Is Wall Top 5 PG?

[payitforward]

Efficiency in basketball is a measure of how often a team or player scores as compared to the number of possessions it uses. In a manner of speaking, teams (and their players) purchase points with possessions. They're spending possessions to accumulate points.

On average this season, the league is accumulating 106.2 points for every 100 possessions it spends. From Wall, the Wizards are getting a bit less than that: about 103 points for every 100 possessions.

The same thing is true of shooting the ball, which is a primary way of spending possessions. On average, the league gets about one point per field goal attempt (efg is .501 so far this season). When Wall spends a shot, the yield isn't as good: 0.938 points per shot. Wall "spends" a lot of shots -- 10th most in the league. But, the yield isnt' as good as other around the league, and he's 17th in total points -- behind Andrew Wiggins (who's spent 115 fewer FGA), behind Kemba Walker (71 fewer FGA), behind Kyle Lowry (152 fewer FGA), behind Isaiah Thomas (31 fewer FGA).

There are other factors in play when considering overall efficiency -- assists, turnovers, free throws and offensive rebounding. But 85% of possessions end with a FGA or FTA, so shooting efficiency is by far the most important factor in determining who wins and loses.

Basketball is a game about efficiency. Teams take turns with the ball until time runs out. Possessions are about equal between two teams in any given game, with a one or two possession variation based on end of period possession stuff. Because of this, the team that is most efficient in a game will win. Almost always -- the ONLY exceptions coming in a close game where one team gets an extra possession or two.

You're underestimating rebounding, Kev. The two main factors in overall efficiency determine how many shots your team gets to take and its points per shot. If a team only got the ball after the opponent scored, there would be no way for it to win the game short of shooting 100%. If a team only got one shot per possession, it would also be virtually impossible.

It's possible to win even if with a lower TS% than your opponent -- but only if you have more chances to score. By and large, that's determined by rebounding, especially offensive rebounding.

Another way to say that: every missed shot ends with a rebound. Since there are about as many missed shots as made shots, rebounding has as much scope to affect outcome as shooting does. Or, if I'm wrong, please explain.

[tontoz]

Efficiency in basketball is a measure of how often a team or player scores as compared to the number of possessions it uses. In a manner of speaking, teams (and their players) purchase points with possessions. They're spending possessions to accumulate points.

On average this season, the league is accumulating 106.2 points for every 100 possessions it spends. From Wall, the Wizards are getting a bit less than that: about 103 points for every 100 possessions.

The same thing is true of shooting the ball, which is a primary way of spending possessions. On average, the league gets about one point per field goal attempt (efg is .501 so far this season). When Wall spends a shot, the yield isn't as good: 0.938 points per shot. Wall "spends" a lot of shots -- 10th most in the league. But, the yield isnt' as good as other around the league, and he's 17th in total points -- behind Andrew Wiggins (who's spent 115 fewer FGA), behind Kemba Walker (71 fewer FGA), behind Kyle Lowry (152 fewer FGA), behind Isaiah Thomas (31 fewer FGA).

There are other factors in play when considering overall efficiency -- assists, turnovers, free throws and offensive rebounding. But 85% of possessions end with a FGA or FTA, so shooting efficiency is by far the most important factor in determining who wins and loses.

Basketball is a game about efficiency. Teams take turns with the ball until time runs out. Possessions are about equal between two teams in any given game, with a one or two possession variation based on end of period possession stuff. Because of this, the team that is most efficient in a game will win. Almost always -- the ONLY exceptions coming in a close game where one team gets an extra possession or two.

You're underestimating rebounding, Kev. The two main factors in overall efficiency determine how many shots your team gets to take and its points per shot. If a team only got the ball after the opponent scored, there would be no way for it to win the game short of shooting 100%. If a team only got one shot per possession, it would also be virtually impossible.

It's possible to win even if with a lower TS% than your opponent -- but only if you have more chances to score. By and large, that's determined by rebounding, especially offensive rebounding.

Another way to say that: every missed shot ends with a rebound. Since there are about as many missed shots as made shots, rebounding has as much scope to affect outcome as shooting does. Or, if I'm wrong, please explain.

You value offensive rebounding a lot more than NBA teams do. Teams put much less emphasis on offensive rebounding now than they used to.

Josh Childress was a perfect example why. He used to crash the offensive boards all the time. When he got one and got a putback he would get a lot of praise from the announcers. But when he didn't, which was most of the time, he would be trailing the play in transition and his man would be free. Ditto McGee when he was here.

[payitforward]

You may be right. But, I wonder -- has the % of rebounds that are offensive boards per season gone down in the last few years?

