watch the best team win. The East could use another front runner since this year is was one MIA, IND and a Roseless CHI to go along with the surprise TOR team. The WIZ would fit nicely in that grouping. MIA, CHI, WIZ, IND

If the Wizards can do 3-0 and close it in IND, they will be ready for national prime time in a MIA series.

I expect this to go to Game 7 now.

[Higga]

If I'm the NBA I'd much rather Washington make the ECF than Indiana. Yeah Indiana has Paul George but John Wall has just as much name recognition(better media market, big name since college)and we play a more fun style of basketball. Not that I think the NBA rigs games or anything...

[hands11]

If I'm the NBA I'd much rather Washington make the ECF than Indiana. Yeah Indiana has Paul George but John Wall has just as much name recognition(better media market, big name since college)and we play a more fun style of basketball. Not that I think the NBA rigs games or anything...

But they do like to lend a helping hand to those that help themselves.

I think the Wizards have proven themselves as that.

I expect the helping hand now.

And its not just getting the helping hand, its removing it from IND.

The combination of the two can really flip how a game goes.

[dobrojim]

I will close with a great quote that I saw yesterday from an English philosopher named Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Go Wiz.

That, is a GREAT quote.

[hands11]

Second Round

Game 6 - illumination game. Preview game. http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400556179

The Wall Break out - http://www.monumentalnetwork.com/videos ... er-5-13-14

I think the Wizards have the advantages this game.

Momentum
Wall and Gortat breaking out
Unfinished business of winning at home for the fans after losing a big lead last game at home.
Backs against the wall. Win or go home for the Wizards and they just experienced that last game.

As for the NBA.

MIA is waiting after a short series 4-1
SAS is waiting after a short series 4-1

NBA has two series they can milk. OKC vs LAC and WIZ vs IND
Both play tonight. Both teams that are down 3-2 are playing at home.

If both win, Sunday will feature 2nd round two Game 7s. Of course they would want that. $$$

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/scoreboard?date=20140518

Interesting. If both win they get 2 days rest before playing again.

Wizards just seem ready for a big Game 7 - Winning take all

[dckingsfan]

But it's not absolute. And while I don't think anyone is making the argument that it specifically is, The Data led John Hollinger to pen this passage in his evisceration of the OkaRiza trade (emphasis added):

For that, they get a middling but overpaid starting center, and a grossly overpaid wing defender with perhaps the worst shot selection in basketball. Alas, his only rival in that department will be starting alongside him. Which brings us to another reason to hate this trade: It did nothing to solve Washington's biggest problem, shooting. If anything, it exacerbated it.

.

There was a pretty large data set from which to draw these conclusions about Ariza. And yet, since Wall's return from injury last season, he's been excellent -- specifically his shooting accuracy and shot selection.

And this is why the anecdote of Grace's cans tells me that while it is really important to look at aggregated data, Ariza's story also tells me that we're dealing with human beings -- they can improve their skills, they can be used differently, they respond to stimuli -- both positive and negative. Assembling a roster involves some science, but it still may involve just as much art.

By the way, it's the same confirmation bias (about Ernie's past performance) that led me and most here to discount the Drew Gooden signing as irrelevant. I think a more objective and perhaps nuanced analysis may have led us to believe that it would be a significant addition.

I will close with a great quote that I saw yesterday from an English philosopher named Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Go Wiz.

So, pardon the removal of the anatomical references (male and female) from the above, but I wanted to focus attention ("eyes are up here, boys!") on your bolded section above.

Yes, there was a large amount of statistical data to consider. But that statistical data was in a specific context - or, in this case, two specific contexts, Houston and New Orleans. And that context included elements such as Trevor playing under a new contract, being asked to do certain things (or thinking he was supposed to be The Man, I don't have insight into what was being said in practice or on the bench), a fairly dysfunctional situation on the Hornets, etc.

