Tracking Former Wizards 3.0

SUPERBALLMAN · Post #1561 » by **SUPERBALLMAN** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:20 pm

tugs wrote:How bout a Big 3 Team with Arenas-Hughes-Jamison with Caron as the 4th guy?

Right, I just wish we could've seen it. Basically they lost Hughes and then brought in Caron (for Kwame) essentially replacing him and keeping us basically at the same level. But if they could have ADDED Caron to what we already had in Gil, Antawn, & Larry that could have pushed us up a notch.

Larry and Gil had great chemistry, and with Caron and Antawn at the fowards and Haywood inside. Off the bench with Etan, Jeffries, Daniels. It could of been interesting.

SUPERBALLMAN · Post #1562 » by **SUPERBALLMAN** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:52 pm

I think its fun to compare the recent eras of the team ... Webber/Howard, Arenas/Jamison, Wall/Beal.

All 3 are filled with what ifs...

The Webber team... for some unexplainable reason John Nash dumped Rex Chapman, who publicly stated he wanted to be here even if it meant coming off the bench. Then came failures trying to find a PG to run this team, trading a first round pick (after already dealing 3 of them in the Webber trade) for Mark Price who was injured and never played substantially for us. Robert Pack came in blazing averaging 18 & 8 for us but got hurt then let go. I remember a lot of talk about getting Dana Barros that never materialized. Then we end up trading Rasheed Wallace for Rod Strickland.

Strickland was good... But you have to wonder what we might have had if Mark Price had been healthy for us.

A starting 5 of Webber, Rasheed Wallace, Howard, Cheaney, Price... Come off the bench with the likes of Muresan, Ben Wallace, Harvey Grant, Tracy Murray, Chapman, Legler, Pack, Whitney.

SUPERBALLMAN · Post #1563 » by **SUPERBALLMAN** » Thu Aug 1, 2019 12:09 am

It's great to go back and look at old articles about the team also...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/longterm/memories/bullets/articles/94draft.htm

Brings back a lot of memories !

Post #1564 » by **nate33** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 1:34 pm

Read on Twitter

Too bad. The guy couldn't find a spot on any NBA roster.

I thought he was good enough to be an 11th man or so on many teams. I think he's better than a lot of guys currently on rosters, but given that he just turned 25, I guess teams just figured he had very little upside going forward.

The way forward for him is clear. He's got to become a knock-down catch-and-shoot shooter. If he does, maybe he can get another chance in the league.

payitforward · Post #1565 » by **payitforward** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:10 pm

Dekker played quite well for us. In the time it took him to shoot 3.8 3-pointers @ a .286 clip, he got 3.6 offensive rebounds. If he'd only taken 2.8 3-pointers & only gotten 2.6 offensive boards in that time, everyone here would be applauding his .388 4-pt. %, & no one would notice the difference in offensive rebounds.

But the two cases are absolutely identical in terms of production. There is no difference whatever.

For the rest, Sam shot .53 on 2-point attempts, had more steals than turnovers, played solid defense without fouling much. In all, he played quite well -- thus, nate, he was actually way more productive than you'd expect of an 11th man.

Assume we'd kept him at a vet min salary & simply waived Howard, rather than trading him for Miles. We'd be spending $2m less in salary.

Of course, per 40 minutes (using last year's numbers for both guys) we'd have a guy scoring 1.3 fewer points. Then again, that same guy would be giving us 5 more chances to score in that same 40 minutes (because of the enormous difference in the other stuff the two guys do while on the floor), so we'd be certain to come out far ahead in the bargain.

payitforward · Post #1566 » by **payitforward** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:34 pm

In the first 18 games that Sam played with us, in which he had 15 or more minutes on the floor, we went 10-8.

After those first 18 games, we traded for Portis/Parker. Dekker's minutes started to go way down. We went 10-18 the rest of the season.

That's 10-8 vs. 10-18.

As well, compared to 10-8 in those first games where Dekker got 15 plus minutes, our record for the rest of the season was 22-42.

It's not always obvious the ways a guy is helping your team play better -- &, therefore, win more often.

Post #1567 » by **nate33** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:47 pm

payitforward wrote:In the first 18 games that Sam played with us, in which he had 15 or more minutes on the floor, we went 10-8.

After those first 18 games, we traded for Portis/Parker. Dekker's minutes started to go way down. We went 10-18 the rest of the season.

That's 10-8 vs. 10-18.

As well, compared to 10-8 in those first games where Dekker got 15 plus minutes, our record for the rest of the season was 22-42.

It's not always obvious the ways a guy is helping your team play better -- &, therefore, win more often.

