Lesson 1: Correlation does not equal causation
by Mike Prada on Dec 14, 2007 5:55 PM EST
in Team Analysis
28 comments
A national television appearance provides those who haven't really been paying attention to the Gilbert Arenas-less Wizards to come out of the woodshed and voice their opinions. And I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing. Hell, if I were to turn on a college football game between Delaware and Appalachian State, I would probably do the same thing.
Since the viewing audience saw the Wizards play well, and since the Wizards do have a 12-10 record even without Gilbert, there are going to be people out there who wish to speculate about whether that's because of Gilbert being out. Quoth David Friedman of 20 Second Timeout.
Passion and Pride's Jon Burkett had this to say:
For the role of Barbosa or Gordon, Willie Green and Lou Williams have been fighting it out on the Sixers. For the Wizards, Butler is their Iguodala. Without Arenas, it is because of a guy like Butler that they continue to win. That's because BUTLER IS THEIR NUMBER ONE.
(Calm down, Jon. Separate Gilbert the player from Gilbert the person).
What do I think? I'm with Doctor Dribbles, this is too easy a story to write. There are two things happening right now (Gilbert's injury, the Wizards playing pretty well), and it's very tempting to say one has caused the other. Toss in a few cliches (make your teammates better, chucker, team cancer), and wallah, you have an opinion that, if one is simply reading in a vacuum of only this season, sounds good.
Of course, events don't exist in a vacuum, and as any statistician worth their salt would tell you, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Before anyone wishes to express the opinion that Gilbert's injury is the reason the Wizards are winning, consider these counterpoints.
1. The Wizards' schedule.
The combined winning percentage of the Wizards' first 22 opponents in .496, which places them with the 13th easiest schedule, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Before Gilbert got hurt, the Wizards played Boston, Orlando, and Denver. The first was on the road in Boston's home opener, and the latter two were as second games of a back-to-back. The Wizards' other two losses were against New Jersey on the road (a bad loss, in retrospect) and in overtime against an Indiana team that is looking surprisingly frisky this year. Eight of the Wizards' 14 games played without Gilbert have been at home. Those eight games were against Philadelphia, Golden State (a loss), Toronto (without Chris Bosh and Andrea Bargnani), Cleveland (without LeBron), Phoenix (a loss), New Jersey, and Minnesota. Only two of the Wizards' nine wins during this stretch came against teams with winning records (Dallas, and Toronto, who, as mentioned above, were playing without Chris Bosh and Andrea Bargnani). The point is, the Wizards are better than Miami, Minnesota, Philadelphia, LeBron-less Cleveland, Bosh-less Toronto, and Miami even with Gilbert hobbling around on one leg. There's no reason to get excited about a 9-5 stretch against this type of schedule, with or without Gilbert.
2. Small sample sizes can be dangerous.
As an extension of point number one, funny things can happen in small sample sizes. Take LeBron James, for example, the player who David Friedman held up as a counter to Gilbert Arenas. Prior to this season, the Cavaliers were 9-4 in games that LeBron missed since they drafted him in 2003. Even before this season, Cleveland was seen as a one-man team with NBDL-level talent beyond LeBron, yet they somehow had a very strong record without him. But you didn't hear anyone saying the Cavaliers are better without LeBron, did you? The reason you didn't is the same reason one shouldn't say the same thing about Gilbert. Get back to me if the Wizards are near the top of the East in March.
3. The rest of the team is better.
Now, naturally, as a counter to this argument, someone is going to say that Gilbert stunts his teammates, and without him, they're simply developing. But that wouldn't be fair to guys like Brendan Haywood, who has been a new player this season, even before Gilbert went down. It would be unfair to guys like Andray Blatche, Nick Young, and Roger Mason, who have stabilized a bench that was putrid beyond belief last year. It would even be unfair to Eddie Jordan, who has proved he can coach in the wake of Gilbert's injury. Gilbert may be the star, but is he really responsible for all of that?
If so, then doesn't he also have to be responsible for guys that have flourished playing next to him? Isn't he then responsible for Larry Hughes, who had a career year alongside Arenas in 2004-05, cashed in with the Cavaliers, and has turned into one of the worst regulars in the league playing alongside LeBron, again, the guy seen as the prime example of a superstar who "makes his teammates better." Isn't Gilbert also responsible for DeShawn Stevenson, who went from being a career journeyman who was forced to sign for the league minimum into a solid starter alongside Gilbert last season? Consider also that Stevenson struggled mightily after Gilbert went down last season, and prior to last night, he had also been struggling thus far this season. Also, even though Caron Butler has improved this year, he still had a career-year last year playing mostly alongside Gilbert. Again, it's hard to ignore both sides of the coin in this example.