So that data was accurate, and probably would have been fairly predictive if the context had remained the same. And I know any stats-smart guy from Nivek to Morey to Hollinger would tell you that as well. But when you change the environment, some portion of the predictive model goes out the window. How much? I'm sure there's a statistical model to answer that too, but in the end, we really can't say since the future is, well, in the future.

And that's not even accounting for the point about dealing with human beings - is the guy happy or miserable? Is he going through some personal situation to the point where his on-court performance suffers? (It's easy to see why those rumors about the Pacers are so quickly believed, whether or not they are true.) Does he get along with his coach?

In the absence of anything else, it's far better to use statistical modeling as a guide than not. But the key is much more about recognizing that what we don't know far exceeds what we do, and to be cautious in assuming certainty where we really have very little. [F.A. Hayek and Nassim Nicholas Taleb ("Black Swan") are two of my favorite authors on this point.]

And that same bias affects coaches as well. You don't believe someone can do something so you don't give them a chance. It is a terrific lesson for young coaches when you make an assumption about an athlete only to be surprised by their performance.

Nice sub-thread

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, let's start with Ariza being the perfect example of eyes being better than statistics. Statistics would tell you Ariza can't shoot from three.

If you watch Ariza play it is obvious that he can shoot the three just fine in certain situations that requires a PG with a certain skillset to get him the ball in that situation. EG, to his credit, recognized that and went out and got him.

Now, we don't know what kind of statistics the Wizards are gathering from that high tech set of cameras in the rafters, but it may just be able to tell exactly that kind of story. Ariza is good in this situation, not good in that situation. Get him the ball in the right situation and he will be productive.

So Ariza doesn't tell me that the eye is better than statistics, but rather good statistics are better than bad statistics.

[tontoz]

A "dick," huh? What is this, junior high?

But ok, I'll play along. ... If dickdom = possessing a vigorous and irreverent skepticism toward received ideas, then I adore being a dick. I relish being a dick. Dick, c'est moi ...

But to the point:

All the hosannas for Morey, all the oceans of praise for his maneuverings, all the worshipful appreciation of his fancy metrical work -- and they're gone in round 1.

And Grunfeld moves on.

It's kind of sweet, actually.

I appreciate the advanced numbers. But this is a far more mysterious game than baseball. Far more irreducible. Morey doesn't have the answer. No one does. There's no one key to the lock; there are many. I don't object to the crunching of the data -- to the idea of looking differently and in a much more nuanced way at the game. I object to the cult of it, and to the smug certainty of a John Hollinger -- whose team, I would like to point out, is sitting, while the squad of the Reviled One plays on.

Does this mean I prefer keeping Grunfeld? It doesn't. I'd much rather see him go.

(Inefficient chucker, btw = Lillard. The buzzer beater.)

The Wizards were 11-19 against the West. The only way they would get to the playoffs in the west is if they bought tickets.

FYI Morey has never had a losing record since he took the Houston job in spite of the fact that he did a total rebuild after injuries ruined the careers of Yao and Tmac. Morey's winning percentage is 58.4% which averages to 48 wins a season.

In 11 seasons EG has never had a team win 48 games.

[tontoz]

Yeah, let's start with Ariza being the perfect example of eyes being better than statistics. Statistics would tell you Ariza can't shoot from three.

If you watch Ariza play it is obvious that he can shoot the three just fine in certain situations that requires a PG with a certain skillset to get him the ball in that situation. EG, to his credit, recognized that and went out and got him.

Now, we don't know what kind of statistics the Wizards are gathering from that high tech set of cameras in the rafters, but it may just be able to tell exactly that kind of story. Ariza is good in this situation, not good in that situation. Get him the ball in the right situation and he will be productive.

So Ariza doesn't tell me that the eye is better than statistics, but rather good statistics are better than bad statistics.

Not sure if serious. Ariza played a full season with Chris Paul and shot 30% from 3.

[Nivek]

What the Ariza statistics say to me is that he's really improved his 3pt shooting. I don't care how much we stared at him shooting threes early in his career -- he was still not a good 3pt shooter. But, he improved.

