Pollin': Game of the Year
by JakeTheSnake on May 10, 2009 10:20 PM EDT
in Polls
60 comments
[Ed. Note: Final exams will keep me out of comission for the next couple of days, so this week's edition of Pollin' is a little early. Once everything wraps up on Tuesday, I'll be back and Pradamaster will be back soon after that. Just bear with us for a couple more days and things will start to go back to normal. -Jake]
Last week, 71% of you voted that Dominic McGuire would not be a starter next season. It's a tough assessment for someone who filled in so well last year, but I have to say that I agree. He's got a bright future ahead of him, but it's hard to see a way that the team doesn't bring in a more talented player to fill his spot in the starting lineup, whether it be through the draft or in a trade.
As you can see by the title, this week's poll focuses on the best game of the 2008-09 season. For a season marred with plenty of dissappointments, there are still quite a few games to choose from for the Game of the Year. After the jump, we'll take a look at the candidates.
10/25/2008 - Wizards 124, Warriors 108: The Ed Tapscott era got off to a bang as JaVale McGee flushed an alley-oop on a on a set play off the tip. That set the tone for one of the Wizards' most impressive performances of the year. JaVale set the tone early, but Andray Blatche was the one who carried the weight the rest of way, finishing with 25 points, 12 rebounds, 5 assists, and 5 blocks.
12/29/2008 - Wizards 89, Rockets 87: Aside from being a win on the road (rare) against a Western Conference power (very rare) without the services of Caron Butler (super rare), this win was truly unique because the decisive shot came from none other than DeShawn Stevenson. As you would expect, dancing broke out in many parts of the city after the game.
1/4/2009 - Wizards 80, Cavaliers 77: All the talk after the game focused on LeBron's crab dribble, understandably. Lost in all the commotion after the game was the fact that the Wizards actually beat the best team in league, holding them to their second-lowest single game scoring output of the season.
It's a shame that the performance didn't get the attention it should've, but this will never get old.
2/8/2009 - Wizards 119, Pacers 117: Caron Butler and Danny Granger put together a duel for the ages (in a "we're both fringe All-Stars on lottery-bound teams trying to show why we deserve to be on the All-Star team" kind of way) that came down to a mano-a-mano battle in the closing seconds. As Danny found out, it's a good idea not to mess with a guy who has the flu.
2/27/2009 - Wizards 113, Chicago 90: Arguably the Wizards finest all-around performance of the season. Rumor has it there was a big Bulls fan in the crowd that night. He was a pretty cool guy though, he even sported a Cherokee Parks jersey at the game.
3/25/2009 - Wizards 95, Bobcats 93: It was probably the Wizards' ugliest win of the seaon, but without it, Washington would've gone winless in the Southeast Division for the season. If avoiding embarrassing records piques your interest, this was probably your favorite game of the season.
4//2009 - Wizards 108, Cavaliers 101: In a season where everything seemed to go wrong, this was the night where everything went right. Fans got to see Gilbert Arenas and Brendan Haywood play and play well on national TV, Jamison dunked, Barkley was hushed, Darius Songaila was the hero, and LeBron was a witness to all of it. What more could you ask for?
0 recs |
60 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I thought the crab dribble would win in a runaway
But I can’t get over how happy that made me feel. I changed my logo for my fantasy basketball team as a result!
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on May 10, 2009 11:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I definitely got the most satisfaction from our healthy game vs. Cleveland
But the game I had most fun watching was Tapscott’s first game vs. the Warriors. So since I got the most satisfaction from seeing us stick it to Cleveland, the game vs the Warriors was my biggest disappointing wet dream.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 11, 2009 1:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Gil's Win Over Cavs
No question. I’m surprised people voted for the Obama game. Give me a break.
Crab Dribble is a close second for me. That game led to subsequent quotes that continued to show the entire league how stupid LeBron is. Every time he spoke, the dumber he looked. For a guy who knows how to play this game, he’s either a stubborn liar, or he really is an idiot. A travel is a travel, and this one wasn’t even debatable. (I’ll admit, some are hard to catch.)
by se7en on May 11, 2009 3:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tell me there is not a real rivalry with Cleveland....