4. Caron isn't shooting much more than before.
Last year, Caron Butler averaged 15.8 shot attempts per 40 minutes. This year, he's averaging 16.9, which basically means for every 40 minutes Caron plays, he's shooting a whopping one additional shot. You know who's picking up the additional shot attempts? Nobody, really, because the Wizards are playing slower this year.
To me, the assumption that Caron is playing better because of Gilbert is laughable. You want to know why Caron is playing better? Because Caron has drastically improved his game. Working with Dave Hopla, Caron has a true shooting percentage of 60.2, and eFG% of 55.6, and a PER of 22.98, all career highs by a wide margin. He's scoring over 2.5 more points per 40 minutes despite taking only an additional one shot in that same time period. And surely Gilbert isn't responsible for Caron's improved three-point marksmanship, which has risen from under 30 percent in his career to over 46 percent this season.
Caron's shooting at a similar rate to last season, when Gilbert was healthy and in the lineup. He's just scoring more efficiently with the same number of shots, which would have happened even if Gilbert was healthy.
5. We're talking about a superstar here.
I'll let WRG take it away.
Before Gilbert game to DC, this team, and this franchise was absolutely lost. Since Arenas has come, we've had three playoff appearances and the team's first foray into the second round since the Reagan administration. Now, after a 14 game sample against bad teams, we're going to refuse to consider all that evidence. As HSCS writes on Thank You Isiah:
Gilbert Arenas was #4 in adjusted +- last season (note to eggheads: I'm running out of mileage on kinda-one-season of adjusted +-), has 33+ win shares in the past 3 seasons, and is #49 on the all-time career PER list. For extra flavor, I'll even toss in a hated, very limited per game stat: Arenas is 22nd all-time in career points per game.
Arenas has a strong TS% (last season somewhat notwithstanding), gets to the free throw line, which is currently a problem with the Arenas-less bunch, averages as many assists as Tony Parker, and has a low turnover rate considering the amount of time he handles the ball. He has singlehandily won many games for us during his tenure, and is among the best with his ball in his hands at the end of the game.
I can't look into the future and forsee what will happen when Gilbert comes back. I can't say with certainty that it will be a harmonious return. But I think most of the evidence indicates that the Wizards are definitely NOT worse off without Gilbert on the court. Do I know for sure? Not really, but then again, neither do those that claim the opposite.
0 recs |
28 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Great Post
The key will obviously be how Gilbert meshes with the team when he returns. I'm optimistic because Caron doesn't take shots away from Gil, and Gil doesn't take shots away from Caron. Haywood's inspired play, one of the biggest reasons of the solid team performance, is perhaps completely independent of Gil. NY and AD have proved they can spell Gil for long stretches, easing his transition back.
by Aldo on Dec 14, 2007 6:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
OF COURSE
Deshawn is playing better, Roger is playing better, B-Wood is doing great, and Caron always had this consistent "I'm gonna shoot over you from the wing" - just look at his numbers from December & January last year. He's gotten a bit better this year, but he was amazing last year as well.
When GIL comes back, we now have someone that can shoot well from the outside or take it in 60% of the time for a layup or 2 Free Throws, IN ADDITION to what we have already. I'm siked for when he comes back...
NOW, all about this Haywood talk... Yes he's playing great, but he really needs to limit his moves on the block - after the 1st quarter, almost all of his moves on the block or near the rim were just UGLY and AWFUL. Reminds me of Trent Plaisted of BYU.
by se7en on Dec 14, 2007 6:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Just one thing, though: I don't think any of us have wanted to admit it/talk about it, but it does seem to me that this team's better play is partially the result of an injury. We keep pointing to Haywood's remarkable improvement. We pretty much know that this isn't because of a new workout regimen, but because mentally he's in a better place now that he isn't constantly worried about minutes. As much as I don't want to say "hooray for heart ailments," I've got to ask... Would this team be playing so well if we had both of our centers healthy this season?