Also, what's at stake is the delta between one team and another in offensive boards.

[TheSecretWeapon]

You're underestimating rebounding, Kev. The two main factors in overall efficiency determine how many shots your team gets to take and its points per shot. If a team only got the ball after the opponent scored, there would be no way for it to win the game short of shooting 100%. If a team only got one shot per possession, it would also be virtually impossible.

It's possible to win even if with a lower TS% than your opponent -- but only if you have more chances to score. By and large, that's determined by rebounding, especially offensive rebounding.

Another way to say that: every missed shot ends with a rebound. Since there are about as many missed shots as made shots, rebounding has as much scope to affect outcome as shooting does. Or, if I'm wrong, please explain.

No, not underestimating at all. The numbers tell the story, I'm just summarizing. The team that shoots better from the floor wins ~78% of the time in the NBA. I don't know the rate for TS% off the top of my head, but it has to be higher -- it's a combination of two of the four factors that determine wins and losses. Most analysts (including me) define a possession as starting when one team gets the ball and continuing until the other team gets it back. An offensive rebound doesn't create a new possession, it extends an existing one.

It certainly is possible to win with a lower TS% by getting more shot attempts through offensive rebounding and turnovers. What I was talking about was the relative importance of the four factors that determine who wins and loses: shooting from the floor, rebounding, turnovers and free throw shooting. The numbers are clear that shooting from the floor is the most important factor followed by rebounding. Turnover and free throws switch places from season to season.

[TheSecretWeapon]

You may be right. But, I wonder -- has the % of rebounds that are offensive boards per season gone down in the last few years?

Also, what's at stake is the delta between one team and another in offensive boards.

Offensive rebounding percentage has been dropping leaguewide the past few years. There's some sense to teams opting not to pursue offensive boards. A team can put forth tremendous effort chasing offensive boards and succeed only about a third of the time. Getting back on defense can limit transition offense opportunities, so there's a perceived benefit there. And, there used to be a thing where bad teams tended to be the better offensive rebounding teams.

That said, I think teams have "over-learned" the lesson -- they've begun to behave as if offensive rebounding is a determining factor in whether a team is good or not. I think the real lesson from the numbers was: hustle back on defense, NOT don't go for offensive rebounds.

But, it's fashionable to ignore the offensive glass, so most teams are doing it. This actually increases the value of guys who can effectively get offensive boards without much support from teammates.

[AFM]

Shooting the ball is the most important aspect of basketball

Man lands on moon

[tontoz]

Last night in a must win game our "top 5" pg shot 4-16 with 5 turnovers but i am sure the eye test crew will say his poor play was because of his coach/teammates.

[dckingsfan]

Yep, he is still top 10 - but he wasn't top 5 this season - sadly. I hope the good John is back next season.

I would think they would just rest him the rest of the season.

[DCZards]

Last night in a must win game our "top 5" pg shot 4-16 with 5 turnovers but i am sure the eye test crew will say his poor play was because of his coach/teammates.

I was pretty much on the same page as you about Wall for most of the game. And the GS game as well. Terrible turnovers, not finishing at the rim, bad jumpshots. It was frustrating watching him. But then I was forced to recognize that the guy is simply just worn down after a full season of carrying this team on his back...playing every game and playing far more minutes than he should have to play. Given that reality, JW gets a pass with me.

[tontoz]

Last night in a must win game our "top 5" pg shot 4-16 with 5 turnovers but i am sure the eye test crew will say his poor play was because of his coach/teammates.

I was pretty much on the same page as you about Wall for most of the game. And the GS game as well. Terrible turnovers, not finishing at the rim, bad jumpshots. It was frustrating watching him. But then I was forced to recognize that the guy is simply just worn down after a full season of carrying this team on his back...playing every game and playing far more minutes than he should have to play. Given that reality, JW gets a pass with me.

Pretty sure Wall wasn't worn down in November, when he played like crap. When the other guys on the team are consistently shooting better than he is maybe he should be shooting less instead of trying to "carry" them.

For the record Wall plays 36 minutes per game, only 2 more than Curry who frequently sits out in 4th quarter blowouts. Lowry plays 37.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Last night in a must win game our "top 5" pg shot 4-16 with 5 turnovers but i am sure the eye test crew will say his poor play was because of his coach/teammates.

I was pretty much on the same page as you about Wall for most of the game. And the GS game as well. Terrible turnovers, not finishing at the rim, bad jumpshots. It was frustrating watching him. But then I was forced to recognize that the guy is simply just worn down after a full season of carrying this team on his back...playing every game and playing far more minutes than he should have to play. Given that reality, JW gets a pass with me.

