Each time someone links to the Wages of Wins Journal I am notified by Word Press. A few days ago I noticed a link to the following entry at Ted’s Take:
Check this one out.
That was the entire entry.
Ted Leonsis and the Wizards
The Ted of Ted’s Take is Ted Leonsis. Here is just a part of his lengthy bio (which one can read in its entirety at Ted’s Take).
Ted is also the founder, chairman and majority owner of Lincoln Holdings LLC, a sports and entertainment company that holds ownership rights in several Washington, DC entities including 100% of the NHL’s Washington Capitals and the WNBA’s Washington Mystics. Lincoln Holdings also owns approximately 44% of Washington Sports and Entertainment Limited Partnership (WSELP), which owns the NBA’s Washington Wizards, DC’s Verizon Center and the Baltimore-Washington Ticketmaster franchise.
So Ted Leonsis is owner of the Washington Capitals and a part-owner of the Washington Wizards. Of these two, the Capitals are probably making Leonsis quite a bit happier these days. And if he read what I said about the Wizards last summer, he is probably even more disappointed with the Wizards today.
Explaining the Disappointment
Last season the Washington Wizards were the worst team in the Eastern Conference. This season the Wizards are 10-20 – and with a -3.6 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – Washington is on pace to win about 32 games in 2009-10. Despite this projected 13 game improvement, though, fans of this team are probably unhappy.
Again, such unhappiness stems from last summer’s evaluation of this team. Last August, Chris Mannix of SportsIllustrated.cnn.com argued that the Washington Wizards were the 8th best team in the NBA. And I argued that this team could win between 45 and 50 games. Clearly Mannix and I don’t look to be correct. The Wizards don’t look like a top 10 team and a winning record in 2009-10 seems unlikely.
In evaluating this team’s problems, some might focus on the play of Gilbert Arenas. Agent Zero is simply not the same player we saw in 2006-07 (the last season he was fully healthy). A quick glance at his stats from Basketball-Reference (which reports his stats per-36 minutes) reveals that Arenas today – relative to what we saw in 2006-07 – has improved with respect to assists and is essentially the same with respect to shooting efficiency from the field, shot attempts from the field, rebounds, blocked shots, and personal fouls. He has declined, though, with respect to steals, turnovers, free throw attempts, and free throw percentage.
When we convert these numbers into Wins Produced per 48 minutes [WP48] we see that Arenas is posting a 0.069 mark this season. Had his performance returned to what we saw in 2006-07, though, his WP48 would be 0.148. Translating this into Wins Produced – and projecting across the entire 82 game season (as reported in Table One) – we see the decline in Arenas’ performance is costing the Wizards about five wins in 2009-10.
Table One: The Washington Wizards after 30 games in 2009-10
In other words, even if Arenas was performing as well as he did before his recent health problems, the Wizards would still be below average. So the declines in the performance of Agent Zero can’t explain the difference between where the Wizards are today and my evaluation of this team this past summer.
To see this difference we need to look at the second column in Table Two, or how many minutes each player has played. Of the players listed, the top player in WP48 in 2008-09 was Mike Miller. Thus far this season, though, Miller has only played nine games. Had he been played the entire season – and maintained what he did last year in Minnesota – Miller would currently be on pace to produce 12.2 wins this season. Such production would increase the Wizards season projection by 8.6 wins. And coupled with Arenas returning to form, transforms the Wizards into a 45 win team.
The Wizards are currently 2.5 games out of the playoffs, and again, fans of this team might be a bit disappointed. If Arenas and Miller were playing and producing, though, this team would currently be the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference. And this means fans of this team could expect to make the playoffs….where they would probably be eliminated in the first round.
Repeating What Was Said Three Years Ago
Okay, even if the players for the Wizards were healthy and performing as expected, this is still not a title contender. A “good” team, yes. But a championship parade is not to be expected.
To understand the bigger problem in Washington one has to return to what I said about this team in October of 2006. Three years ago I argued that the Wizards had assembled a collection of above average talents. But because the team lacked a superstar – defined as a player who produced well beyond the 0.200 WP48 mark (i.e. approaches the 0.300 level) – the Wizards ceiling was limited.
