Who do you think is responsible for the Wizards' losing?
by zl on Jan 15, 2011 9:04 PM EST
Email
PrintIt's certainly no debate that the Wizards aren't a very good team. They are, in fact, an awful, awful team, boasting the worst road record in the league at 0-19. Obviously, there's a reason for the Wizards' futility, and its probably the players. As tempting as it is to use a coach as scapegoat for a team's struggles, most coaches have very little impact on their team's success. So, who exactly is causing this team's painful futility?
To answer this question, I think it's important to first establish why the Wizards, as a team, are losing. Offensively, the Wizards rank 25th in effective field goal percentage and 26th in true shooting percentage, at 47.4 and 51.9 respectively. 25.5% of their possessions end in a turnover, the fourth worst mark in the league, and 14.1% of their possessions end in an assist, 7th worst in the league. Why are we so abysmal all around? Well, the bad shooting can be blamed on quite a few players. Here are the major players on the Wizards, ranked from first to last in effective field goal percentage. Keep in mind that 50% is just about league average, so anyone below that is scoring at a below average rate.
1. JaVale McGee, Rashard Lewis (54.5%)
3. Cartier Martin (53.0%)
4. Nick Young (52.4%)
5. Trevor Booker (51.1%)
6. Kirk Hinrich (50.2%)
7. Al Thornton (46.9%)
8. Hilton Armstrong (46.6%)
9. John Wall (42.8%)
10. Andray Blatche (42.1%)
11. Yi Jianlian (41.4%)
The main thing to draw from that list is that Yi, Blatche, and Wall are horribly inefficient scorers. You can't really blame Wall; he's a rookie, so that number will in all likelihood improve (greatly) in a couple of years. Blatche and Yi, on the other hand, have been in the league long enough that their shooting is nearly inexcusable. Yi, to be honest, is just an abysmal all around player. Name a statistical category, he's below average in it. Rebounding, shooting, maintaining possession, etc. He's just awful. Blatche is having probably the worst year of his career, but his best efg% for a season was last year at 48.5 (way to buy high Wizards!), and his career average is 46.7, so he'll probably never be an efficient scorer.
When it comes to distributing the ball, John Wall is just about the only one who's done anything remarkable (and he's been really remarkable), but Hinrich's been solid and so has Lewis.
The Wizards are 22nd in defensive efficiency, a mediocre number that Rashard Lewis helps and Gilbert Arenas hinders. It's pretty hard to empirically assign fault for poor defense, and I don't watch many games because I don't live near D.C., so I'll leave that category up for you to decide.
Lastly, the Wizards are third to last in overall rebounding rate. Something that is to me an inexcusable number considering the length of this starting lineup. Who is to blame? Not McGee, his rate of 17% is above average for centers. Blatche, on the other hand, is just a shade below average for power forwards, but when you consider the fact that he often plays at center, you get a poor rebounder. Rashard Lewis has actually rebounded well for the Wizards, but for the past several years he, too, has been a poor rebounder. The Wizards backcourt doesn't have much to show when it comes to rebounding either. Wall is solid, but Hinrich and Young are pretty bad rebounders as shooting guards and really bad as small forwards.
So, taking this all into consideration, who has contributed the most to the Wizards' woes this season? I would say Andray Blatche. He's been poor all around, turning the ball over a lot, not rebounding well, and shooting inefficiently. Considering the amount of minutes he plays, that's pretty bad.
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You can't really pin this on any one particular person
in a sports franchise, individuals don’t exist and perform in a vacuum. The success of a team depends on a large number of factors coming together. Who’s to blame? I’m not sure exactly. Sometimes I feel like blaming Flip because he seems to be unable to teach the players the most basic things. Then I think about the other side of the equation, and I feel like sometimes it’s the players who just totally suck at fundamentals and execution. What’s the truth really? It’s probably a bit of both.
