Arenas as a Leader?

A rift where the veterans and young players are on opposite sides of the locker room. It’s more of Jamison (mostly Jamison and Tapscott) expressing disappointment in the young guys for not being consistent, even though most of the young guys are better than their veteran counterpart. I’m guessing that people are saying it’s a rift because Jamison may go after players like Nick Young taking 3 bad shots in a game, and then Tapscott inevitably limiting Young’s minutes the next game. Yet if Mike James takes 6 bad shots in a game no one says anything at all to him. If I were Young I would be highly upset from constantly being criticized while a player that isn’t as good as I am and doesn’t play as well as I do “can do no wrong” in the eyes of some veterans and my head coach. But we’re all assuming that the young players and veterans have some sort of problem with one another. If the young players and vets truly have a problem with one another then they’re good at hiding it.

Both were links between the two factions.

There are some generational misunderstandings, but it’s not anything that causing a major divide in the locker room. But I would agree with little steve colter’s point that Gilbert and Brendan do play an important role in bridging the gap between the veterans and the younger guys.

but the point i meant to emphasize was that gilbert will, just by being who he is, improve team chemistry a great deal.
and yeah, i do think there’s something to the idea of a rift. this team has been such a good mix of personalities recently, and i think that missing gilbert, deshawn and brendan has had a negative impact on team unity.

Rift implies the veterans hate the young guys. That’s a little strong. But Antawnjameson and little steve coulter are right, there is a division. There’s less team unity. What happened to that happy-go-lucky locker room, that supreme confidence, when players on the team supported each other thick and thin. That’s gone away with Gil’s absence (and Haywood’s, to a lesser extent). Sure, losing plays a big role, and one could argue that Gil and Haywood sometimes helped unite the team against the coach, which is counterproductive. But that we’re even having a “veterans vs. youngsters” discussion is a problem. It indicates a possible perceived division. And to the players, particularly the young guys, perception is often more important than reality. Perceived unfair treatment is the same to our young guys as actual unfair treatment.

Jamison and Tapscott have taken plenty of shots at young guys, but none at fellow veterans. I don’t see how that’s disputable. And while no young guy has said anything publicly, the fact that these pot shots keep happening surely indicates the message hasn’t been received in the eyes of Jamison/Tapscott. And if the message hasn’t been received, then the young guys aren’t listening.

Blaming one side or the other is pointless, to me at least. My bottom line is this: if Jamison, Mike James, Songaila, DeShawn, even AD when he was here don’t progress or fall off a cliff in their play, then they’re veterans who aren’t in our future anyway. If the same happens for our young guys, then we’ve killed our future. Whether the young guys “deserve it” or not is kind of besides the point. You can blame them for their own lack of development or you can blame outsiders, but either way, we’ve wasted draft picks and investments into our future. If you draft someone, you better damn well develop them if you don’t want to waste draft picks.

So far, only McGuire gets consistent minutes. Blatche has seen his minutes go down again, as has McGee’s. James still plays 35 minutes a game. Nick is getting beat up for his one-dimensional game when he has the highest defensive net +/- on the team. Sure, development occurs outside of games too, but game time is how you reward development. All the young guys have produced, yet they are denied playing time because of a lack of perceived effort. Effort, the hardest thing to measure, holds them back. And that bugs me.

Wow, that was a long one. Point is, there’s enough of a veterans vs. youngsters problem to be concerned. Arenas bridged the two groups, as did Haywood. I doubt there’d be this huge gap if they were playing.

Mike James doesn’t get benched for taking dumb shots, even though he keeps trying that runner in the lane.

Where is Mike James’ upside? oh yeah, he doesn’t have one. And, defense? I don’t think he knows what that is. Who do you think is shooting and making all those 3-point shots against the Wizards – it’s Mike James’ man….

He’s playing 29 minutes a game and averaging 10 points on 36% shooting, 3.7 assists, and 2 rebounds….. 9.97 PER
Nick’s playing 21 minutes a game and averaging 10 points on 44% shooting, 1 assist, and 2 rebounds….. 13.01 PER

AND YOU SAY NICK is the one taking bad shots…. I think any shot Mike James takes (at 36%) is a bad shot.