What I said back in 2006 appears to apply today. The team still has a collection of above average players. But again, really no superstar. Yes, Miller can post a mark above 0.200. But his career mark entering this season was only 0.163 and he has had trouble staying on the court in 2009-10. So Miller can help, but by himself he is not going to transform this team into a title contender.
Again, what the Wizards need is a player – or better yet players — who can stay on the court and post a WP48 mark that approaches 0.300. Until such players are acquired, one suspects fans of the Wizards — and their owner — will continue to be a bit disappointed.
Let me close by note that looking back on what I said about the Wizards in 2006 led me to think about the history of this forum. This blog began in April of 2006. Across the past three years (actually, we are getting close to four), more than 1,000 entries have been posted (we hit the 1,000 mark with the post on the Phoenix Suns from December 14). Each post tends to be about 1,000 words, so this means 1,000,000 words have probably been offered in this forum. To put that in perspective, the Wages of Wins was about 120,000 words (and our next book is a bit shorter). This means about eight books have been posted in this forum (and that mark doesn’t even consider the more than 15,500 comments that have been offered).
As the year and decade ends I want to once again thank everyone (and that includes both new readers like Ted Leonsis and others who have been coming here since 2006) who makes this forum a part of their day. And although the thought of writing eight books makes me tired, as long as people keep stopping by it looks like this forum is going to be continuing into the next year and decade.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Will
December 30, 2009
Congratulations Dave, can’t wait for the new book. You’ve changed the way I view the NBA, and by extension all professional sports and human performance in other areas of life. Keep posting.
Owen
December 30, 2009
Congrats Dave, I also can’t wait for the next book…
Rob O'Malley
December 30, 2009
Congrats Dave. I actually got your first book for Christmas. It’s a really good book, looking forward to the next one.
DCHoops
December 30, 2009
Dave, you pointed out last year that the Wizards most productive player was Dominic McGuire. If you examine Table 1, you’ll see that under his new coach McGuire appears on the court less often than the team’s cheerleaders. I believe he is a free agent and will likely find a team like the Rockets that appreciate his skills.
It seems in addition to devoting so much money to Gilbert Arenas, the big mistake the Wizards made was not trading Caron Butler a year or two ago. He has declined quite a bit, particularly with turnovers. Andray Blatche has never developed into an above average player. Jamison is good but in his 30s and they have no other players on the roster besides Haywood, Mike Miller, Arenas and Jamison that will project to be above average next season. The future is not bright because there is no young talent on the horizon.
Rob O'Malley
December 30, 2009
Also I am a huge Wizards fan. I went to the game last night against Oklahoma City. It wasn’t fun watching the Wiz run several iso plays for Randy Foye that he couldn’t do anything with. Nick Young having zero points and 5 fouls also sucked. But knowing that Ted Leonsis reads this blog made me feel a little more optimistic. Also I have heard that he is the primary owner now that Abe Pollin, their former owner, has passed.
Johnny Y.
December 30, 2009
What do you think about the 76er’s decline? The wizards declines can be mostly tied to injuries, but not so much the 76er’s.
I remember you saying in other posts that coaching in most scenarios has little impact on the average production of players year-to-year, but philly, to me at least, seems to be an exception to that where the team as a whole seems to be unable to adapt to the change in playing styles and roles.
benamery21
December 30, 2009
In other news: Phoenix beats Lakers and Celtics in straight games, closing out December’s Schedule from Hell.
‘Center’ Channing Frye’s projected ’09-’10 Wins Produced is now up to 7.0 (based on conversion from PAWSmin using the position adjustment for center). This is 9.3 Wins Produced better than predicted by WOW in October. That is all.
benamery21
December 30, 2009
Oh. Assuming my math is close enough w/o team adjustment, Channing’s current Wins Produced pace is 14.9 wins higher than WOW would have predicted in October assuming he’d play this many minutes. It’s 6.2 wins higher than projected by WOW 2 weeks ago.
Am I cherry-picking by running the numbers after a 20.5 Win Score game for Frye? You betcha!