If the Wizards come back strong next year, Wizards-Cavs will be must-see.
by khrabb on May 11, 2009 3:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I see most people are picking the "healthy" Wizards game vs. Cleveland
But I would submit that that was the worst game of the year, at least in terms of the Wizards’ future prospects. We’ve all seen how the Wizards continue to think they are better than they actually are, how their view of themselves does not match reality. The incessant “we were in first place for a couple days in January” mantra was bad enough. Add Caron telling everyone he could that he was an all-star on a team with a handful of wins. But to hear a team say, in the midst of a 19-63 season, that if healthy, they could compete for a championship because they beat the Cavaliers at home is very troubling. In his public comments, Ernie Grunfeld seemed to agree with that. Maybe he has to in public, but if he truly believes it, it could lead to the sort “win now” moves that can really hurt a franchise.
by disgrunted on May 11, 2009 8:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think differently
I believe that the two games we saw at the end of the year (including the Cleveland win) were indicative of the kind of team we’ll have next year… A team that will contest every game. A team that can contend.
Unlike you, disgruntled, I don’t think the Wizards are that far from being a championship contending team. A couple of GOOD veteran role players; like a physical Power Forward low post defender, and a deadly outside shooter with 3-point range. Perhaps if that outside shooter could play a little perimeter D, it would be better.
I also disagree with your assessment that Ernie is in a “win now” mode… None of his recent moves have shown that tendency. As a matter of fact, his trade of Antonio Daniels for Crittenton is indicative of just the opposite. The team has a lot of young talent… Some would say too much young talent. (and I agree). Some of that young talent could be moved (in conjunction with an expiring contract) to bring in the veteran help they need.
If that happens, perhaps you won’t be “disgruntled” any more.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 11, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This group of players have never contended for anything, ever. Contending happens at the end of the season and in the playoffs not prior to the All Star break.
by Jheiser3 on May 11, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with some of Rook’s points. I agree that the Wizards, as currently constructed, is a team that will contest every game. But I agree with Haywood that it is a top 4 or 5 team in the East, not a team that can contend.
The baseline question is whether the Big 3 is strong enough to contend for a championship. I think the clear answer is no, because this past season, 2 of the Big 3 earned a 19-63 record. Certainly adding Gilbert and Haywood next year will dramatically improve their record, but there is no historic evidence (other than those two days they were in first place) to support the view that they can seriously contend with that group.
So, where I most strongly disagree with you, Rook, is your view that the Wizards need a couple of veteran role players to fit around the Big 3. In my opinion, the Big 3 is not a solid enough or excellent enough foundation to build around if the goal is to win a championship. So, again in my opinion, the Wizards either need a different Big 3 (e.g., moving Jamison or Butler for Bosh), or they need a true Big 4 or Big 5. The latter approach would entail adding one or two other players who are as good as Jamison and Butler (i.e., the Detroit model that led to their championship). Can you do that by trading current guys, trading the draft pick, or using the draft pick? That’s the question, and we will find out. Because Butler and Arenas are relatively young, my preference would be to use the top 5 pick to add that 4th member of the Big 4. But we’ll see what trades are available.
One final point on how meaningless that win against Cleveland was as a predicter of future success: Earlier in the season, the depleted Wizards’ team almost beat the Cavs on Christmas, and later beat the Cavs in the Crab Dribble game. That team went 19-63. So to conclude that the healthy Wizards team that beat the Cavs near the end of the season will be a 50 or 60 win club next year doesn’t add up.
by disgrunted on May 11, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love how everyone writes off the Wizard's 2006-07 season
as a 2-day event…. like it was too short a timeframe to be a serious sample size. Well, the Wizards were 31-21 on February 22, 2007 (a little over 2-years ago)… more than 60% of the season had expired… and the Wizards were the best team in the East.
The best team in the East – with Starters Arenas, Jamison , Butler, Haywood and Stevenson; and nothing for a bench.
The other argument is that the East has gotten better. Like the Wizards have been stuck in 2007 and have made NO changes…. Remember the Wizard’s bench in 2007? Guys like Jarvis Hayes, Etan Thomas and Michael Ruffin were playing major minutes, and contributing NOTHING. The rest of the bench consisted of guys like Donell Taylor, Calvin Booth, Mike Hall, James Lang. Songaila had hurt his back in the off-season, and didn’t really round into shape until late 2007. Roger Mason wasn’t really Roger Mason until 2008.
