Technically, my finals are done, but I'm still recovering, so here's one more question to ponder.

There was a lot of talk about our improved defense this year.  Every time I ever tuned into Comcast (which admittedly wasn't much since I'm out of market), Phil Chenier (bless his soul) was talking about it, citing our opponents points per game average and our defensive field goal percentage. 

Now, to be fair, we did get a little bit better defensively, but most of our improvement had to do with our slower pace this season.  We played an average of over four fewer possessions per game this season than we did last season.  This year, we surrendered about 1.12 points per possession, and based on our pace, we allowed teams to score an average of 98.8 points per game, down from 104.9 last season.  Now, if we added four possessions to our average pace, we'd surrender another 4.48 points per game if we defended at the same rate.  That would mean we'd surrender about 103.3 points per game, which is better than in 2006/07, but not by much.

Similarly, the field goal percentage is misleading because we are awful at defending the three.  By looking at effective field goal percentage, which gives threes added weight, we went from 51.7 in 06/07 to 51.4 this season.   Big difference, huh?  Most of our improvement came from rebounding better and not fouling as much, if you look at the two links. 

So here's the multi-part question.  First, did this season do enough to convince you that our defense is heading in the right direction?  Second, what do you think is the bigger problem?  Do we not have the players to play good defense, or is it a matter of scheming?  Which factor do you think is more responsible for our crappy defense?

[Ed. note: From the FanPosts.  I'll have something up later today, until then, enjoy cuppetcj delivering big time with the goods on this one.  If you want to leave him a tip for this effort, that's fine by me, but if you're going to go cheap on him, don't bother. -Jake]

As if we needed another reason to dislike LeBron, it turns out that DeShawn is not the only guy who gets shat on by "the King."

It went down like this: LeBron pulls up in his Mercedes outside XO. People stop and try not to stare, but c'mon, it's LeBron James. He enters the restaurant with a group of friends. On this special occasion, the King decides to dine late. He keeps his group there until around 3:45 a.m. During this time the waiter obsequiously pours drinks and fetches anything else His Greatness needs.

The final bill comes to $800. By the feudal laws of decorum, which stipulate that the affluent should administer a 20 percent gratuity, staffers figured they'd be pocketing an extra $160. But when they fetched the autographed bill after His Heinousness bolted back to Akron, their expectation turned to disbelief, then anger.

LeBron stiffed them with a meager $10 tip. This is what French nobles like to call your requisite Bourgeois Bitch-Slap. The waiter wouldn't even take it, tired of being shat on by guys like LeBron.

Does anybody else here feel a bit of schadenfreude at LeBron's poor performance against Boston right now?  He's shooting a combined 8-42 from the field this series (16%).  It looks like Boston's defense is treating LeBron like he treats other people.  What a jerk that guy is.

As Jake mentioned, Ernie Grunfeld is finally going to address the media today about this year's offseason.  I don't know if he's going to say anything remotely insightful, seeing as he's a close-to-the-vest kind of guy, but I'm curious to hear what he says nonetheless.

The press conference is at 2.  I have a final from 1:30 to 4:30, so I won't be around.  If anyone wants to try their hat at transcribing his quotes, I'd really appreciate it.

For everyone else, comment about it here.

Yesterday's fun exercise got far more responses than I expected, which is great.  The purpose was not necessarily to find the one perfect guy (though for each individual, it was).  Really, it was for us as a collective, now having a list of who we all think would fit in best, to think about the type of player who would help us most.  Normally, we'd go from general to specific, but here, I think it paid to do the reverse.  

Based on our responses, clearly most of us feel we need to find someone who has "toughness."  That kind of what I expected, and I mostly agree with it.  Still, it's important to make the distinction between tough guys who can contribute and tough guys who can't.  Basically, if we're looking for a "banger," we should get someone who has strong rebound rates.  If we're looking for a "pure point guard," we should get someone with a good assist rate.  If we're looking for a "lockdown defender," well, that's trickier, but we should still find someone that has strong defensive numbers (and I'm not talking steals and blocks). 

For reference, here's a list of who we came up with for our price tag.  Free agents are italicized.

• Raja Bell
  
• Antonio McDyess
• Joe Smith
• P.J. Brown
• Kurt Thomas
  
• James Posey (player option)
  
• Eduardo Najera
  
• Charlie Villanueva
  
• Chris Duhon
  
• Jason Maxiell
  
• Quentin Richardson
  
• Chris Richard
  
• Francisco Elson
  
• Linas Kleiza
  
• Ronny Turiaf (restricted)
  
• Quinton Ross
• Dikembe Mutumbo
• Alonzo Mourning
• Rodney Carney
• Mikhael Pietrus
• DJ Strawberry
• John Salmons (borderline)
• Brandon Bass

We'll eventually revisit this thread (and do add to it if you so please), but for now, here's the question for the next day or two.