Leon
December 31, 2009
I think you’re being kind on Arenas Dave. After all he is going to be paid $16 million this season, and guaranteed two more years at an even higher level of pay. This for a player who is merely just above average. What makes it feel worse is that if you look at the starting point guards on every team, you don’t really see that money making much bang for it’s buck (sorry for the list):
Above Average: Nelson, Kidd, Harris, Billups, Calderon, T. Parker, Nash, Westbrook (this season), A. Miller (consistently in the past), Jennings (this year), Mo Williams, Rondo, Baron (again produced well in the past), Bibby, Paul, Chalmers, Deron Williams, Evans (so far), Robinson and Lou Williams
Floating around average: Fisher, TJ Ford, Curry, Felton.
Below: Stuckey, Flynn, Brooks.
So the Wizards are paying all that money for a player who is only much better than 3 starters and a bit better than 7 starters.
khandor
December 31, 2009
Flip Saunders called out the Wizards’ players yesterday and indicated that there needs to be a wholesale restructuring of priorities for their team that begins and ends with a greater commitment being made to getting stops and, in general, playing better individual and team defense.
Yet, so far, this season, Flip Saunders has chosen to end a great number of Wizards’ games with a DNP-Coaches’ Decision beside the name of DeShawn Stevenson; or, without playing Mr. Stevenson at all during the final 6 minutes of the 4th quarter of many of their 20 losses.
The main problems which the Wizards have had, this season have been rooted in “team chemistry issues” with their new coach, Flip Saunders, and this specific collection of talented players on their present roster who have not been used to their best advantage, either, individually or collectively [e.g. their “rotation” to this point has been too unweildy; specific key players have been injured/unavailable; specific key players have been used in the wrong roles; the specific systems of play which they are using have not meshed yet with the strengths/weaknesses of their players and their coach, etc.].
[Similar to what I said earlier this season would eventually happen with the Cavaliers, should Mike Brown actually be able to figure out that what he cannot do with this edition of the Cavs is play Shaquille O’Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas together … because, if he does, then the Cavs might just be able to rip off a stretch approximating 25-5 …]
If the Wizards can stay healthy and Flip Saunders has the insight required to use the following sets of players in the following ways:
STARTERS
Arenas + Stevenson + Butler [or Miller] + Jamison + Haywood
KEY SUBS
Foye + Miller [or Butler] + McGuire + Oberto + Blatche
EXTRAS
Boykins, James, Crittenton, Young and McGee
STARTERS
Arenas + Butler + Miller + Jamison + Haywood
KEY SUBS
Foye + Stevenson + McGuire + Oberto + Blatche
EXTRAS
Boykins, James, Crittenton, Young, McGee
i.e. Increasing the contributions made by Stevenson, Miller [health], Jamison [health], Foye, McGuire, and Oberto; while, simultaneously, decreasing the contributions made by Boykins, Young, and McGee
then Washington will be able to make steady improvement through the balance of the season and contend for a playoff spot in the Eastern Conference.
If, however, Flip Saunders continues to struggle with the chemistry issues he’s had, thus far, and cannot identify a firm 8-9 man rotation with enough components that emphasize Defense & Rebounding … like Stevenson, McGuire and Oberto … then, the Wizards will continue to play poorly this season.
[PLEASE NOTE: Memo to Ted Leonis – As a professional “basketball” consultant, one other recommendation I would also make for your team, at this time, is to have Caron Butler see a nutrional specialist, in order to properly address the decline in “daily caffeine intake” which he is currently coping with, in an effort to terminate his former addiction to Mountain Dew. Mr. Butler has not been the same player, since his “daily caffeine intake levels” have been reduced, and in all likelihood his production levels will not return to normal – or move even higher than they were before – without a proper nutritional assessment and a suitable intervention program being put into place.]
khandor
December 31, 2009
Ted,
Please excuse me for initially mispelling your name, above … which should read as, “Leonsis.” :-)
brgulker
December 31, 2009
khandor,
Dr. Berri has a great post on the abilities of Flip Saunders here: http://goo.gl/UmyU
The problem in Washington isn’t Flip; it’s exactly as Dr. Berri has outlined. Arenas is underperforming, and Mike Miller hasn’t been able to stay on the floor.
I agree with you about Butler and Jamison with respect to injuries. Their health returning will improve the Wizards.