Now they’ve got Nick Young, Andray Blatche, a healthy Songaila, Dominic McGuire and even Mike James (who is light-years better than Jarvis Hayes). Not only that, but they’ve got an impressive rookie Center in McGee and a top 5 draft pick.
I’d say that 60% of a season leading the East, PLUS the additions and improvements made to the bench is enough “evidence” to support the view that the Wizards can seriously compete with the existing roster. As a matter of fact, I cannot see ANY evidence to a contrary opinion.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the big-3 is not good enough to contend – - – even though there is evidence, proof, and a track record to show that the big-3 CAN contend.
If Ernie can turn expiring contracts, young talent and picks into a couple of good veteran bench players (not All-Stars, but solid vets, like Songaila) – I think they’ve got a team that can contend for the Eastern Conference AND the Championship.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 11, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good points - fully agree
i also think the whole ‘eastern conference has gotten better’ argument is not all that true.
obviously cleveland is there, but who else?
probably orlando – but they are not an elite team
boston’s aging, but may have found some depth
chicago? who knows? probably, but they have one potentially great player and a lot of questions, and vinny del blanco is going to lose that team, i think.
not sold on altanta or philly at all, detroit will not be a factor until 2010
miami? possibly, if they make a serious move this offseason.
so – i think wiz are capable of cracking the top 3 in the east next year.
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on May 11, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're not entitled to your own facts
The Wizards were not in first place in the East for 60% of that 2006-2007 season, Rook. They were in first place for just a handful of days.
They were 17-13 on January 1, 27-18 on February 1, as you mentioned they were 31-21 on February 22nd, but interesting that you picked that date, because they promptly lost their next four to finish February at 31-25.
If you want to make the argument that the only record listed above that is relevant to determine how good the Wizards’ Big 3 will be next season is that 31-21 record or the 27-18 record at the end of February, go ahead.
I agree that the bench is better now than it was then. Unfortunately, we don’t yet know whether Arenas will ever be as good in the future as he was during that first half of 2006-07.
If you think that Ernie should trade his young players and draft picks for veteran BENCH players — wow, I sure hope that Ernie doesn’t share that view. Trading a top 5 pick for a BENCH player?
by disgrunted on May 11, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
60% of a season, that season being 2 years ago, is NOT evidence, proof or track record that can be repeated in the future. Its a single point used by people desperately clinging ot the past. No other franchise in sports has invested more based on a fraction of a season and there’s a reason.
by Jheiser3 on May 11, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Assume the 27-18 and 31-21 marks actually ARE indicative of what the Wizards Big 3 can do next season. Those records reflect a 60% winning percentage, which means 48 or 49 wins. An improved bench can increase that, sure, but increase it to 60 or 65 wins? Not likely.
But my overall point is this: If the Wizards didn’t have any option other than sticking with the Big 3 next season and seeing how far they could go, that would be one thing. Then plugging vets around the core 3 would be the only route. But with a top 5 draft choice, the team has better options than just sticking parts around that Big 3. They can take the team in a new direction, a slightly different direction, or just add really good young talent for the future.
by disgrunted on May 11, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other than Cleveland and maybe Orlando
I don’t see ANY 60-65 win teams in the East at all….
With the improved bench – the fact that Boston is much older (and now showing some injury problems), the fact that Atlanta can’t seem to get any better than they were 3 years ago; Miami can’t find any Thunder to go with D-Wade’s Lightning; Detroit is retooling; and Philadelphia can’t seem to be able to figure it out….
I see the Wizards as the 3rd best talented team in the East. So- YEAH, a couple of GOOD veteran bench players would put them right up there.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 11, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A
ATL won 30 games 3 years ago versus 47 and their first playoff series in a decade this year. They are better.
Miami won 43 games with Dwayne Wade and… Beasley/Haslem/Chalmers and a rookie HC. That’s two fewer than Eddie Jordan’s BEST year with healthy All-Stars in DC. They have JO’s 22M expiring contract to use or wait and go into 2010 with an extended Wade and room to sign at least 1 other elite FA.