It's interesting. If you assume our depth chart at SF goes: Brown, Miles, Jones, Bonga, Schofield, I'd say that Dekker would be our 2nd best SF if he was on the team.

That said, one can argue that Miles fills a specific strategic need not met by the other guys (a 3-point shooter); and Bonga and Schofield are so much younger and have more upside. You could argue that Dekker might be better than Jones, but they seem like the same type of player to me - six of one, half-dozen of the other. (To be fair, Jones might be better than Dekker if it's true that he's a very good on-ball defender like Lou Williams says.)

So maybe there was no place for him here.

Post #1568 » by **nate33** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:51 pm

payitforward wrote:Dekker played quite well for us. In the time it took him to shoot 3.8 3-pointers @ a .286 clip, he got 3.6 offensive rebounds. If he'd only taken 2.8 3-pointers & only gotten 2.6 offensive boards in that time, everyone here would be applauding his .388 4-pt. %, & no one would notice the difference in offensive rebounds.

But the two cases are absolutely identical in terms of production. There is no difference whatever.

I will have to register my usual disagreement with this point. There is no difference from an individual stand point, but there may well be a difference from a team standpoint. The fact that defenders don't have to guard Dekker outside of 3 feet allows them to cheat off of Dekker and thwart other offensive threats. These subtleties don't show up in the box score.

It would truly be better if he took only 2.8 3-pointers and gotten 2.6 offensive boards. NBA coaches aren't stupid. There's a reason why teams are loathe to play non-shooting wings even if they're good rebounders.

SUPERBALLMAN · Post #1569 » by **SUPERBALLMAN** » Sun Aug 4, 2019 3:03 pm

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:In the first 18 games that Sam played with us, in which he had 15 or more minutes on the floor, we went 10-8.

After those first 18 games, we traded for Portis/Parker. Dekker's minutes started to go way down. We went 10-18 the rest of the season.

That's 10-8 vs. 10-18.

As well, compared to 10-8 in those first games where Dekker got 15 plus minutes, our record for the rest of the season was 22-42.

It's not always obvious the ways a guy is helping your team play better -- &, therefore, win more often.

It's interesting. If you assume our depth chart at SF goes: Brown, Miles, Jones, Bonga, Schofield, I'd say that Dekker would be our 2nd best SF if he was on the team.

That said, one can argue that Miles fills a specific strategic need not met by the other guys (a 3-point shooter); and Bonga and Schofield are so much younger and have more upside. You could argue that Dekker might be better than Jones, but they seem like the same type of player to me - six of one, half-dozen of the other. (To be fair, Jones might be better than Dekker if it's true that he's a very good on-ball defender like Lou Williams says.)

So maybe there was no place for him here.

It's just a numbers game, but I liked seeing him on the court, and thought he played well for us. Smart and plays hard, the kind of player you like to have. I guess he's kind of duplicated on the roster with Admiral? But he can also give you run at the 4 where we are thin... I am surprised we couldn't find a spot for him. I'd probably rather have him over Miles, McRae or Phillip certainly.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/dekkesa01.html

SUPERBALLMAN · Post #1570 » by **SUPERBALLMAN** » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:15 pm

FAH1223 wrote:
keynote wrote:I watched Gilbert's Big 3 debut last night. His team included Craig Smith (and Royce White, and Lamar Odom who didn't play). $5 Stevenson played for the other team.

Gilbert came out firing and hit his first two shots, then immediately started looking like the rusty, injury-limited ex-playet that he is. Without his burst (and carrying what appeared to be a little extra muscle and bulk[1]), he resorted to posting up smaller guards for mid-range fadeaways.

If you squinted and caught him at the right time, it was a nice trip down memory lane.

Stevenson has not worked on his jumper during his retirement.

[1] Big 3's adidas unis have wider shoulder panels and run baggier than modern NBA unis do these days, so I could be wrong.

Gilbert looks like he's lost some weight

Watch on YouTube

It is funny hearing them talk about the pranks he pulled on teammates... the icy hot in Blatche's shorts, disassembling Awvee Storey's car, I had forgotten about that stuff !!!

Kanyewest · Post #1571 » by **Kanyewest** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:44 pm

Read on Twitter

Post #1572 » by **nate33** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:44 pm

Read on Twitter

He's probably good enough to be a 13th man somewhere in the NBA, but at age 26, the upside isn't there. Teams would rather carry a worse player who is younger with a higher ceiling.