Wall hasn't been carrying the team in any way that's unusual. I wrote about this subject on my blog a couple weeks ago and found that compared to other "number one" players around the league, Wall is well-below average in per possession production (he ranked 24th out of 30). Because he plays a lot of minutes, his TOTAL production represented 21.8% of his team's total production -- average for "number ones" around the league was 22.0%. In drop-off from top player to number two player, Wall and the Wizards ranked 20th. When I calculated minutes weighted production for each "supporting cast" around the league, I found that the Wizards ranked 14th.

[fishercob]

There is no doubt in my mind that Wall is a top five PG on the the Wizards.

[thricethefun]

There is no doubt in my mind that Wall is a top five PG on the the Wizards.

He's no Nene

[I_Like_Dirt]

Offensive rebounding percentage has been dropping leaguewide the past few years. There's some sense to teams opting not to pursue offensive boards. A team can put forth tremendous effort chasing offensive boards and succeed only about a third of the time. Getting back on defense can limit transition offense opportunities, so there's a perceived benefit there. And, there used to be a thing where bad teams tended to be the better offensive rebounding teams.

That said, I think teams have "over-learned" the lesson -- they've begun to behave as if offensive rebounding is a determining factor in whether a team is good or not. I think the real lesson from the numbers was: hustle back on defense, NOT don't go for offensive rebounds.

But, it's fashionable to ignore the offensive glass, so most teams are doing it. This actually increases the value of guys who can effectively get offensive boards without much support from teammates.

It's tough to say whether or not the value of offensive rebounding has tanked, or if teams have started to actually value defensive rebounding. Good defensive rebounding can often kill the value opponents have invested into offensive rebounders. Good shooting and drawing FTs also minimize the value of investing in the offensive glass. And I think that's sort of at the heart of offensive rebounding.

I wouldn't be shocked to find out you're right about teams undervaluing offensive rebounds a bit, but I'm not so sure it's by that much provided they allocate the value that would have been spent on offensive rebounds and instead turn it into things like shooting, defensive rebounds and defense. Guys who go for offensive rebounds aren't necessarily likely to foul, but they are likely to have their man beat them down the court and draw a foul against one of their teammates on an odd-man rush. Offensive rebounding is one of those skills like shotblocking where it's tough to divine from the numbers exactly who has what value, because some guys will do it while maintaining their other responsibilities, and others simply won't. You don't want to give up on it entirely, but you also don't necessarily lose all the offensive rebounds you would have gotten by having an offensive rebounding hawk on the roster, either.

What we're seeing NBA teams do is move more towards systemic rebounding. They will have one primary rebounder to get the lion's share of the boards and a bunch of other guys who play positional ball, with the idea that the team will rebound at least as well in the end, regardless of who is or isn't getting the rebounds, and by not throwing multiple guys out there for the purposes of rebounding, they gain in the shotmaking, defense and other areas. The Spurs, Warriors, Raptors and Clippers aren't particularly great on the offensive glass, for example. The Cavs are pretty good there. The Thunder are the big exception though, as offensive rebounding dynamos, thanks largely to Kanter's amazing ability to dominate in that respect. Really, it just comes down to offensive rebounds being valuable, but not nearly as valuable as other aspects of the game. If you have a choice, you probably go with the other alternatives, but if the choice is offensive rebounds or nothing, you'd be a fool not to take them, because they're still clearly important, and NBA talent doesn't grow on trees, so you have to try to leverage every avenue to get talent that you can.

[CobraCommander]

I can't or won't argue that Wall is a top 5 point guard because the Wiz did in fact miss the playoffs . But I thought I would remind you that Lowery is playing like hot, wet, smelly, garbage in the playoffs...again. I know a good many of you wish we had Lowery but I again tell you as a Homer and a Fan of the Wiz That Lowery isn't top 5 of anything. Lowery doesn't show up when the bright lights shine...

[Kanyewest]

I can't or won't argue that Wall is a top 5 point guard because the Wiz did in fact miss the playoffs . But I thought I would remind you that Lowery is playing like hot, wet, smelly, garbage in the playoffs...again. I know a good many of you wish we had Lowery but I again tell you as a Homer and a Fan of the Wiz That Lowery isn't top 5 of anything. Lowery doesn't show up when the bright lights shine...

Lowry did seem pretty passive and shot poorly but did find other ways to contribute. He passed the ball fairly well, and played excellent defense. It appears that Lowry is playing injured according to those who follow the Raptors closely. At least he did enough to get his team to the 2nd round.