Statistically, I think you can
Especially on offense. A player’s box score stats contribute to the teams efficiency stats, which can be used to predict team wins very effectively. Of course, the relations between players that cause those statistics to arise are complex (john wall certainly has a positive impact on his teammates’ efficiency), but the vast majority of a player’s stats can be contributed to that player’s individual skill and decision-making. If Blatche wasn’t asked to do so much on offense, would he be more efficient? Probably, but he hasn’t ever been an efficient scorer for an entire season.
I agree he's a pretty inefficient scorer
I wish he could go back to what he was doing last year. He was playing a lot smarter then. I think the summer foot injury may have slowed him down and caused him to gain weight, but yeah i agree his shot selection has often been terrible, and even when he gets close to the rim he hasn’t been able to finish well.
by Marine4Life51 on Jan 15, 2011 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Then it should be on his teammates and coaches
to make sure he isn’t the main scoring option on the team. If somebody else would step up, other the occasional hot night from Nick Young, maybe Blatche wouldn’t have to put up so many shots.
This is not really a vote for Dray
But it’s not a recipe for success to run an offense that requires a lot of jump shots from a guy that shoots a low percentage.
Abe Pollin and Michael Jordan
Pollin was clueless and clueless that he was clueless. He held the team under water for decades.
MJ did the most selfish thing I’ve ever seen an athlete do. He used the Wiz for a victory lap for a couple years, completely preventing rebuilding.
Right on about selfish MJ but clueless about clueless
I agree about MJ but we should all be so clueless as one of the most successful people in the history of DC. Abe was just too nice and too loyal. Maybe that put on some blinders but it surely didn’t make him clueless.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
rebounding rate.
It’s OK to have a sub par rebounding center (Andrea Bargnani, 9.8 Reb Rate) if you have a rebounding beast playing PF (Reggie Evans, 26.5 rebound rate)…
I certainly wouldn’t call McGee’s 17.2 overall rebound rate terrible (12th among Centers)… but his Defensive rebound rate of 21.3 ranks him the 23rd Center in the League…. and next to the poor rebounding Andray Blatche (43rd Power Forward in the League in Overall rebound rate) and you begin to see why the Wizards have such difficulty in securing the rebound to stop an opponent’s possession.
The whole reason why I keep saying that playing Blatche and McGee together is not a viable long-term solution for the Wizard’s front court. They need to draft (or trade for) a rebounding beast to play next to the skilled Blatche or the athletic McGee.
Barring a trade to get a player like Kevin Love (33.5 DRR) or Marreese Speights (25.1 DRR) – I personally like the idea of drafting Enes Kanter – a big man with some bulk and strength that cannot be moved around in the paint… and a pretty good rebounder. Or a Jared Sullinger, who is rebounding magnet (13 per 40 minutes pace adjusted) and low post offensive threat.
I think it’s more important to the Wizards to draft a rebounder than a wing. I know they need a Small Forward, and this draft is chock full of wings with great potential (Perry Jones, Terrence Jones, Harrison Barnes, Chris Singleton, etc…) – but unless they solve their rebounding problems, the Wizards will never be a solid defensive team. Without defense, they won’t win many games and will certainly never seriously challenge for a championship.
The perfect scenario for me? The Wizards are somehow able to obtain another mid first (or higher) pick – and they select Kanter with their first pick, and either Chris Singleton (Florida State) or Jeff Taylor (Vanderbilt) to fill the wing (SF) need. Both Singleton and Taylor are excellent defenders (with Singleton being an elite defender, possibly all-defense at some point in his NBA career)… Kanter can score in the post – but more importantly, he’s a very good defensive rebounder that, once he establishes position, cannot be moved…. He’s fundamentally sound, boxing out and using two hands to rebound the basketball. Jared Sullinger is also a good rebounder, but he’s a bit undersized at 6’8"
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I agree
JaVale is a fine rebounder, I know he’s bad defensively but I’m confident that will improve with time. Blatche, though, probably won’t. His rebounding has been pretty consistently sub par. I would trade him just to get that awful extension off our hands, but if we can grab a rebounding PF in return, that would be great. Not to mention that it doesn’t really matter where the rebounds come from. If you have a wing player who can really grab the boards (a la Landry Fields), thats just as, if not more valuable than a frontcourt player who rebounds. That’s why I really like Terrence Jones, he’s been a rebounding beast.
by zl on Jan 16, 2011 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah - Terrence Jones has been a good rebounder for Kentucky
But they’re playing him at PF….. He’s getting 11.2 rebounds per 40 (pace adjusted)…. So you should take that into consideration. He won’t get nearly that many rebounds from the wing…. which is his natural position in the NBA.