by sierradave on Dec 14, 2007 7:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My guess is
by Mike Prada on Dec 15, 2007 2:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The team got better quietly
A lot can be said for continuity and maturation. The vets are stepping up, Blatche is growing up, and the draft picks were excellent. The Wizards upgraded very quietly. So quietly, guys like Bill Simmons and John Hollinger were ready to totally write them off. And there's still Pesh to incorporate.
by ciscovaras on Dec 14, 2007 9:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just plain silly
First off, you pretty much have to throw out the first 5 games in assessing all of the Wizards this year. Arenas was off, but Jamison and Butler were worse. The only one who played well during that time was Haywood. As others have pointed out, the team won 3 straight with Gilbert leading the way before he went down. And the talk about the offense running better without Arenas is silly. As ciscovaras says, the team is better. This year, all of the players, 1 through 10, can score. This makes it much easier to spread the floor and move the ball.
I'm happy the team is playing well right now and I can't wait for the opportunity to add Gil back into the mix. It will make for some sweet basketball.
Its just talk radio/chat room fodder. They're saying the same stuff about Reggie Bush right now.
Those of us who have actually watched the Wizards for more than a half know better.
by hotplate on Dec 14, 2007 11:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Friendly Rebuttal
I mentioned possible sample-size concerns in my post but it is also important to note that I did not confine my analysis merely to this season. The Wizards have been mediocre during Arenas' entire career with the team. I'll admit that as an objective outsider I did not take the fans' perspective that being a little above .500 with Arenas is an improvement over what happened in the previous years. Nevertheless, the Wizards have a a pretty decent roster, including two All-Star level players besides Arenas. A little bit above .500 is not much of an accomplishment in my opinion--a true MVP-level player like Kobe has had the Lakers a little above .500 in a tougher conference and he has no current or former All-Stars on his team.
It is obvious that the Wizards are playing better without Arenas--not only is their record better but many individual players are more productive than they were previously. So the only logical questions concern why this is the case, whether or not the Wizards can sustain what they are doing without Arenas and what impact Arenas' eventual return will have on the team.
I don't dispute that Arenas is an All-Star level player, which is just another way of saying that he is one of the top 24 players in the NBA. I find it rather astounding that so many media outlets thought of Arenas as #1 (i.e., MVP) last season. My critique is directed more at that kind of thinking than at Arenas per se.
I realize that correlation does not equal causation and I have a phrase for you as well: Occam's Razor. Allegedly, Arenas is the best player on the Wizards and a bona fide MVP candidate. He gets hurt and the team starts doing much better. One explanation is that Arenas is not as good as a lot of people think. Another explanation is that a multitude of other factors magically coalesced all at once literally the second that he got hurt. Butler suddenly hit his prime and Haywood woke up and everyone started playing defense and Jordan learned how to coach. By the way, many people said that Jordan was the brains behind the operation when the Nets made it to back to back Finals--but some people apparently find it plausible to believe that he was a good coach, then he was a bad coach, then as soon as Arenas got hurt he became a good coach again. Man, that's a mouthful. I'll stick with my theory--Arenas is overrated; he's a All-Star, but not an MVP-level player.
By the way, don't forget about Arenas' misadventures with Team USA. Please name one legit MVP-level American player who wanted to be on the team and got cut. Arenas' response to being cut was not that he would work harder on what he did not do well and improve his attitude but that he would drop 50 on the D'Antoni's team and on Portland. I seem to recall Coach Jordan being less than thrilled with that.
I'm not some fan of another team yelling "Gilbert sucks" nor am I some guy who stumbled on the TNT game and said, "Man, the Wizards look good without Arenas." I don't know whether or not the Wizards can sustain what they are doing without Arenas but what they have already done so far is more than enough to justify posing the questions that I just posed here and making the statements that I made in my post.
by David Friedman on Dec 15, 2007 2:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
One more thing...
Several of the TNT guys (Miller, Harlan, Smith and Barkley) noted that the ball movement is better without Arenas, yet it seemed almost like they felt like they had to apologize for saying something that is very evident to anyone who has seen this team play for the past few years. I just don't get why people feel like they have to defend Arenas' alleged status as an MVP-level player; why not just report what is actually happening? Barkley said that the team is not better without Arenas but, as I noted in my post, he also said that when Arenas comes back he needs to take a look at his squad, realize that his teammates can play, and get them the ball more often earlier in games. In other words, the way that Arenas played previously did not maximize his teammates' abilities, something that I said in my post without feeling the need to preface it with a perfunctory comment about how great Arenas is.
by David Friedman on Dec 15, 2007 3:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wha?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2841533 0 of 16 ESPN experts picked him
I can't think of a mainstream expert who did.