But I don’t understand how playing Stephenson helps at all. He’s awful.
khandor
December 31, 2009
brgulker,
In this instance, here’s what I’m going to do.
#1. Share some my theory on Flip Saunders’ coaching.
i.e.
Flip was a major part of the problem in Minnesota’s inability to get past the 1st Round, given the talent level on their roster.
Flip was a major part of the problem in Detroit’s inability to get past the Eastern Conference Finals, given the talent level on their roster.
Flip is a major part of Washington’s poor play to this point this season.
All of which is not to say that Flip Saunders is somehow a bad NBA coach, or the only problem with the team’s he’s coached, thus far, or the main problem; but, rather, that the specific strengths [?] and weaknesses [?] which he brings to the table, as a coach, are a “major” part of these team’s struggles to meet or exceed the threshold of their perceived talent levels.
#2. Then, I will take a look at David’s article which you’ve referenced above.
Thanks for providing the link.
dberri
December 31, 2009
Khandor,
Not sure there is much benefit in continuing this conversation, but I have some free time at the moment.
Once again you are simply not doing a very good job as an analyst. You state emphatically what you think the Wizards should do. Just as you state emphatically what other teams should do (on other posts). But where is your evidence? At a minimum, you need to explain why you think Stephenson should play more. And that explanation should reference some empirical evidence supporting your claims.
But we never get this from you. All we get is one opinion after another. This leads me to conclude that you simply do not understand how to construct a coherent argument. There is a defined process where the analyst provides some kind of evidence supporting his or her claims. Again, this is not happening here.
So before you go off and give another assertion about basketball, can you simply explain why you fail repeatedly to provide any evidence supporting your claims? If you cannot answer this question I am not sure why I should spend my time reading your repeated comments.
khandor
December 31, 2009
brgulker,
Now that I’ve read the article you referenced, here are my thoughts:
PART ONE
re: Now can we attribute this improvement to Saunders? That’s not entirely clear. Player performance can change because of experience, injury, roster instability, changes in minutes played, and diminishing returns. Even when you control for all these factors (which Mike Leeds, Eva Leeds, and Mike Mondello have done in a working paper), though, some coaches (not all) appear to have an impact (in other word, it is possible some coaches make players better). And one of the coaches filed under “some” is Flip Saunders (in other words, it is possible – not a certainty or the “truth” – that Saunders makes players better). So perhaps letting Flip go is not the best move Detroit could make.
* Some coaches do have an impact on the improved performance of a team.
* It is not clear whether Flip should be identified properly as the source of the improvement [i.e. production numbers] shown by specific players on the Pistons during his tenure.
PART TWO
* Improving production numbers for individual players or an entire team do not necessarily equate with being able to win a league championship.
* Team B, with an inferior set of production numbers, across a range of key categories, may in fact not be a “worse” squad than Team B, in a head-to-head match-up, within a sequence of best-of-7 playoff series used to determine the overall league champion.
* In the NBA environment, “What it takes from a head coach to ensure that his/her team actually wins the league championship” is not the same thing[s] as “what’s required to elicit improved production numbers from that team [overall] and/or its individual players.”
Rob O'Malley
December 31, 2009
Yeah Khandor, have you ever watched the Wizards play? DeShawn Stevenson is truely awful. He should not be on any team in the league let alone starting. I’ve lived in the baltimore-washington dc area my whole life and have watched the Wizards play for many years. The topic of DeShawn Stevenson is always and only provided as comedy and really nothing else among Wiz fans.
If having an epic beard and an Abraham Lincoln neck tattoo contributes to winning basketball then he should be starting. But in reality he’s one of the worst players in the league.
Boney
December 31, 2009
khandor,
I’m going (shocking I know) to disagree with your idea of how the rotations should be in Washington. I will agree, however, that I believe the main reason Washington has not had success is because of how wacked out their rotations HAVE been…
Starters:
PG – Arenas
SG/SF – Butler
SF/SG – Miller
PF – Jamison
C – Haywood
That rotation, as currently constructed, is horrible on defense with the exception of Haywood who has become quite a solid option in the paint. Arenas and Miller play matador defense and Jamison has been soft for a PF since he’s entered the league.