Philly won 41 games with Brand only playing 29 of them. They have Iggy, Brand and Lou Williams locked up through 12/13 and 3 good young forwards on rookie contacts.
by Jheiser3 on May 12, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still put a healthy Wiz team
ahead of all of those teams – exception being miami if they add a bosh or similar big move – i’m not a believer in beasley. i think atlanta is maxed out with this line-up. and, as you say, philly is locked into iggy, brand and lou williams. fine, pretty good team. but andre miller has been just as valuable to that team as anyone, and he’s likely gone.
just my sense – no stats or anything, i’m just not sold on any non-cleveland EC team being great.
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on May 12, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other point about the Draft pick
This year, there are only two choices that can be considered “REAL” lottery talent. The rest of the guys listed in the 1st round wouldn’t even come close to sniffing the 1st round last year, or even next year. They’re only there because there’s no one better , THIS YEAR.
So – a top 2 pick IS worth drafting – but a 3-5 pick is NOT. Better to deal the pick if it’s not one of the top 2 – and get some real help; rather than draft a 2nd round talent with a 1st round pick, and hope Ernie can pull a rabbit out of the hat.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 11, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disgruntled's right
We really need to get over 2006/07. That was a team that was ten games over .500 in an Eastern Conference without much top-level talent. It was not really any worse than it is now; it was just different. Lots of decent teams instead of some great teams and a bunch of mediocre ones.
The record was also really misleading. The Wizards had a nearly even point differential. They were playing all close games, no matter the opponent. They were playing absolutely no defense. Their fortunes rested entirely with Gilbert’s shooting. If he had it going on, they could win at Phoenix. If he didn’t, they could lose to a New Orleans team missing four of their five starters, or to a Knicks team that was led by Steve Francis. Those were not the days of a great team. At best, that team was winning 47, 48 games. And while they did have no bench, they also had an Arenas that would never shoot better at any point in his career. I’d say the combined effect is basically even.
That’s not to say, however, that this organization can forget that stretch. I don’t really share Jheiser’s cynicism here; that stretch was important. It showed that there really aren’t a ton of steps left to take to make the leap. With all the problems of that team, they were still 10 games over .500. It needs to be used as a building block, not as something that should be shrugged away.
But I think disgruntled’s best point was the last one. The organization doesn’t have to stand pat. They have a top-five pick, two expiring contracts and several promising young players. That needs to yield something bigger than a Ronny Turiaf or even a Kirk Hinrich. It needs to yield a Josh Howard or a Tayshaun Prince, or better yet, a Chris Bosh.
Now, if the Wiz get #1, then Blake Griffin is something bigger, and the rest of the assets can be used to get someone like Kirk Hinrich. I’m not quite sure about Rubio.
Point is, 2006/07 needs to be viewed as a building block, not proof of this team’s absolute level. It can’t be forgotten, but it can’t be vindication. Arenas/Butler/Jamison just isn’t a good enough trio to supplement exclusively with mid-level caliber players.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever anyone thinks of 06-07 the fact remains that we have three top tier players and some good pieces around them. I think that is worth building on.
I’d like to remind everyone also that this past year we were not just missing Gil and Haywood. We were also essentially missing Daniels, Stevenson, and (of course) Mason. So I think that “data point” is more irrelevant than 06-07.
by MR on May 11, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is
I don’t think anyone is saying that the most accurate data point was this year’s record. This team has hovered around .500 for years so it makes more sense to use that as the benchmark. That would be good for 6/7th in the East this year.
Its the idea that one point in the 06/07 season is the one true indicator that’s laughable. Thats the idea that people are rejecting.
by Jheiser3 on May 12, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one true indicator
That seems like a straw man to me. Who is calling it the “one true indicator”?
I won’t speak for anyone else, but my feeling as a member of the “06-07 matters” club is that if you look at the team since Arenas arrived you see an upward trend. Making the playoffs. Winning a first round series. Competing with the elite teams in the NBA. When Arenas got injured that stopped.