He seems like a pretty good dude. I hope he gets paid in China and sets up a nice little nest egg for himself.

payitforward · Post #1573 » by **payitforward** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:15 pm

A Stanford academic All-American who made close to $1m last year & @$400k a couple of years earlier. I'm guessing he's got a heckuva start on that nest egg!!

payitforward · Post #1574 » by **payitforward** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:18 pm

Reminds me of another former Wizard...

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/sixers/trevor-booker-sixers-76ers-jonah-baize-combine-academy-jb-fitzgerald-venture-capital-20180227.html

Be sure to read down all the way. Trevor may wind up buying the Wizards!! Looks like everything he touches does well!

Kanyewest · Post #1575 » by **Kanyewest** » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:11 pm

Read on Twitter

closg00 · Post #1576 » by **closg00** » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:22 pm

Pretty Boy Kelly Oubre gets covered by TMZ now
https://apple.news/AxOI4jB7vTyuxk6rEhb8MmA

payitforward · Post #1577 » by **payitforward** » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:50 pm

nate33 wrote:
payitforward wrote:Dekker played quite well for us. In the time it took him to shoot 3.8 3-pointers @ a .286 clip, he got 3.6 offensive rebounds. If he'd only taken 2.8 3-pointers & only gotten 2.6 offensive boards in that time, everyone here would be applauding his .388 4-pt. %, & no one would notice the difference in offensive rebounds.

But the two cases are absolutely identical in terms of production. There is no difference whatever.

I will have to register my usual disagreement with this point. There is no difference from an individual stand point, but there may well be a difference from a team standpoint. The fact that defenders don't have to guard Dekker outside of 3 feet allows them to cheat off of Dekker and thwart other offensive threats. These subtleties don't show up in the box score.

It would truly be better if he took only 2.8 3-pointers and gotten 2.6 offensive boards. NBA coaches aren't stupid. There's a reason why teams are loathe to play non-shooting wings even if they're good rebounders.

...just noticed this.

Your point is a good one in principle, but that's why I mentioned our record with him. Note that if he'd shot 38.6% on 3's rather than 28.6% -- it would amount to him making 4 or 5 more 3's on the season. That doesn't negate your point, of course -- but even with the spacing issue it's not a good idea to discount the other stuff he did.

Not making a big argument for Sam Dekker, & I don't know whether the offer from the Euroleague meant he wasn't open to vet minimum NBA offers, but if he were available for that & I were an NBA GM, I'd have picked him up.

payitforward · Post #1578 » by **payitforward** » Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:19 pm

Not to go on endlessly on this now irrelevant subject (it is the Summer...), but ...

Last year, Jeff Green & Dekker used almost the same amount of offense (Jeff a bit more overall). Green produced @3.5 more points per 40 minutes, & no doubt his 6% higher 3-pt. average also helped with spacing as well.

Since you & others repeatedly expressed an interest in having Jeff back, I assume your assessment is that Green being a threat to sink one more 3-pointer per 40 minutes (yup, that's it) makes for a profound difference in comparing the players.

On the other hand, for the same reason I assume that Dekker's committing fewer fouls, turning the ball over way way less, getting more than twice as many steals, & grabbing 25% more rebounds in that same 40 minutes on the floor really doesn't matter. Not worth any attention in the comparison of the players.

Kanyewest · Post #1579 » by **Kanyewest** » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:51 am

Since it is the offeseason- just more to add for the Green/Dekker.

Green got twice as many blocks per 100 possessions. Got to the free throw line more per 100 possessions and also shot 88% at the free throw line compared to Decker who shot 55.6% at the line, and had 15% more assists.

The big one. Green had a 61 TS% compared to Dekker's 51.4% TS%. Dekker was worse at 2P%, 3P%, FT%. All while playing twice as many minutes- so I'm not sure if Dekker's effort of getting as many hustle stats such as steals and rebounds would remain as high if he played 27 mpg.

Post #1580 » by **Ruzious** » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:54 pm

Kanyewest wrote:Since it is the offeseason- just more to add for the Green/Dekker.

Green got twice as many blocks per 100 possessions. Got to the free throw line more per 100 possessions and also shot 88% at the free throw line compared to Decker who shot 55.6% at the line, and had 15% more assists.

The big one. Green had a 61 TS% compared to Dekker's 51.4% TS%. Dekker was worse at 2P%, 3P%, FT%. All while playing twice as many minutes- so I'm not sure if Dekker's effort of getting as many hustle stats such as steals and rebounds would remain as high if he played 27 mpg.

It's not even a contest, and remember Dekker played mostly against backups while Green was a starter who played a lot more minutes. I think Dekker belongs in the NBA, but apparently every NBA team thought differently - presumably they all could have had him for the minimum. And they're probably not all stupid.