Bench:
PG/SG (6th man) – Foye
SG/SF – Stephenson
SF/SG – McGuire
PF – Blatche
C – McGee
Blatche is not a center and Oberto is not serviceable at this point in his career. Stephenson is a solid option defensively but when he’s put in a position where he feels he’s the only option on offense. This 2nd unit is EXTREMELY limited offensively and isn’t much better defensively than the 1st unit…
The leave-ins –
PG – Boykins
SG – Young
PF/C – Oberto
These guys, unless Young starts shooting at a better clip, should ride the pine with the DNP – CDs each night. Oberto is a warm body for the paint, Young is too erratic in his play and Boykins, well, I don’t respect his “closing” skills that Steve Buckhantz and Phil Chenier brag about…
None of the players are known to be defensive stalwarts, or even reasonably efficient on D except for Haywood. Stephenson is so-so at defense, McGuire is solid, but none of the rest of the team plays any defense, at all.
The team needs to re-build, it’s poorly constructed as it stands now and is living off of the 1st half success from a couple years ago with Eddie Jordan and a healthy Gil Arenas. Now that Gil isn’t healthy, and Jamison is 2 years old and slower, the team needs a new identity…
Nick Young and McGee could’ve been great draft picks had they been developed. Being in a system which shows them that running and gunning is a way to be, they’ve developed into high fliers rather than solid NBA talent.
khandor
December 31, 2009
Rob M,
Yes, I have watched the Wizards play, on several occasions.
Those who think that DeShawn Stevenson is a “terrible” player are too focused on the offensive side of the game … or, his physical appearance … and cannot assess a player’s specific skill-set properly, according to the position he plays best on his team, relative to the strengths and weaknesses of his teammates, in the three main phases of basketball.
A player like Gilbert Arenas/PG [6-4, 215] is a more effective [i.e. offensively, defensively and in terms of rebounding] when he has a running mate like DeShawn Stevenson [6-5, 218], on one side, at the OG position, and a SF like Caron Butler [6-7, 228], on the other flank, for a significant number of minutes, and particularly coming down the stretch of close games against mid-high calibre opponents.
The fact that …
* Stevenson is a less talented offensive player overall but also someone who can handle the ball when needed and allow Gilbert to play off the ball, doesn’t hurt the Wizards’ cause one bit.
* Stevenson is a more talented and versatile defender/rebounder, who can match-up “physically” with a range of opponent guards, forwards and bigs, when needed, which allows the Wizards to play a switching man-to-man defense with ease, while still being able to rebound each of the 5 positions effectively, helps the Wizards’ cause a great deal …
provided that Arenas and Stevenson have teammates like Haywood [7-0, 263], Jamison [6-9, 235] and Butler – operating at full throttle/efficiency – on the floor with them, and Washington is willing to use an equal opportunity perimeter-based jumping shooting offensive scheme, like the Princeton O …
gives the Wizards their best shot at victory.
[Please Note: The proper spelling of DeShawn’s surname is “Stevenson“, rather than “Stephenson”.]
khandor
December 31, 2009
Boney,
The main problem with the specific combination of:
Arenas + Butler + Miller + Jamison + Haywood
isn’t the matador defense being played thus far by Arenas and Miller, but the lack of physical defense and rebounding being provided so far this season by a de-caffeinated Mr. Butler.
Conversely, if you put Mr. Stevenson’s specific skill-set between Arenas and Miller … for a significant number of minutes and at key times during close games … and in concert with the front-court tandem of Jamison and Haywood, what you get is a very different concoction, altogether.
——————
Blatche and Oberto, as a combination, are both effective PF-C’s, when you put them with the likes of:
Arenas + Stevenson + Butler
Arenas + Stevenson + Miller
Arenas + Butler + Miller
Stevenson + Butler + Miller
Stevenson + Young + Butler
Stevenson + Butler + Miller
Foye + Stevenson + Butler
Foye + Stevenson + Miller
——————
Young and McGee are both talented young players who, unfortunately, for their own development, are not good fits with the Wizards at this point in time.
khandor
December 31, 2009
Rob M,
The “Please Note” wasn’t directed to you; but, was meant for others who seem not to know how to spell DeShawn’s surname properly. :-)
khandor
December 31, 2009
David,
re: Once again you are simply not doing a very good job as an analyst. You state emphatically what you think the Wizards should do. Just as you state emphatically what other teams should do (on other posts). But where is your evidence? At a minimum, you need to explain why you think Stephenson should play more. And that explanation should reference some empirical evidence supporting your claims.