The idea is that if everyone gets healthy we can continue that upward trend. IMHO all three of our “big 3” have gotten better since then. And our bench has gotten better. And our center has gotten better. And maybe even our coach. So if the team can pick up where it left off, perhaps we can make some noise this year and contend in the near future.
by MR on May 12, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here, here
As an advocate of the 2-days in First place crowd…… Let’s just forget that the Wizards started off getting into the Playoffs…. Let’s just dismiss the 1st round series win against Chicago… AND pooh-pooh the fact that they were 10 games over 500 the very next year with 60% of the season gone……… and concentrate on the 2 days they were in First place in the Eastern Conference.
Let’s not dwell on the improving Wizards…. their improved bench… the fact that their best players are all healthy again (at the same time)… and that the team that Ernie Grunfeld constructed will be able to play together, for the first time since the middle of the 2007 season.
Instead, let’s take a singular point in time (the 2 days they led the Eastern Conference) – and denigrate that singular event as a poor indicator of the team’s potential. Let’s not look at the record, but instead at the “point differential” – because 10 games over 500 means nothing, unless you’re blowing people out. Let’s not look at the fact that Butler has improved, or that Jamison has turned into one of the best Power Forwards in the LEAGUE.
I already know disgruntled’s (and others) mindset is that the Wizards need a MAJOR influx of talent, in order to compete with the elite teams in the East… because they haven’t won more than 42-43 games in any one season….
I’m a bit more optimistic than that; and I’ll go on record right now:
If the Wizards are healthy, they are a 2 or 3 seed – without any major roster changes. RIGHT NOW.
Book it… Write it down. Bookmark this page… and let’s talk again in January….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 12, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glad you mentioned that playoff series win over Chicago, now lets talk about all those first round exits.
by Jheiser3 on May 12, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand the thought process, I just don’t believe life or an athlete’s body works that way. You make huge assumptions that Arenas back on the floor = his previous productivity and that all the main factors continue their productivity or improve. The rest of the league must be the same or worse as they were in this magical time capsule that was February of 07.
Everything that happened in between really happened. These are the not the same players, its not the same league. Just “getting the band back together” doesn’t mean squat in terms of contending.
by Jheiser3 on May 12, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are the one who keeps talking about 2 days in ’07.
I’m talking about 2004-2007 and the multiple all-star performances from several players that are still on our roster and are still in their prime.
Is your point that Arenas won’t come back as an elite player after this injury? If that is your argument then you may be right. But assuming that he does, then why shouldn’t we think our “big 3” plus some good pieces surrounding them will work?
And by the way, I think the East is WORSE than it was in ’07. Probably the whole league is.
by MR on May 12, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for starters
because they never won anything back then either.
by Jheiser3 on May 12, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure what you mean
Lots of teams have “never won anything”.
Are you suggesting you have to win a championship before you can be a contender?
by MR on May 12, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
saying
I’m saying that it rings hollow when you talk about getting them healthy so they can contend when they have won nothing beyond a first round series since 04-05. People make it sound like they were on the cusp of a title when in fact they haven’t won anything, ever.
by Jheiser3 on May 13, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say they were on the cusp of the Eastern Conf finals.
by MR on May 13, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
When? They got swept by Miami in 04/05, would have played 64-win Detroit in 05/06 and would have likely run into Detroit again the next year.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 13, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 2007 playoffs were wide open in the East. Miami lost in the first round. Detroit was tough, but we were 2-2 against them in the regular season. Toronto was a 3 seed and lost to NJ.
Cleveland made the finals when James walked his way through Detroit.
Why couldn’t a healthy Wizards team have made the EC finals? I don’t think it’s a stretch.
by MR on May 13, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So can I take a lack of response as an acknowledgment that this argument holds some water? Before this thread drops off the front page?
by MR on May 14, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even when healthy
Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, Chicago, Miami and New Jersey had better point differentials than the Wizards. One of those teams would have beaten them at some point.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm not sure about NJ
But the other five are definite.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that if Arenas had been healthy at the end of 07 then we would have had a realistic shot at getting to the EC finals. If you disagree then you disagree and I respect your opinion. But point differential isn’t a stat that’s going to make or break this argument.
by MR on May 14, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point here is that, when healthy, the Wizards were no better than the fifth best team in the conference
And don’t dismiss point differential — no stat is a better indicator of future success.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 14, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
when healthy, the Wizards were no better than the fifth best team in the conference
How can that be? We were tied for 6th place after losing our All-NBA player. Having him all season wasn’t worth 3 wins?