And I disagree with you that a rebounding wing is just as important (or more valuable) than a front court rebounder…. In my personal opinion, I’d rather see my PF and Center rebounding the basketball, and my Wings (SF, SG) running the court with the fastest Point Guard in the League. But you simply cannot run without first securing the basketball…
If your Center and Power Forward can be relied upon to do most of the defensive rebounding, then your wings can leak out on the break…. and your Point Guard has options. So instead of sending your wings to rebound, and getting a one-man-fast-break – you get a 3-man fast break – - – much more deadly that way.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Good point
So, of Sullinger, Kanter, and Jones, who do you like most? How would you rank them?
by zl on Jan 16, 2011 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
In terms of pure upside (ie: which player could turn out to be an All-Star):
Perry Jones (at Small Forward… all bets off if he plays PF)
Kyrie Irving
Terrence Jones (at Small Forward… all bets off if he plays PF)
Jared Sullinger
Enes Kanter
Harrison Barnes
In terms of best fit for the Wizards, in the long term:
Enes Kanter (extremely low bust potential. Fundamentally sound. Great rebounder)
Terrence Jones (Does everything well.. nothing great)
Perry Jones (higher bust potential, otherwise I’d have him first)
Jared Sullinger (I worry about his lack of height at 6’8")
Harrison Barnes (He will be better in the Pros than he is showing in College)
I like the idea of drafting Kanter because the Wizards don’t have a low post scoring threat. They don’t have a physical presence on defense to keep the big Centers (Shaq, Perkins, Howard, etc..) out of the paint. They don’t have a decent defensive rebounder (one of the Wizard’s biggest weaknesses – and a problem that MUST be addressed before they can move to the next level). Kanter fills all those needs….
Short of getting a Kevin Love, or Blake Griffin or Andrew Bogut in a trade – drafting Kanter fills in the Wizards most glaring holes…
Now – obviously they still need a Small Forward… they need a competent backup PG… they need some shooters and role players…. and most of all, they need experience…
But I see a Center/Power Forward rotation of McGee, Kanter, Blatche, Booker, Seraphin as a very good mix of skills and abilities. There’s athleticism (McGee, Booker), Skill and shooting (Blatche, Kanter), Size (Kanter, Seraphin), rebounding (Kanter, Booker), and Shot blocking (McGee). With time, I think all of them (with the possible exception of Blatche) can become excellent interior defenders.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
How big of a concern is Sullinger's height?
He seems to address the holes you mentioned most. He reminds me a lot of Zach Randolph – a beast in the post and a great rebounder. Z-Bo is perfectly fine at 6-9, but I’m sure if you can expect Sullinger to grow any more…most of these dominant athletes were pretty early bloomers.
by zl on Jan 17, 2011 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Sullinger plays a lot like Elton Brand – Brand is 6’9" but has an enormous 7’6" wingspan…. Zach Randolph is another 6’9" guy with tremendously long arms…
I’d be much less concerned about Sullinger’s 6’8" height if he had a 7’5" wingspan – but from what I’ve seen, it looks more like he’ll measure out at 7’1" or less…..
Given the fact that he’s not very athletic, and that he’ll be playing against bigger, more athletic Power Forwards in the NBA – I think he’ll have difficulties transferring his skills from College to the Pros… Sullinger plays below the rim…. He’s a power guy… but he also gets his shot blocked a lot in College… That will only get worse in the NBA.
I don’t believe Sullinger will grow any more – he’s been listed at 6’8" since his Junior year in High School…. The only thing that has changed is that he’s improved his body – he’s gone from 280 pounds to around 250 pounds….