Or how about Juan Dixon – does the thought of Juan make you all aquiver when he comes in the game?
Stevenson….. maybe it’s Stevenson and his 31% you want to see taking (and missing) all those shots….

Fine – chicken vs egg….

You say: Show me something, then I’ll give you playing time.

I say, as long as a player has talent, and is willing to work hard (Tapscott says Young is working hard) – then the only thing standing in the way of that player fully developing is playing time. ESPECIALLY when the team is no longer competing for anything of consequence, Young should be getting playing time to develop.

So, exactly why are the Wizards playing Mike James 29 minutes per game? Because he has helped them win so many games? Because he’s a huge offensive talent? Because he can shut down the opposing PG? Because of his tremendous upside? Because he is part of the team’s future plans? Because they’ve got a lot invested in him?

Nick Young has improved. His shot selection is better than last year. His defense is better than last year. His turn over rate is down. His rebounds and assists are up. Some are small improvements, others are much more than that (Turn Overs).. He certainly has not made the quantum jump that McGuire has – but he also hasn’t been given the consistent and increasing playing time that would facilitate his experience and confidence to take that next step.

If I told you that the Wizards could trade Mike James, straight up for an athletic Shooting Guard that puts up 19 points on 52% TSP, 4 rebounds, 2 assists, and a low TO rate……at 1/3 the salary……… You’d take that trade in a heartbeat….. except, that player is ALREADY on the team. All you have to do is give him 40 minutes.

but i think it almost doesn’t matter if there is a real ‘anti-youth’ movement, but rather whether some of the young players get pissed off about their playing time, the frequent criticism they seem to get (regardless of appropriateness) and the fact that this criticism has been public at times. i’m not making excuses here, but these are basically kids, super-freakishly athletic kids playing a game in which they have so much skill and potential that the key for some of them to becoming good players is more in their heads than anything else.
so my point of this post was to focus more on the fact that arenas’s attitude may be more conducive to helping them get over perceived slights this by coaches/veterans. obviously, these are just random musings of a fan, and i don’t have a clue what goes on in the locker room, but i do think some of the younger players (Young and McGee in particular) will appreciate one of the team leaders having freaking sense of humor.

I mean, not only would Jamison, Tapscott, Butler and the rest of the Veterans have to be in on the conspiracy, McGee and now Crittenton would now have to be sworn to secrecy too…. Besides, Ivan Carter would have ferreted out any conspiracy by now.

I’ve now settled on Coaching incompetency as the simplest explanation.

And, oh by the way…. I don’t really believe anyone here said playing time is doled out based on seniority, but rather that some players are automatically provided playing time, regardless of on-court production, while others who are productive, sit the pine. I don’t believe it has anything to do with the Coaching staff “liking” certain players, or “disliking” other players. I don’t believe anyone is being “punished” or sent to the Golden Outhouse of Poor Play….

What I do believe is that certain players are given 30 minutes per game for a week in a row; they start to get on a roll, then have an off night, and are benched for two weeks. And by benched, I mean they are given 11-15 minutes per game, mostly in mop up situations. Other players can go two months, where they’re shooting percentage is in the 20’s, OBVIOUSLY hurting the team, and STILL be given solid, consistent minutes – and average almost 28 minutes per game during that 2 month slump.

NO – I don’t think minutes are awarded for good “effort”, or taken away as punishment for poor work effort. In the case of Nick Young, I am absolutely certain that his minutes are directly related to his on-court production.

If he produces, he plays…. but if his production slips one game… he sits. There is no room for error. ONE POOR SHOOTING GAME, and he sits…

Early in the year, Nick was getting pretty consistent minutes. Eddie Jordan was playing him about 26 minutes per game in the first 11 games. Then Tapscott took over… Nick’s minutes went down – not a terribly huge reduction, but the first 9 games under Tapscott, Nick averaged 20 minutes per game.

He started to get on a roll, had a couple of bad nights.
Dec 02_______20 minutes_______5 – 8_______12 points
Dec 03_______20 minutes_______4 – 9_______11 points
Dec 05_______24 minutes_______5 – 10______13 points
Dec 06_______18 minutes_______1 – 6_______3 points
Dec 09_______17 minutes_______3 – 6_______9 points
Dec 11_______18 minutes_______0 – 4_______4 points

Then Nick went 0-4 against Boston, and got 4 minutes, and 5 minutes in the next two games, and couldn’t find his shooting stroke again for almost 2 weeks.