Toronto and NJ were paper tigers. We showed that when healthy we were better than Chicago. The prior year the Cavs barely beat us (with refs help and several OT games). Only Miami and Detroit were clearly better than us, and we had good luck against Detroit.
by MR on May 14, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and with the exception of a bad call at the end of the year
They could have been a 4th seed in 2008, settling for a 5th seed even with Arenas out all year, and Butler missing 24 games. They could have been 4th, but David Stern had his officials gave a game at the end of the year to Cleveland -
That means they were the 5th best team, when NOT healthy… When healthy, they’ve got to be a better than 5th seed.
So – in 2006-07 they were a 7th seed… then in 2007-08 they were gypped out of a 4th seed, and settled for a 5th seed.
Now, take that same team – add a 3-time All-star Point Guard. Add an improved and experienced bench…. And you can’t see them improving on a 5th seed?
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 14, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way...
Just in case you guys forgot… it was Cleveland’s second to last game of the season, against Philadelphia.
If Cleveland loses, the Wizards would have taken over the 4th Seed; with one game left to play. 4th Seed, meaning the Wizards would have Home Court advantage in the first round (against Cleveland). A first round in the Playoffs that Washington lost in a grueling 6 games to Cleveland…. A First Round that may have turned out differently if Washington had the home court advantage.
The play in question in Philadelphia?
LeBron Drives – doing his best “lower the shoulder” bull in a china shop impression; stumbled and lost possession as Dalembert blocked the semi-shot. Devin Brown recovered the ball. Ilgauskas then PUSHED Dalembert into Brown.. Whistle blows – Game clock at ZERO. Philly runs off the court with a win…..
But wait… a quick cell phone call from Stern to the Officials (my paranoid assumption) – the Officials huddle – review the replay (that clearly shows the Ilgauskas push) – Call a foul on Dalembert !!!! And decide to give Devin Brown two Free Throws – which he hits, to hand Cleveland a win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dTJWLbaapI
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 14, 2009 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just in case you are having difficulties with your vision
At around the 0:34 second mark – watch Ilgauskas.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 14, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I’m not going to be convinced that the Wizards if healthy won’t be contenders in the next 3 years until the ball starts bouncing.
I can tell that others in this discussion won’t be swayed either.
Thanks to all for an interesting and lively debate.
by MR on May 14, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeesh
They were no more on the cusp of the EC Finals than ATL was this year.
by Jheiser3 on May 14, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With a healthy Arenas?
I guess we just disagree on that.
If you have such a low opinion of Arenas, Butler, & AJ then I can see why you’d want to scrap the team.
by MR on May 14, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not one of those that writes it off
But my doubts come about the ability of this team to stay healthy. If you could guarantee me 70+ games from the big 3 + Griffin or Rubio, then I might believe that the Wizards are a contender.
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on May 12, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ability of this team to stay healthy
That is the real question mark.
by MR on May 12, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No guarantees there
As Boston, and now Houston can attest…
But one thing I can say…. If there’s a Basketball God, then he’s gotta give the Wizards a break this year. Perhaps Boston will finally start to show their age. Maybe Cleveland and Orlando will have some injuries…. I’m not advocating that any one particular player be injured…. that would be insensitive…. and if I’m anything, I’m sensitive….. except where, (cough cough LeBaby) certain players are concerned…
The West has certainly seen their share of injuries to star players this year…. (Utah’s Carlos Boozer missed over half the season; the Suns Amare Stoudemire suffered a detached retina, the Lakers lost Andrew Bynum for 30 games; The Spurs missed Manu Ginobili for a significant stretch; Houston lost Tracy McGrady for half the season and now Yao Ming for the Playoffs)
Now, contrast that with some teams that were able to avoid the injury bug:
Cleveland (66-16) – Top 7 players averaged 74 games played this year.
Boston (62-20) – Top 9 players averaged 72 games played this year (even with Garnett missing 24)
Orlando (59-23) – Top 9 players averaged 70 games played this year (with Jameer Nelson missing 40)
Atlanta (47-35) – Top 8 players averaged 74 games played this year.