Anyway, if you want to see what the Wizards have been doing better and worse than last year, the stats are right there:
www.knickerblogger.net/stats/
www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/
The Wizards are a bit worse on offense, but better on defense. Specifically, they're much better at defensive rebounding.
Are you saying that Arenas is somehow primarily responsible for his teammates' defensive rebounding? Sounds like you're the one breaking Occam's Razor.
by Princeton Offender on Dec 15, 2007 4:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Arenas for MVP?
Where in my post or in any of my comments did I say that Arenas is responsible for his teammates' defensive rebounding? I said, quite plainly and directly, that it seems odd that someone who was so widely discussed as an MVP candidate as recently as the middle of last season could go down with an injury and his team suddenly starts playing better.
Have you heard of rewarding the big men with the ball when they rebound and play defense? The Wiz' offense is no longer the Gilbert Arenas show; there is actual ball movement. If you have ever played basketball at any level then you know that players play better and play harder if they feel involved and connected on offense. Perhaps the big men feel more involved in the offense now and therefore they give more effort in other areas.
How well do you suppose that the Suns, Spurs, Mavs or Lakers would do without Nash, Duncan, Dirk or Kobe? Manu was an MVP candidate for about 24 hours with a couple 37 point games after Duncan got hurt, then Manu came back to Earth and the Spurs lost two in a row.
by David Friedman on Dec 15, 2007 4:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How did the Bulls do without Jordan?
And I don't think MJ was overrated.
As I just wrote on Ballhype, why not consider Gil in the MVP discussion at last year's A-S break? The team was flying high and his PER was in the L's top 10, ahead of Kobe and Nash. As Mandark points out, nobody right-minded picked him for MVP at the end of the year, which is what counts.
Two other quick points. First, isn't it possible the big men are playing better because they know they're getting the run? (As SierraDave says up thread re: Haywood, who was playing just as well when Arenas was healthy; the team also has no bench, so everybody healthy is getting run save Taser). Second, even though most of us would admit that Nash et al. are better than Gil, the Wiz run an unusual system (Princeton) that isn't designed to be reliant on a single player. The Suns, meanwhile, are totally built around Nash, so it's a tough comparison.
(Also, I can tell you exactly how those teams would do. Based on last year, Lakers were 3-2, Mavs 3-1, Suns 2-4, and Spurs 0-2. So clearly, Lakers and Mavs should drop their stars, while the Spurs just can't win without TD. Except this year, when they beat the Jazz and Mavs. Oh wait, they lost two in a row, so never mind.
Maybe...that illustrates the foolishness of being reactionary?)
You need to decide which argument you're making. If it's Gil's not an MVP-caliber player, then you'd probably get some agreement, even here; if you're arguing the Wizards are ultimately better off without Gil...well, Prada already said it best.
by Doctor Dribbles on Dec 15, 2007 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bulls Without Jordan
Every comparison sample of games that you cited is much smaller than the sample of games for the Wizards without Arenas this year. So you are trying to prove my alleged methodology wrong by using a methodology that you would consider even more faulty? That's strange.
By the way, did you read my post? It does not center on just this season, but points out that the Wiz have been mediocre for most of Arenas' time in Washington. The same cannot be said about Nash, Dirk, Kobe and most of the other legit MVP candidates.
Where did I say that the Wizards are "ultimately" better off without Arenas? They are playing better without him right now and I think that he is an overrated All-Star. Those are the only conclusions that I drew. Everything else is the product of overactive, overly defensive imaginations. I can't say that the Wizards are "ultimately" better off without Arenas until I see how the rest of the season plays out and until I see how the team responds when he returns--but I am quite comfortable saying that he is not one of the ten best players in the NBA and should never have been in an MVP discussion, even for a minute and a half when the Wizards were on top of the East. That is not Arenas' fault, of course, but what I wrote is directed more at the people who made such determinations than at Arenas or his very devoted fans.
by David Friedman on Dec 15, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Great Man Theory of Basketball
Haywood's rebounding a little better. Songaila and Blatche are rebounding a little worse.
None of them are doing much better individually. The team is rebounding more because better rebounders are getting minutes. Etan Thomas, Calvin Booth, Darius Songaila, and Antawn Jamison all took up minutes at center last year.
