Official Thread -- Wizards vs Knicks Preseason (10/9/15)

[fishercob]

First game... Gary "the substitute Real Deal" Neal looking like a legit backup to Beal we lacked.

I think I will *never* understand what some people see when they watch a game. Neal didn't look "like a legit backup," he looked bad.

Now, when your team wins easily there's an understandable tendency to see everyone in a rosy light. But despite going 3-4 from 3point range, Neal still only managed 13 points on 13 shots -- ok, but nothing more than that.

For the rest, in 26 minutes he did basically nothing positive: he had 1 rebound (defensive), 1 assist, 0 steals, 1 turnover, and committed 2 fouls.

I haven't heard anyone say anything positive about Garrett Temple's play in 24 minutes in the same game -- but in fact, he was much more productive than Neal. No, he didn't shoot well or score well -- he went 2-9 from the floor and 2-2 from the line (so call it 3-10 for simplicity) for 7 points.

But, Neal turned it over once -- equivalent to missing a shot w/ the rebound going to the opponent. So lets call his line 5-14. Whereas, Temple didn't turn it over -- and he had a steal, which nullifies a missed shot. So lets change his line to, effectively, 3-9. He also had an offensive rebound; again, that takes back a miss.

So now Temple is effectively 3-8 vs. Neal's 5-14: i.e. 6 fewer points on, effectively, 6 fewer attempts. But then there is the rest of what the two players did while on the floor: Neal had the 1 assist, the 1 defensive rebound, and the 2 fouls. Temple, in his 2 fewer minutes, had 7 assists. He had 8 defensive boards, and he committed no fouls.

Seems kind of obvious: give me Temple's minutes every time.

This is a really nice breakdown, PIF.

[fishercob]

Porzingis looks like a star in the making to me.

[payitforward]

First game... Gary "the substitute Real Deal" Neal looking like a legit backup to Beal we lacked.

I think I will *never* understand what some people see when they watch a game. Neal didn't look "like a legit backup," he looked bad.

Now, when your team wins easily there's an understandable tendency to see everyone in a rosy light. But despite going 3-4 from 3point range, Neal still only managed 13 points on 13 shots -- ok, but nothing more than that.

For the rest, in 26 minutes he did basically nothing positive: he had 1 rebound (defensive), 1 assist, 0 steals, 1 turnover, and committed 2 fouls.

I haven't heard anyone say anything positive about Garrett Temple's play in 24 minutes in the same game -- but in fact, he was much more productive than Neal. No, he didn't shoot well or score well -- he went 2-9 from the floor and 2-2 from the line (so call it 3-10 for simplicity) for 7 points.

But, Neal turned it over once -- equivalent to missing a shot w/ the rebound going to the opponent. So lets call his line 5-14. Whereas, Temple didn't turn it over -- and he had a steal, which nullifies a missed shot. So lets change his line to, effectively, 3-9. He also had an offensive rebound; again, that takes back a miss.

So now Temple is effectively 3-8 vs. Neal's 5-14: i.e. 6 fewer points on, effectively, 6 fewer attempts. But then there is the rest of what the two players did while on the floor: Neal had the 1 assist, the 1 defensive rebound, and the 2 fouls. Temple, in his 2 fewer minutes, had 7 assists. He had 8 defensive boards, and he committed no fouls.

Seems kind of obvious: give me Temple's minutes every time.

This is a really nice breakdown, PIF.

Thanks, Fish -- but it hasn't stopped a number of people checking in to say how good Neal looks so far. Go figure. Or wanting to cut Temple. Or trade him for a R2 pick. As I said, I can't work out what some people see when they watch games.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

First game... Gary "the substitute Real Deal" Neal looking like a legit backup to Beal we lacked.

I think I will *never* understand what some people see when they watch a game. Neal didn't look "like a legit backup," he looked bad.

Now, when your team wins easily there's an understandable tendency to see everyone in a rosy light. But despite going 3-4 from 3point range, Neal still only managed 13 points on 13 shots -- ok, but nothing more than that.

For the rest, in 26 minutes he did basically nothing positive: he had 1 rebound (defensive), 1 assist, 0 steals, 1 turnover, and committed 2 fouls.

I haven't heard anyone say anything positive about Garrett Temple's play in 24 minutes in the same game -- but in fact, he was much more productive than Neal. No, he didn't shoot well or score well -- he went 2-9 from the floor and 2-2 from the line (so call it 3-10 for simplicity) for 7 points.

But, Neal turned it over once -- equivalent to missing a shot w/ the rebound going to the opponent. So lets call his line 5-14. Whereas, Temple didn't turn it over -- and he had a steal, which nullifies a missed shot. So lets change his line to, effectively, 3-9. He also had an offensive rebound; again, that takes back a miss.

So now Temple is effectively 3-8 vs. Neal's 5-14: i.e. 6 fewer points on, effectively, 6 fewer attempts. But then there is the rest of what the two players did while on the floor: Neal had the 1 assist, the 1 defensive rebound, and the 2 fouls. Temple, in his 2 fewer minutes, had 7 assists. He had 8 defensive boards, and he committed no fouls.

Seems kind of obvious: give me Temple's minutes every time.

This is a really nice breakdown, PIF.

Temple has been a Wizard a few years, Neal a few weeks.

I'm not saying Neal was needed or that his 13 points were good. Your analysis is spot on regarding his play so far.

I think once he's comfortable Gary Neal might score in bunches like a poor man's Lou Williams. He could be his most efficient down the road.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Porzingis looks like a star in the making to me.

Yep.

[fishercob]

I think I will *never* understand what some people see when they watch a game. Neal didn't look "like a legit backup," he looked bad.

Now, when your team wins easily there's an understandable tendency to see everyone in a rosy light. But despite going 3-4 from 3point range, Neal still only managed 13 points on 13 shots -- ok, but nothing more than that.

For the rest, in 26 minutes he did basically nothing positive: he had 1 rebound (defensive), 1 assist, 0 steals, 1 turnover, and committed 2 fouls.

I haven't heard anyone say anything positive about Garrett Temple's play in 24 minutes in the same game -- but in fact, he was much more productive than Neal. No, he didn't shoot well or score well -- he went 2-9 from the floor and 2-2 from the line (so call it 3-10 for simplicity) for 7 points.

But, Neal turned it over once -- equivalent to missing a shot w/ the rebound going to the opponent. So lets call his line 5-14. Whereas, Temple didn't turn it over -- and he had a steal, which nullifies a missed shot. So lets change his line to, effectively, 3-9. He also had an offensive rebound; again, that takes back a miss.

So now Temple is effectively 3-8 vs. Neal's 5-14: i.e. 6 fewer points on, effectively, 6 fewer attempts. But then there is the rest of what the two players did while on the floor: Neal had the 1 assist, the 1 defensive rebound, and the 2 fouls. Temple, in his 2 fewer minutes, had 7 assists. He had 8 defensive boards, and he committed no fouls.

Seems kind of obvious: give me Temple's minutes every time.

This is a really nice breakdown, PIF.

Thanks, Fish -- but it hasn't stopped a number of people checking in to say how good Neal looks so far. Go figure. Or wanting to cut Temple. Or trade him for a R2 pick. As I said, I can't work out what some people see when they watch games.

Well that aspect of isn't that hard for me to comprehend, PIF. The team that scores the most points wins; points are scored by making baskets; Neal makes baskets. It makes sense, cognitively, why people would think he's better than he actually is. The same could be said for Kobe Bryant or Carmelo Anthony. Your explanation is illuminating and important.