Then Nick gets hot again…. including 3 Career high’s in the space of 4 games.
Jan 09_______27 minutes_______12 – 15______28 points
Jan 10_______26 minutes_______6 – 9________12 points
Jan 12_______32 minutes_______12 – 19______30 points
Jan 14_______33 minutes_______13 – 17______33 points
Jan 16_______36 minutes_______6 – 14_______13 points
Jan 19_______23 minutes_______2 – 9_________7 points

But he goes 2-9 against Golden State and the next 6 games he averages 14 minutes playing time per game.

So, he finally gets it going again…..
Jan 31_______23 minutes_______8 – 11________22 points
Feb 02_______25 minutes_______5 – 13________13 points
Feb 04_______35 minutes_______10 -20________21 points
Feb 06_______23 minutes_______7 – 16 _______20 points
Feb 08_______32 minutes_______6 – 9 ________20 points
Feb 10_______28 minutes_______4 – 9 ________11 points
Feb 11_______31 minutes_______3 – 10_________7 points

But he has a bad game against Charlotte on February 11th. The next 3 games, Tapscott gives him 12.5 minutes a night.

Now, if you can honestly look at those stretches of games… and tell me that playing time is awarded strictly based on “hustle”, or some other ethereal hard to measure “effort scale” – and not strictly based on performance – then you need to look again.

In the case of Nick Young – the rules change. The playing time is allocated differently for Nick than for other players. It is based on his last game’s shooting. How well or how poorly he shot the ball.

That doesn’t convince you?
How about this quote from Tapscott about Nick Young:

“You can’t afford to have a guy struggling with his shot shoot you out of a game,” Tapscott said.

Here are some facts: Two second year players are getting consistent significant time, one of which is a starter. Three first/second year players get inconsistent or little time. One vet gets no time. Blatche is kind of in the middle and gets consistent significant time.

From my vantage point, it’s more like: McGuire gets consistent significant time. Pech gets consistent insignificant time. Dixon gets consistent insignificant time. Critt is starting to get consistent time, but it took a while. Young, Blatche and McGee are still all over the place.

So these aren’t facts. They depend on how one defines “consistent.” To me, this minute stretch isn’t significant:

Blatche in January: 7, 21, 24, 27, 25, 35, 24, 16, 26, 33, 26, 24, 35, 27. Since his return: 27, 20, 22, 16, 23, 22. Not Young/McGee inconsistent, but still not much of a pattern there. Not to mention that he’s gone in and out of the starting lineup. That change in status matters for a young guy like Dray.

Young since January: 17, 27, 17, 23, 27, 25, 31, 33, 37, 23, 10, 19, 7, 15, 19, 10, 23, 25, 34, 23, 32, 28, 31, 15, 11, 12, 23, 26, 24.

McGee since January: 11, 19, 14, 16, 4, 5, 11, 23, 6, 21, 17, 14, 24, 26, 23, 20, 20, 26, 20, 13, 8, 13, 6, 10, 14.

Seems a little all over the place to me.

my posts have not come off as “heated”….

I definitely like the debate, and welcome differing opinions. And, although my thoughts on the matter, and especially on Nick Young’s playing time, are probably set in concrete by now…. I still think there’s room for dissent and open dialog.

By the way Jon L…. I never even considered the 7-game thing… Perhaps you’re right. Maybe it’s Tapscott cutting the season into "seven game chunks" that has played havoc with Young’s (and McGee’s) playing time.

As for the attitude in the locker room?
When Arenas was playing, the guys were kidding around…. pranks……. pratfalls…… fun…
Last year, with Arenas gone, and the team winning – the team seemed more businesslike.
This year, with the team losing, we’re treated to sour quotes from AJ, griping from a now gone Daniels, gloom, doom and un-fun.
How much of that is a result of winning, versus losing? Probably most of it… But I can’t help but think Arenas will be a positive presence in the locker room when he returns.