I don’t like undersized players – at least not to draft this high in the first round…. Besides, the Wizards already have one undersized PF on the Roster in Trevor Booker.
If the Wizards are looking for a low post scorer, and a big body, wouldn’t it make more sense to draft a guy like Kanter at 6’10", 260 pounds?
So in short – in my mind Sullinger’s height is a big concern.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
You sold me
I’m starting to like Kanter more and more. On a somewhat related note Perry Jones is on national television playing Kansas. He had 14 points after the first half, but from what I saw they weren’t very impressive…mostly easy dunks or put-backs. It seems like it will be really hard to gauge his pro potential when he’s only taking easy shots in college.
my concern with Kanter is he'll be drafted based upon
1 great game at the Nike hoop’s summit….exactly how seraphin was drafted. And it will be after a full year of not playing competitive ball. Seems like a thin resume for a top pick…
Missing something...
I may be missing something. In the game against the Raptors Blatche had 13 rebounds
Mcgee had 11. Yi was 5-for-5 for 10 points with 4 boards and very effective in his minutes. And his post defense is pretty sound. I like it when he enters the game. Did
everyone else watch a different game? This post is very negative sounding. I felt very
uncomfortable voting, which is rare for me!
Some talent, no chemistry
I’d put EG high on the list. After that Flip (for not connecting with the players and motivating improvement and team play). Coaches can influence effort.
It's these guys' fault
I blame…
Dwight Howard
Lebron James
Kevin Durant
Chris Paul
Dirk Nowitski
Tim Duncan
Dwayne Wade
Kobe Bryant
etc…
For not being on our team.
It’s a team. They’re not good enough as a team. Why try to blame one guy?
I am dumber for having read this.
"Be patient or be a Heat fan" - MR
by steadyhand on Jan 17, 2011 11:10 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Um...
I’ll ignore the thinly veiled insult (was it veiled at all? I guess not), and try to respectfully respond to you. I mentioned this above, but I guess I could say it again. All the box score statistics of every player on a team (except some team stats like team rebounds, etc.) contribute to offensive and defensive efficiency. The difference between these numbers can be used to accurately predict team wins. Sure, there are some things that don’t appear in the box score (e.g. how a player impacts opp. FG%), but the box score can tell you almost everything. As a result, the box scores of certain players hurt that efficiency differential more than others. So…wait for it…ONE PLAYER IS THE WORST!
I suppose you could be wondering why I think its useful to think about who’s bad and who’s not. Well, the Wizards are a rebuilding team, but, despite this, a lot of people have a lot of confidence in their starting lineup. Many Wizards fans seem to think John Wall, Nick Young, Rashard Lewis, Andray Blatche, and JaVale McGee are all solid players (or at least have to potential to become solid players). Unfortunately, if this were true, the Wizards would not be 12-27. I, too, in fact, have confidence in the Wizards’ starting lineup, but at the same time I understand that there must be some reason that they are struggling so much. And, to me, that reason is Andray Blatche. His career statistics have plateaued…and they really aren’t very good.
by zl on Jan 17, 2011 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
flawed logic
Except for Lewis, all the starters are very young, are mostly new to being starters and have a rookie point guard to boot. In defense of Blatche, he’s coming back from an injury and he’s still learning how to be a full-time player and a leader himself. No one player is to blame and most people expected them to lose a lot of games this year.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
My bad
I’ll ignore the thinly veiled insult (was it veiled at all? I guess not), and try to respectfully respond to you.
Sorry, that was uncalled for — this post just really struck me as negative and totally against the team concept. I didn’t mean it as a personal insult, just an enthusiastic criticism.
To be more rational about my criticism, I’ll say this. It really isn’t productive to try to identify a person “most responsible” — if Blatche isn’t here, someone ELSE will have to try to fill his role that is worse than him, and then that person will be “most to blame”. It’s simply a matter of the team not being good enough. Why is it more Blatche’s fault than Thornton’s (or Cartier’s, for that matter) that we don’t have a top-notch go-to scorer?