LA Lakers (65-17) – Top 9 players averaged 74 games played this year (even with Bynum missing 32) *
Denver (54-28) – Top 8 players averaged 75 games played this year.
Portland (54-28) – Top 9 players averaged 76 games played this year.
*Probably the only team that could lose a top player, and not be hurt too badly in the standings.
The LA Lakers could afford to lose Bynum for nearly half a year, but if they had lost Kobe, or even Odom at the same time, they would have been devestated – and would be fighting just to make the Playoffs.
Boston, without Garnett, struggled to get past Chicago in the first round – and they may not make it by Orlando.
I hope this shows what I intended it to show… I believe it clearly shows a correlation between “relative health” of a team, and the standings. No team can afford injuries to multiple top players for a sustained length of time; and any good team that stays healthy all year – will remain near the top of the standings. With very few exceptions, this rule can be applied to any year. If you go back and look at the teams with the best records last year, you’ll see that they were relatively injury free. (By injury free, I mean major injuries to any of their top players)…
Now here’s the opposite side of the spectrum:
Washington (19-63) – Top 9 players* averaged 55 games played this year.
( *I counted the top 9 as: Jamison, Butler, Arenas, Young, Blatche, Haywood, Songaila, Stevenson, McGuire)
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 12, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh - and by the way - before you ask
Cleveland – Top 9 players averaged 72 games played this year…. (I just couldn’t figure out their top 9…. so I added Ben Wallace and Sasha Pavlovic – even though he only plays 16 minutes per game)….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 12, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The correlation between health of key players and success cannot be overstated in sports.
That is why a mediocre team with one superstar is tearing up the league this year. The injuries this playoff season have been devastating.
by MR on May 12, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting
I think this post deserves its own — what’s the right word for a piece posted on this blog? — as this is an interesting subject.
It’s obvious, of course, that healthier teams will do better, but the interesting question is what should teams/GMs do about it? (Other than improving their medical staffs….) I think (surprise, surprise) that it supports my opinion that the Wizards should use its draft pick to add talent to the Big 3 (to make it a Big 4 or 5) rather than to fit complementary pieces around the Big 3 because the Big 3 have shown that they are susceptible to injury. Having more top level talent gives the team a bit of injury insurance. But there are other points of view, I’m sure.
by disgrunted on May 12, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, part of my point
Is that if the Wizards were as healthy as Boston, and Cleveland, and Orlando….. perhaps they too would still be playing this year……
I’m not sure an NBA team can be constructed around a big-4, AND stay within striking distance of the Luxury Tax… Obviously the LA Lakers have a big-4 (Kobe, Odom, Pau Gasol and Bynum)… but they’re at $75 Million in salaries (and Bynum only makes $2.7Million)…
The only way I can see the Wizards adding a 4th top level (All-Star type) talent is if they draft Griffin or Rubio.. Right now, before they add their draft pick, the Wizards are at $75 Million in salaries for 2009-10.
Any trade the Wizards make, using a combination of draft picks, expiring contract(s) and/or Young players would need to be sure to bring back fewer players (hopefully at slightly lower salary levels)… But not TOO many outgoing players- – - The roster needs to have a minimum of 13 players, otherwise they’d have to find a Free Agent or two to round out the roster, and bring it to 13. Adding additional players would, obviously, add cost.
So, all these crazy trade scenarios, where the Wizards give up Thomas, James, Young and Blatche PLUS a 1st Round Draft Pick for Chris Bosh (or Ron Artest, or Tracy McGrady, or…….) would not work… The Wizards would be down to 12 players on the roster…. and they’d have to add a player … (Individual teams are required to carry 13 players – although the League as a whole must average 14 players per team – so there might also be some pressure from the League to carry 14)…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 12, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 or 5
I was thinking something similar, haven’t put it all together yet but the basic premise that this team’s talent level is way too shallow to contend. There’s Gil-Caron-Jamison as potential all stars, then Haywood as a capable starter and Songalia as worthy rotation guy. The rest of the team, while talented in areas, is nowhere near a playoff quality bench. We need 2 additions in the second tier to really be a threat.
by Jheiser3 on May 13, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of thoughts
in response to Rook’s and Jheiser’s points —
One way you add a 4th or 5th member to the “Big” group is through a rookie contract. Obviously Griffin or Rubio could fill that role, but using the 3rd, 4th or 5th draft pick could accomplish that, too.