I think Wall is going to be the better player going forward but it looked like Lowry put in more work in the offseason. I think Wall could be more motivated after Washington fell short of expectations. Clearly this season, Wall was out of shape to start the season.

[CobraCommander]

I can't or won't argue that Wall is a top 5 point guard because the Wiz did in fact miss the playoffs . But I thought I would remind you that Lowery is playing like hot, wet, smelly, garbage in the playoffs...again. I know a good many of you wish we had Lowery but I again tell you as a Homer and a Fan of the Wiz That Lowery isn't top 5 of anything. Lowery doesn't show up when the bright lights shine...

Lowry did seem pretty passive and shot poorly but did find other ways to contribute. He passed the ball fairly well, and played excellent defense. It appears that Lowry is playing injured according to those who follow the Raptors closely. At least he did enough to get his team to the 2nd round.

I think Wall is going to be the better player going forward but it looked like Lowry put in more work in the offseason. I think Wall could be more motivated after Washington fell short of expectations. Clearly this season, Wall was out of shape to start the season.

I agree on all points. I am just saying the WIZ fans are hard on Wall and compare him to people like Lowery every year. Since I watch a lot of non-Wizards basketball I know that Lowery is not as good as Wall (IMO). Lowery disappeared in this playoff series just like every other playoffs that he has been a part of. Lowery is simply over rated and proves it every year. When Lowery publicly announced that he decided to finally take conditioning seriously and get in shape this year ...people gave him kudos...when I see that as completely disrespectful considering he was getting paid to play last year. Can you imagine how this board would KILL WALL If he came in over weight?!?! We would call him less than a leader...

[payitforward]

I am just saying the WIZ fans are hard on Wall and compare him to people like Lowery every year. Since I watch a lot of non-Wizards basketball I know that Lowery is not as good as Wall (IMO). Lowery disappeared in this playoff series just like every other playoffs that he has been a part of. Lowery is simply over rated and proves it every year. When Lowery publicly announced that he decided to finally take conditioning seriously and get in shape this year ...people gave him kudos...when I see that as completely disrespectful considering he was getting paid to play last year. Can you imagine how this board would KILL WALL If he came in over weight?!?! We would call him less than a leader...

??
Neither the fact that you watch non-Wizards basketball (as I imagine most of us do) nor the fact that an injured Lowry didn't play very well vs. Indiana means much as far as I can tell.

What does "good" or "better" mean in a basketball player? It reflects what a guy accomplishes for his team when he's on the court. That and nothing else. And what a guy accomplishes on the court has to do with, and only with, his contribution to winning basketball games. And winning basketball games is done with numbers. Period.

So to find out how good a guy is we look at his numbers. And to judge whether one point guard is better than another point guard, we compare their numbers. All the numbers that impact winning, btw -- not just one or another number we prefer (usually because it favors the guy we want to be better).

John Wall doesn't put up as good numbers to help his team win basketball games, he doesn't accomplish as much for his team when he's on the court, as Kyle Lowry, which means he's not as good as Kyle Lowry. Period. There's not some other way to look at it, or some remark about conditioning you can spin into a narrative, that makes any difference.

I notice, btw, that the Raptors are in Round 2 of the playoffs. The Wizards are on vacation.

[dckingsfan]

I can't or won't argue that Wall is a top 5 point guard because the Wiz did in fact miss the playoffs .

Yep, no top 5 PGs this year missed the playoffs. Not Curry, Westbrook, Parker, Paul or the next tier Thomas, Teague, Lowry, Irving, Lillard, etc.

So, you are right to argue that Wall isn't a top 5 PG THIS year. But next year... that will be a different story. Wall is going to buck the odds and make the jump next year.

[payitforward]

I can't or won't argue that Wall is a top 5 point guard because the Wiz did in fact miss the playoffs .

Yep, no top 5 PGs this year missed the playoffs. Not Curry, Westbrook, Parker, Paul or the next tier Thomas, Teague, Lowry, Irving, Lillard, etc.

That's 9 "top 5" point guards followed by an "etc." !!

So, you are right to argue that Wall isn't a top 5 PG THIS year. But next year... that will be a different story. Wall is going to buck the odds and make the jump next year.

You know... if you're able to see the future, don't waste your time on this Board, man! Spend your time becoming a billionaire by stocks that are going to go up by an order of magnitude next year!

Later this year, John Wall will start his 7th season in the NBA. He's played @ 17,000 minutes. As points of comparison, Rajon Rondo has played @5000 more minutes than Wall, and Chris Paul has played @11,000 more minutes than John Wall.

John Wall is a veteran entering his 7th season; he's well into the 2d half of his career. He's not a developing young player and not likely to change much.