Blatche does two things that “hurt” the team: he misses shots, and gives inconsistent effort. The first is just a matter of getting out of his current slump, the Wizard’s getting a better “go-to” option, and/or Flip giving him a red light on jump shots. Blatche is still one of the team’s best shot creators, so right now his net impact on offense is neutral at worst. The second way he might be “hurting the team” can show up in stats, but is potentially harmful in a way the stats can’t capture (effect on teammates, general lack of stats he could get). Well one stat might capture it…wins and losses. The team is 0-7 with Blatche out of the line-up (vs 12-21 with him in), so I’m just not buying the addition by subtraction argument.
"Be patient or be a Heat fan" - MR
I understand the logic
that everyone else’s shooting percentages would drop without Blatche taking a lot of shots, but Blatche’s career stats aren’t good. Mark my words, this team will never make the playoffs with Blatche playing 30+ mpg.
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
How could you possibly believe that?
If you’re saying the mere presence of Blatche on the floor negates any possibility of making the playoffs, you’re being completely unreasonable. Blatche played 20.4 minutes per game (82 games) on the last Wizards playoffs team. They were 43-39 in spite of this amazing team-killer being on the floor for nearly half of the minutes of the season and the rest of that team not being particularly impressive (remember this was the first season Arenas missed).
"Be patient or be a Heat fan" - MR
Blatche was a good spark off the bench
that year. Loved it when he made some of his blocks. I wouldn’t say that Blatche is why we’re losing, but he is not efficient on offense. 16 pts a game isn’t bad in and of itself, but his shooting percentage is not good.
We should note that Antawn that year made less than 44% of his shots in the 2007-2008 season which isn’t good either (though he was an all star that season), but about 25% of his shots were from three and he wasn’t as efficient there as I would’ve liked. He did made 46.8% of his two point shots and he was pretty darn efficient at the basket with those circus shots and he did shoot a lot of midrange shots as well which is why even that percentage is not as close to 50% as we’d like with a PF.
TOTAL SHOTS TAKEN BY JAMISON in 07-08: 1417 (354 threes, 1063 twos)
TOTAL SHOTS MADE BY JAMISON: 618 (120 threes, 498 twos)
THREE POINT EFFICIENCY: 120/354 (33.9%)
TWO POINT EFFICIENCY: 498/1063 (46.8%)
Now with Blatche this year
TOTAL SHOTS TAKEN BY BLATCHE in 2010-2011: 573 (15 threes, 558 twos)
TOTAL SHOTS MADE BY BLATCHE in 2010-2011: 242 (4 threes, 238 twos)
THREE POINT EFFICIENCY: 4/15 (26.7%)
TWO POINT EFFICIENCY: 242/558 (42.7%)
If Blatche were taking and making a lot of threes, I’ll give him some slack as to why his shooting percentage is low, but he is taking a lot of mid range shots, many times in traffic, and his reverse layup really irks me.
Lack of quality players - lack of experience.
This is a rebuilding team… Losing comes with rebuilding. I don’t know how many different ways I can say the same thing…
The Wizards just got rid of their entire roster except Young, McGee and Blatche – three NON-Starters. They drafted three young players (Wall, Booker, Seraphin)… Brought in two more in trades (Yi, Tornton). They have a couple of serviceable veterans in Hinrich and Lewis – but both are bench players at best on a playoff team.
Right now, they have one projected starter (Wall) who needs a couple years experience before he will be ready to lead this team..
I’m still not convinced Blatche is the right player at PF… but if he is, he needs to become more intense and committed on defense.
They have two more starters in the making in Young and McGee… With Young being farther along in his development. Young still needs to become a more complete player, and he needs to be more consistent. McGee has the tools but lacks the skills and experience. Both skills and experience can be gained with time (ie: years)….
They have a couple more unknowns in Seraphin and Booker – plus more drafts to pick up players and develop them.
They still need a banger inside that can rebound – probably a Center or PF (depending on which big man the Wizards decide is core – Blatche or McGee)… They need a SF that can complement John Wall’s style (3-point shooter, excellent finisher, lock-down perimeter defender)… and they need shooters and role players…
This rebuild is going to take YEARS….. not months….