Eddie Jordan.  Undoubtedly, Wizards nation is divided on him keeping his job, but many of those reasons ("he's not the coach to take us to the next level") are only indirectly related to his actual coaching.

So here's today's question.   Let's ignore the question of whether Eddie should return next year for a second.  The point of this question isn't for people to advocate firing or retaining him, because the sense I get is that Eddie is neither a perfect or horrifically awful head coach. 

What are Eddie's biggest strengths?  What are Eddie's biggest weaknesses?  Spell out both, but don't decide yet whether one side outweighs the other.   Just describe both.

The year is 2003, you're reading the newest edition of ESPN the Magazine.  Inside you'll find a story about how Jason Williams and Hubie Brown are turning things around in Memphis, a 15 year old OJ Mayo is being touted as the next LeBron (who mind you, was in the middle of his rookie season at the time), someone tries to make the argument that adding Calbert Cheaney, Nick Van Exel, and Brian Cardinal was a good move after losing Gilbert Arenas and Antawn Jamison in the off-season, and there's this little, five-paragraph article in the NCAA Basketball section titled "System Failure" about the failings of the Princeton offense, the same one that Eddie Jordan currently runs.

Even though it's fairly short, I'm pretty sure that posting the whole thing would be a no-no, so I'm just going to post part of it, and hope that you're local library has the rest if you're that interested.

Sometimes, reality gets in the way of a good story.  And so it is with the legend of the Princeton offense.  Sure, more coaches than ever are using parts of Pete Carill's system, built on motion, backdoor cuts and three-point shooting.  Problem is, teams running the pure version aren't winning.  "Everyone has caught up," says Cornell coach Steve Donahue.  "It's easier to guard."

The six teams that ran the Princeton offense last season -- the Tigers, Dartmouth, Columbia, Samford, Northwestern, Air Force -- went a combined 63-103.  Columbia coach Armond Hill took the backdoor to the unemployment line after his Lions went 2-25.  And Campbell's Billy Lee, who dabbled with the system only to see his team finish 5-22, resigned after 18 years on the job.

But didn't Herb Sendek turn it around at NC State after incorporating aspects of Carill's offense into his playobook two years ago?  Well, no.  The Pack's recent success has been in spite of the Princeton influence, not because of it.  Better ballers like Julius Hodge are the real reason for the surge.  "The way they run the offense is a joke," says one coach.  "They have no idea what they're doing in terms of angles and intricacies."

Just for a comparison to record of teams that ran this when the article came out, here's a list of the teams running the Princeton now (according to the always reliable Wikipedia), along with their record for the past season:

• Princeton: 6-23
  
• Georgetown: 28-6
  
• Air Force: 16-14
  
• Northwestern: 8-22 
• Richmond: 16-15
• Brown: 19-10
  
• Samford: 14-16
• USC: 21-12
  
• Arizona State: 21-12

Clearly, it's gotten better since '03.  The record of coaches using the Princeton has improved from 63-103 (.379 winning %) to 149-130 ( .534 winning %) this year, but again, this could be a product of better players rather than the success of the system.  The only two teams from that group that made the tournament were Georgetown and USC and they both have players that are projected to be first round picks in the draft with Roy Hibbert for Georgetown and Davon Jefferson and "the next LeBron" for USC.  Take away those two teams, and the winning percentage drops to .481.

Now am I saying that Eddie Jordan's system is handcuffing the team and that he needs to be fired?  Not necessarily.  There aren't nearly as many players in the NCAA ranks that can execute the Princeton effectively as is done in the NBA.  Not to mention, that it's not like the team's offense has been the reason the Wizards can't get past Cleveland.  But it's very interesting to note that for all of the talk of "the Wizards execute the offense better without Arenas!" and "the ball movement is AMAZING!" this year, their offensive rating was lower this year than it was the past three years when they supposedly weren't executing Eddie's offensive system.

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into some sort of a Fire Eddie post or anything like that.  I'm just saying that maybe just maybe the Princeton offense isn't all that we've cracked it up to be.  With that said, I'm not the greatest X's and O's guy out there either, so I'm open to rebuke and debate on this one.