I think you're just giving too much credit to the team's best player. Even though a single player can have a bigger impact in basketball than in any other team sport, the star does not determine every facet of the game.
In this case, you can look at the numbers as well as the games, and see pretty clearly what has improved, and what hasn't.
You can make an argument for almost any player being overrated this way. Joe Johnson has been more productive since leaving Phoenix, and Dirk was an MVP after Nash left. Does this mean Nash holds back his teammates? Of course not.
by Princeton Offender on Dec 15, 2007 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Too Much Credit to Best Player?
Joe Johnson is more productive than he was because he plays more minuted and takes more shots but he's not carrying a team anywhere and no one is touting him as an MVP.
As for the Nash effect, that is a whole other can of worms. Obviously, he did not hold anyone back and his impact in Phoenix has been tremendous. However, it is interesting that a team replaced a two-time MVP with Jason Terry and went to the Finals one year and had the most regular season wins the next year. Hmm, maybe you are right that sometimes the best player gets too much credit for what happens on a team. That said, are we sure that Arenas and not Butler is the team's best player?
by David Friedman on Dec 15, 2007 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of thoughts
Second, the Wizards aren't playing that much better without Gil this season than they were with him. The major improvements we're seeing are coming from Haywood and an improved bench.
Haywood was playing great ball during that opening stretch when Gil was with the team. His improved play is based on not having to fight for minutes this season, not on AD giving him extra touches. They still run very few set plays for the guy unless he has a clear mismatch.
The bench has improved because we've gone from "Arvis" Hayes, Michael Ruffin, and Calvin Booth to Andray Blatche, Darius Songalia (injured for half of last season, and never at 100%), and Nick Young. One could argue that Gil going out has keyed Young's emergence - indeed, it moved him up a step on the depth chart for guards, and Arenas came out and told Young it was time for him to become a scorer while Gil would be sidelined - but besides that, those bench improvements have nothing to do with Gil going out.
Part of the reason why you're seeing such resistance from the regulars on this site over these points (honestly, none of us are saying that Gil is flat-out better than LeBron or anything) is that we've been watching these trends for a long time while hearing national commentators rag on our squad. Hollinger had the Wizards winning 33 games this season because he thought Caron had peaked last year and the team hadn't done anything in the offseason. We've been watching Ernie Grunfeld slowly put together a talented, exciting squad, and now that they're putting together a decent run and showing that they can compete even with our best player on the sidelines, the narrative is "Ah hah! Gilbert isn't all that good after all!" Even when the Wizards win without their superstar, they still manage to get no respect.
by sierradave on Dec 15, 2007 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Man...
by ciscovaras on Dec 15, 2007 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My two cents.
But, and this is a huge but, losing him right now is not necessarily a bad thing. Why? Development. Everyone always harps on the fact that the Wizards did "nothing" in the offseason. Which is categorically not true. I don't see Ruffin, Donnell Taylor, Jarvis and Booth getting minutes anymore, do you?
The Wizards' offseason was about them getting younger and continuity. I think our start was about us getting a decent bench - and Gil being out is helping us develop that bench.
The thing that people point to when they say that Wizards are better off without Arenas is the better ball movement. I feel this is absolutely true. The ball has been shared a lot more since Gil has been out, which has allowed different people to step up every night. I think its like taking the training wheels off a bike, now we're ready to ride. Think about it, how many times last year did Gil have the ball at the top of the key and NOBODY moved. Is that his fault? I don't think so. Eddie Jordan and the rest of the team always used Gil as their crutch, especially in close games, where they would rely on him to win games for us, rather than win as a team. What was EJ's go-to play last year? Call an Iso for Gil.
I think the Wizards got a little stagnant last year and relied way to much on Gil because he was having such a good year. Now, without him, they're forced to step up and they are responding. Everyone has said AD is a better floor general, but this year Gil was averaging more assists per game than AD is averaging now.