But we never get this from you. All we get is one opinion after another. This leads me to conclude that you simply do not understand how to construct a coherent argument. There is a defined process where the analyst provides some kind of evidence supporting his or her claims. Again, this is not happening here.
Providing “proof” for the merits of an as yet to be used “rotation” of specific players is … for all practical purposes … impossible to do.
i.e. The only thing that can/will “prove” whether or not a specific hypothetical rotation will succeed … in terms of generating Wins, playoff series victories, and league championships … is if that specific rotation is eventually used for a period of games by the team in question.
dberri
December 31, 2009
Khandor,
I am not asking for “proof”. I am also not asking you to correct my spelling.
What I would like to see is a better effort at being an analyst (which I gather is a role you think you are playing). Too often you are leaving comments where you make an assertion without any corresponding evidence.
Even though I disagree with the approaches taken by Bill Simmons, John Hollinger, and Wayne Winston, all three do understand the basic principle of providing evidence to support a conclusion. Just stating that the world works a certain way because you said so is not good enough. If I am going to have to read the volume of comments you are posting in this forum you are going to have to make a better effort to support your assertions. If not, I can just save myself the trouble and make your unsupported assertions disappear.
khandor
December 31, 2009
David,
If I make a specific assertion like:
“Cleveland is highly capable of ripping off a stretch of games this season where they go 25-5, if they simply stop using Shaq and Ilgauskas together, insert Hickson into the starting line-up and use Moon and Varejao off the bench,”
what possible proof could I provide, in advance, in support of that sort of hypothesis [basketball analysis]? … given that Shaq has never played with the Cavs before this season and Z has not been used off their bench for the last few seasons.
In sharp contrast, what better possible proof could I provide for the rightness of my initial assertion than the Cavaliers’ actual record of Wins and Losses, since they’ve made the line-up adjustments which I suggested?
I am open to any ideas which you have about this dilemma.
Daniel Suhr
December 31, 2009
Congrats on the writing. I was given your book for Christmas too!
Italian Stallion
January 1, 2010
khandor,
Personally, I understand where you are coming from. But it might help to at least include a statement like “This rotation won’t work because both player “X” and “Y” are very good perimeter players (a fact that can easily be verified in the available statistical record), but the team would be lacking in efficient inside scoring, rebounding, and other required skills (also verifiable by looking at the record)”.
While a statement like that doesn’t provide data to support the contention that building a great team requires a “balance” of a variety of skills, I think most people intuitively understand and agree with the principle (at least at the extremes). So they will more or less understand the contention and be willing to observe the results in action to see if they prove correct.
Just naming players that will or will not work together without a clear explanation is less satisfying even if it ultimately proves to consistently be correct.
khandor
January 1, 2010
IS,
I understand where you’re coming from on that particular front … and, on different occasions, I do indeed include this type of description in my comments. However, when the suggestion I am making is not readily seen to be supported by the available data … primarily because said player hasn’t been placed in the right situation to begin with in order to generate that type of alternative data … then it makes little sense for me to use this approach.
Nevertheless, sincere thanks for your feedback … and, I will continue to include the appropriate descriptors, whenever possible.
Fundefined
January 1, 2010
No matter how good a defensive player is, a starting SG should not shoot 22% from the field and 68% from the line in the NBA. That’s simply unacceptably. Stevenson is already overrated in his defensive abilities and he absolutely horrid on offensive. His opponent’s PER per 48 is 21.8 while he produces a 3.8 this year. I understand PER isn’t kind to defenders but at least with Battier and formerly Bowen, they could shoot a corner three. Stevenson commands no attention offensively and the Wizards play 4 on 5 on offense with him. Most every Wizards fans(including myself) despise every minute he plays, and with good reason.