As to Jheiser’s point about a “playoff quality bench,” you see what Glen Davis is doing, how Reddick and Courtney Lee are playing, etc. Heck, Starbury’s corpse chipped in last night. If you have a Big 4 or 5, and a bench of Blatche, Songalia, McGuire, Young, Stevenson (if he isn’t starting) and either James or Crittendon, that might be a sufficient playoff bench. The problem this past season was that the guys I just listed all started a lot of games when they really are just bench players at this time. It would be better, though, to have at least one really dangerous bench guy (like a Jason Terry, Ginobli, or Barbosa), and none of the Wizards guys fit the bill yet. When Jamison moves to the bench, though, ….
by disgrunted on May 13, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a Big-4
I think the only way the Wizards will be able to get a 4th for the “Big-4” is through the draft… but I disagree that it would come from a 3-5 pick. Nobody available at picks 3 through 5 are ready to be a big-time producer right away. NOBODY. That leaves either Griffin or Rubio… and I think Rubio may take a year or two to acclimate himself to the NBA game. He’s gonna be great, but maybe not right away.
As for the bench:
I think Young can be that dangerous bench guy this year….. depends on how hard he works with Gil this off-season.
He improved significantly from his Rookie year by upping his scoring average, but lowering his turn overs. . – and he continued to improve throughout the year; even though his minutes were jerked around. Hopefully, having a real Head Coach, who knows how to set up a proper rotation will alleviate those problems.
Even Young’s defense improved late in the year…to the point where I thought he was playing better defense than everyone on the team except perhaps McGuire.
So, with Songaila, Blatche, McGuire and Young – I think that the Wizards bench is Playoff quality. The only improvement I’d like to see is a dead-eye 3-point shooter, like Eddie House or Matt Bonner… Roger Mason would have been nice to serve in that role.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 13, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
Boston’s bench was Posey, Leon Powe, House, PJ Brown, Tony Allen, and Davis. They are not as strong without Powe, Brown and Posey but Davis is shooting over 50% and rebounding well for a guy who doesn’t play above the rim. Not sure why he would be questionable as far as a playoff bench goes.
Mike James was quality in 2004. Crittenton doesn’t have the body of work to be considered anything more than a project. Guards can be projects too. Its not really his fault. Young can come in and score. mcGuire can do everything but so they have potential to fill roles. Blatche cannot defend or rebound well enough to be considered a playoff quality reserve 5 or 4. Etan? No. Songalia qualifies on the offense and hustle sides but he is too short to challenge shots.
That makes back up C a major concern. We can’t bring anyone off the bench and expect them to really challenge their man defensively in the post. We can’t stay small at starting 4, reserve 4 and backup 5. (I consider McGee a long term 4).
by Jheiser3 on May 13, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I picked crab dribble-
simply because it was hilarious and in this season of many lows, I needed something to make me laugh like that.
by ooba on May 11, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I went with the Obama game
because it was so cool to see the young players so excited. Javale’s salute (it got old eventually, but was pretty cool at the time, IMO). Something about that game transcended b’ball – the pres. just hanging out court-side, having a beer talking to some kids, wiz playing with focused enthusiasm.
i won’t get all political, but i thought is was a unique moment.
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on May 11, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There is something to be said for that choice....
It was a real event.
Disgruntled, I don’t think anyone on this site is naive enough to think that the Big 3 can do it alone.
Assuming Mr Pollin meant his comments on loyalty to Antawn, the Big 3 will have to become a Big 4 plus Brendan if we are to get to the next level, because breaking up the core trio is highly unlikely.
Yet as the Frogs say, Tout est possible .
by khrabb on May 11, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really want to say Caron's "Dagger(s)"
But has to be the win over Cleveland, the crowd was so pumped and Songaila went Tiger Woods with excitement. It was a great game to cover.
http://www.examiner.com/x-601-Washington-Wizards-Examiner~y2009m4d3-Wizards-strip-Cavs-of-win-streak
by GvP on May 11, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
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.