I think this is only good for the Wizards. You know Gil is watching and thinking "Damn, we look pretty good right now." I hope that when he comes back he can assimilate into the team well, and we can keep this going. Gil's gonna add that killer back into the line up - someone who can do to people what Tony Parker did to us earlier this year.
by mamemimo on Dec 15, 2007 12:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Apples to Apples
My guess is that this would still underestimate Gil's value for two reasons. First, Butler is better this year, for reasons that go beyond any bounce in his game from having a purer point guard on the floor - he has a better outside shot that he worked all summer on improving. Second, the Group without Gil likely played more of its minutes together last year against the opponent's second unit, or during blowouts, since, when healthy, Gil was almost always on the floor when the game was competitive.
by Kwamesalami on Dec 15, 2007 12:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Wizards' best lineup
I can't find player pairs from last year on 82Games, for some reason, but as the blockquoted section from the Thank You Isiah post mentioned, Gilbert was fourth in the league in adjusted plus/minus.
by Mike Prada on Dec 15, 2007 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A response
I guess my problem with your logic is summed up in this one line you had.
This sentence explains why Doctor Dribbles and I mention that this is too easy a story to write. It strikes me as a little unfair to simplify in the case of Arenas and then turn around and discuss other contingencies in the case of someone like Michael Jordan and the 94 Bulls (which is why DD brought them up). As many have repeated here, there are contingencies in this situation as well:
- The easy schedule (which points to one thing I was trying to say that perhaps didn't come across so well: The Wizards are treading water, not playing better.)
- The injury to Etan Thomas opening up playing time for Brendan Haywood, who had previously been mystified as Eddie Jordan yanked him on and off the court without consistent minutes. Combine that with Eddie's visit to Brendan before training camp, which was instrumental in ending their feud, and you have Brendan playing outstanding ball and making a major impact on the team. Prior to this season, Haywood's presence significantly impacted the defense (check 82games' on/off court numbers for Haywood), and that was with Haywood not playing well. Now, Haywood is playing well, forcing misses defensively, and even cleaning them up on the glass (as mentioned on Ballhype, the Wizards are sixth in the league this year in lowest offensive rebounding percentage surrendered, up from 24th last year).
- Caron Butler's improvement is occurring independently of Gilbert, for the most part. A logical explanation for his improvement could be that he's getting more shots without Arenas in the lineup, and therefore, because most players perform more efficiently with more opportunities to score, he's scoring better. But as mentioned in this post, he's not shooting much more frequently, averaging literally one additional shot per-40 minutes, so that alone cannot explain his sudden robust efficiency. Additionally, Butler's shots are more contested that they used to be because defenses are keying on him more, yet he's still pouring in points at an incredibly efficient rate. I don't know how you can say that Gilbert's absence is somehow responsible for that.
- You mention earlier that the Wizards made no significant roster moves, but that's an oversimplification. It's true that they haven't added anyone as good as Toni Kukoc, but subtly, Ernie Grunfeld has done an incredible job remaking a bench that was horribly awful last year. Getting rid of Jarvis Hayes and Michael Ruffin cleared up playing time for younger guys like Andray Blatche who were already more productive than their veteran counterparts. Roger Mason has played fantastically recently as well, Nick Young has provided a spark that was missing on last year's bench, and Darius Songaila is fully healthy. Again, this isn't the same team Gilbert starred on in the last three seasons -- they're better, from top to bottom. You cannot simply ignore those moves when discussing why the Wizards are treading water without Arenas.
- Eddie Jordan's improvement with player rotations: My problem with Eddie last year had nothing to do with his offensive design. It had to do with his odd small lineups (like having Jarvis Hayes play power forwarD) and his insistence on yanking around people's minutes (see Haywood and Blatche). This year, he's done a great job of distributing minutes effectively and consistently, particularly with the two players just mentioned. Again, that strikes me as improvement that occurred independently of Gilbert's injury.
by Mike Prada on Dec 15, 2007 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Arenas
I think that there is some significance to the Wizards' performance this season without Arenas, even taking into account some of the valid mitigating factors that you mention. Obviously, the significance of it increases the longer that the Wizards can do well without Arenas. It will also be interesting to see what effect Arenas has when he returns--and if he changes his playing style as a reaction to how well the other players are performing now.
As I mentioned in previous 20 Second Timeout posts about Arenas, I also find it telling that the Team USA staff cut him--and Arenas' response to that (the 50-point game guarantees, the bad performances, the losses, Coach Jordan's disapproval) is revealing as well.
by David Friedman on Dec 16, 2007 5:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that Phoenix game was revealing
Getting cut from Team USA did show that Gilbert's game didn't fit well with what they were looking to build (a mix of scorers, role players, rebounders, guys who could play off the ball, etc)...but it's not some measure of his greatness or lack of it, unless you think that Hinrich and Battier are better players.