Fundefined
January 1, 2010
My bad, 25% FG overall.
Italian Stallion
January 1, 2010
“His opponent’s PER per 48 is 21.8 ”
Where are you getting that stat?
Scott
January 1, 2010
That data is available at 82games.com.
http://www.82games.com/0910/09WAS5.HTM
khandor
January 1, 2010
Fundefined,
1. When you take a look at the following links for Stevenson’s Net 48 minute production, at the OG position, as defined by 82games.com … which I happen to not agree with on occasion … what does it tell you about his level of effectiveness when paired with Gilbert Arenas/PG, and aligned with Caron Butler/SF, Antawn Jamison/PF and Brendan Haywood, relative to the other OG options on the Wizards’ rosters for the last 4 seasons?
http://www.82games.com/0910/09WAS5.HTM#bypos
http://www.82games.com/0809/08WAS7.HTM#bypos
http://www.82games.com/0708/07WAS5C.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0607/06WAS5C.HTM
2009-2010, 10 Wins [thru 30 games]
2008-2009, 19 Wins
2007-2008, 43 Wins
2006-2007, 41 Wins
2. At no point would I refer to DeShawn Stevenson as being a top notch defender/rebounder at the OG position, but the record would seem to indicate that Gilbert Arenas, Caron Butler, Antawn Jamison and Brendan Haywood function as a much superior 5-man unit when working with a player of HIS ilk in comparison with the other options on their roster, within the confines of an equal opportunity offensive system like the Princeton Offense.
Jim Glass
January 2, 2010
Last year the Washington Wizards were the worst team in the Eastern Conference. This season the Wizards are 10-20 — and with a -3.6 efficiency differential (offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency) – Washington is on pace to win about 32 games …
Maybe they should just shoot themselves.
Fundefined
January 2, 2010
But they no longer run the Princeton offense, Eddie Jordan is in Philly now. 4 years ago, Arenas, Butler, and Jamison were all stars. Stevenson was shooting 40% from 3 for a stretch in 2007 but it is now 2010 and he has regressed dramatically. Most of the other options the Wizards have now in Young, McGuire, Miller(when healthy) have never gotten a chance to play with a pre-injury Arenas since they weren’t on the roster 4 years ago, so of course the 5 man unit over 4 years would favor Deshawn, he’s the only guy who been there for 4 years with a healthy Arenas in 2006-07. Considering his competition in Taylor and Mason vs. now, it’s clear he doesn’t deserve any minutes at what he is producing.
khandor
January 2, 2010
Jim Glass,
*smile*
——————
Fundefined,
The Wizards are 10-20.
1. Perhaps what Flip Saunders should be doing is adjusting his system to the specific strengths and weaknesses of the individual players on his current roster, instead of trying to “fit square pegs into round holes”.
2. Perhaps Young [off], Miller [off] and McGuire [glue] are not the best fits possible beside Arenas, Butler, Jamison and Haywood … although each of the aforementioned players is talented in his own right.
3. If the Wizards were to decide to ditch Gilbert Arenas completely, and go in a different direction at the PG position for their team, I’d have little problem with DeShawn Stevenson seeing aboslutely zero [0] court time for the remainder of his NBA career.
The proviso, of course, would be that, under those circumstances, the Wizards should not be considered a mid-level playoff team with any of Randy Foye, Earl Boykins, Javaris Crittenton, or Mike James, as their main-frame PG.
Phil
January 2, 2010
dberri,
You’ve always offered a very measured take of NBA players, teams, and statistical analysis in general. You, among a growing group of superb online writers, have helped me develop an even greater love for basketball, and I would like to think a more refined one as well.
Thanks for a superb four years.
mrparker
January 2, 2010
Avid Wizards follower here. Maybe the Wizard would be better if two of their best offensive players didn’t have offensive efficiencies near 100 this year. The league average is 106. I believe both Butler and Arenas have played above 110 before.
Recently the Wiz have been playing Boykins and Arenas together in stretches and that seems to have helped Arenas as his offensive efficiency has been below 100 for most of the season.
If those guys get back to their career average output, this team could get back to playing at a 45 win pace.
Jimmi
November 23, 2010
Great posting.
עדכוני חדשות