That year with the Lakers, was pretty clearly the turning point, although his percentage still wasn't impressive. The next year in Houston, he shot .334 -- with Aaron Brooks as his PG. Then his percentage dipped while playing with Chris Paul, and bounced back the following season after Paul was traded. His PGs that season were Greivis Vasquez and Jarrett Jack. Then, a significant step forward in DC from being an adequate 3pt shooter to being a good-to-excellent one -- the first season with a mix of Wall, Price, Temple, etc.; the second with mostly Wall.

Looks to me like he worked on his shot and improved.

[Zonkerbl]

But when he was shooting 30% with CP, how many of his shots came from above the break vs. in the corner? Advanced statistics (might) tell you he shoots much better from the corner. That's my point - the 30% statistic is a lousy statistic. Situational statistics will be much more informative.

Although of course I agree with Kevin that what we expected from Ariza was *acceptable* three point shooting combined with good defense. Ariza has improved his three point shooting from the various points on the floor beyond what we observed, for example, his first year with us.

[Nivek]

But when he was shooting 30% with CP, how many of his shots came from above the break vs. in the corner? Advanced statistics (might) tell you he shoots much better from the corner. That's my point - the 30% statistic is a lousy statistic. Situational statistics will be much more informative.

A quick check of the shot location data indicates that Ariza's 3pt shot selection in 2010-11 was very similar to this season. According to the data on NBA.com, 41% of Ariza's 3FA this season were corner 3s. In 2010-11, it was 40%. What seems to have changed is his ability to make those shots.

[tontoz]

I believe Ariza just smartened up, realizing that he isn't very good off the dribble so he cut down those attempts and focused on improving his 3 point shot. Some of the 3 point attempts he is making now aren't easy ones. Some of them are in transition when he is slowing down and launching from up top which seems like a much harder shot than the normal catch and shoot attempt.

Nice timing for what is arguably his career season.

[Nivek]

I believe Ariza just smartened up, realizing that he isn't very good off the dribble so he cut down those attempts and focused on improving his 3 point shot. Some of the 3 point attempts he is making now aren't easy ones. Some of them are in transition when he is slowing down and launching from up top which seems like a much harder shot than the normal catch and shoot attempt.

Nice timing for what is arguably his career season.

It's definitely his career season...so far. His career-best PPA before this season was a 118 with the Lakers. This season: 145. And he's been much better in the playoffs. Not including last night's games (because I haven't updated yet), he was one of three players with a postseason PPA of 200 or higher (keeping in mind that average is 100 and higher is better). The other two: Lebron James and Chris Paul.

[Zonkerbl]

But when he was shooting 30% with CP, how many of his shots came from above the break vs. in the corner? Advanced statistics (might) tell you he shoots much better from the corner. That's my point - the 30% statistic is a lousy statistic. Situational statistics will be much more informative.

A quick check of the shot location data indicates that Ariza's 3pt shot selection in 2010-11 was very similar to this season. According to the data on NBA.com, 41% of Ariza's 3FA this season were corner 3s. In 2010-11, it was 40%. What seems to have changed is his ability to make those shots.

That's what I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote...

>:(

[tontoz]

Yeah, let's start with Ariza being the perfect example of eyes being better than statistics. Statistics would tell you Ariza can't shoot from three.

If you watch Ariza play it is obvious that he can shoot the three just fine in certain situations that requires a PG with a certain skillset to get him the ball in that situation. EG, to his credit, recognized that and went out and got him.

Now, we don't know what kind of statistics the Wizards are gathering from that high tech set of cameras in the rafters, but it may just be able to tell exactly that kind of story. Ariza is good in this situation, not good in that situation. Get him the ball in the right situation and he will be productive.

So Ariza doesn't tell me that the eye is better than statistics, but rather good statistics are better than bad statistics.

The problem here is that the "good" statistics and the "bad" statistics are saying the same thing, that Ariza wasn't a good 3 point shooter until he came here regardless of the quality of pg play. Giving EG credit for allegedly "seeing through" the "bad" statistics is a major reach.