Prada has (several times now) excellently explained why this year's Wiz team is improved from last year's; that squad went 2-8 without a healthy Gilbert, FWIW. Mandark and Sierra Dave have already explored why Gilbert was logically in the MVP discussion at midseason '06-'07. We all agree that Gilbert's not a super-elite player in the mold of LBJ, but not too far away.
So what exactly do we disagree on?
by Doctor Dribbles on Dec 16, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arenas is no Joe Namath
I think that Arenas is clearly a level below LeBron but at some point this just becomes a matter of semantics and we seem to be in general agreement on this point, though I phrase it a bit more strongly than perhaps you would.
Obviously, Arenas had a good game against Phoenix, but he "guaranteed" 50 point games against Phoenix and Portland. The Portland guarantees resulted in a 9 point outing and a 19 point outing, both of which Washington lost:
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2007/03/arenas-comes-up-mere-31-points-shy-of.html
Then of course there is all the junk that Arenas talked about Boston before opening night. How did that turn out?
I never said that every player on Team USA is an MVP-level player; obviously, that would not be true. However, is there even one MVP-level player who wanted to be on the team (KG and Duncan did not, for various reasons) who got cut? Arenas had a bad attitude during the camp for Team USA. He went there with a chip on his shoulder determined to "prove" something instead of trying to fit into the overall concept of what the team is trying to do--which is actually much like the way he plays for the Wizards, getting sidetracked by trying to score 50 on certain teams. Kobe has a lot more experience scoring 50 than Arenas and if you ask him about such games (and I have) he will tell you that you have to take what the defense gives you; you can't set out before a game and say that you are going to score 50.
By the way, as food for thought, here is a look at how the Wizards did with and without Arenas prior to his current injury:
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2007/11/agent-zero-is-off-case-for-three-months.html
I would have expected the Wizards to be puttering around at a .366 clip or thereabouts without Arenas. Perhaps this means the roster has been upgraded more than I thought, perhaps Butler is better than ever--and perhaps the Wizards will end up around .366 when all is said and done. I don't know. What I do know is nothing that I have seen made me ever think of Arenas as an MVP level player. Willie Burton and Walt Wesley had 50 point games in their careers, too. I know that Arenas had more than one high scoring game last season but he also had a ton of games in which he shot less than .300 from the field--15 of them as of March 21, 2007 according to the Elias Sports Bureau, second only to Mike Bibby's 19 at that time (minimum of 10 FGAs). Bibby was hobbled by a wrist injury and had a terrible shooting year. Shooting less than .300 from the field for roughly a fifth of the season is not good, to say the least. Arenas shot really well in a few high scoring games but he also shot very poorly in a bunch of other games. That "risk/reward" ratio is not great and has a lot to do with the Wizards always hanging around .500. Everyone gushes about the 50 point games and the game winning shots that led to Ws but Arenas' free shooting ways also led to some Ls.
by David Friedman on Dec 16, 2007 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to close the discussion, but...
I'm glad you came on here to defend yourself, but I think it's become clear that you've already done that. At this point, I think enough is enough. Clearly, I don't think anyone is going to move you away from your view, and you're not going to move DD away from his view. That's not a bad thing, just a sign that you fundamentally disagree. But I think DD is talking over you, and you're talking over DD.
I'd rather the discussion be a multi-faceted dialogue, rather than just a one-on-one debate between the two of you.
And to be honest, I wouldn't hold last year up as the only evidence of Gil. I've said here before that it wasn't his best season, not by any means.
by Mike Prada on Dec 16, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ending Discussion
by David Friedman on Dec 16, 2007 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm....you're misinterpreting me
I would never tell someone to leave here unless they didn't treat people with respect. You clearly have been treating people with respect, so please don't misrepresent my comment as one that is asking you to leave. That's hardly the case at all.
I just want this to be a discussion, not a two-person dialogue, which it is becoming. I've told DD the same thing.
by Mike Prada on Dec 17, 2007 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not magically better
there are lots of reasons why the wizards are "better" right now, but again, i'll point out that we never saw the wizards last year with butler and jamison and without arenas, so we don't really know if they would have done this last year without arenas too. they might have.
if you add arenas to the current squad, you have to think the wiz would be even better, but how much better? that, to me, is the question.
all i'll commit to at this point is that it will be really interesting to watch and find out, if we ever get a chance to.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 15, 2007 6:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