And people are talking about playoffs….. (shaking my head)
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
If you look at the PERS of the starters ....
it averages 16. That’s playoff ratings (15 is average). The bench is Hinrich, Yi and Thorton, which is close to an average bench.
The mix of McGee, Blatche, Lewis, Young and Wall is good. For example, there are 3 shooters and Wall can drive for lay-ups and McGee can get dunks. The team is now committed to playing D.
The only missing piece to a decent team is a coach who can inspire and motivate first, and teach second. The coach also needs tolerance to mistakes. Namely, the young guys need to be on the court.
Finally, the expectations need to be set higher, including developing the young guys, establishing chemistry and making the playoffs (in that order).
Leonsis ought to be saying: lead or get out of the way.
PER doesn't tell you much
It has something like a 30% correlation to winning. How about wins produced, which have a 90% correlation to wins. According to that stat, McGee is the best of our starters, folowed by Lewis and Wall. It also considers Young a below average player (mostly because he doesn’t contribute other than scoring), and it rates Blatche extremely poorly. I think it underrates Young because it can’t take into account usage (the number of field goals a player attempts), but Young does need to improve his rebounding and assist numbers if he wants to be a long term starter.
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
How many rebounds, assists, blocks and steals is NY averaging since the Arenas trade?
My gut feeling says those should be pretty resesonable actually.
"If you don't shoot, you can't score"
Johan Cruijff
" My psychiatrist just doesn't know what I go through. He is a Lakers fan" Hambonejackson
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jan 18, 2011 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
Last time I did the numbers...
Nick was averaging 21 points (on 56% shooting), 3 rebounds, 2 assists and 0.9 blocks per game since Arenas left – but he’s also playing a TON of minutes…. (like 39 per game)…
He has definitely improved his PER GAME averages in rebounds and assists…. and he may be one of the better perimeter one-on-one defenders in the East. He’s not a “lock down” defender yet, but he’s getting there.
I’m not saying that he’s “arrived” or anything… but he’s better. He still has a ways to go before I’d go so far as calling him a “complete player”….
I’ll try to post the actual numbers as of last night’s game.
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Nick's averaging 21pts/3.2rebs/1.8assts as a starter this season.
Factor in his defense and really there isnt much room to complain.
OK - Here are Nick's numbers since the Arenas trade...
Nick Young – $2.6 Million
15 Games – all as a Starter..
38.0 Minutes per game.
20.9 Points per game (46.6% shooting, 46.7 from three, 95.9% FT) – 58.0% True Shooting %
3.2 Rebounds per game
1.9 Assists (actually 1.8666666. so I rounded up)
To compare against some previous EC All Stars:
Ray Allen 17.7 points (51%) , 3.8 rebounds, 3.1 assists $10.0 Million
Joe Johnson 19.7 points (43.3%) , 4.1 rebounds, 5.4 assists $16.3 Million
Dwyane Wade 25.1 points (39%) , 6.5 rebounds, 4.3 assists $14.2 Million
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Another thing Nick is doing well...
He’s starting to get the other team’s players into foul trouble… He’s going to the Free Throw line more often than early this year…
The last 4 games, teams have tried getting physical with Nick – playing him tighter…. trying to knock him off rhythm. So he’s taking it to the rim…. averaging 6.75 trips to the line in the last 4 games… and shooting 93% from the line…. Making them pay – -getting guys in foul trouble – -
He's "delightfully cranky"
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Eh, I don't think salary should have a thing to do with it.
They’re so messed up anyway with the rookie scale, etc.
Nick’s stats stand on their own.
Hey, I've got a lot of hope in Nick
But it’s yet to be seen whether he can start on a Wizards playoff team. At the very least he should be coming off the bench and provide some instant scoring. I also think it’s foolish of Saunders to play Young at SF, we do have a small roster, but going forward he’s got to play all of his minutes at the 2
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Tnx Rook!
As always, you’ve got the numbers :-)
Im proud of nick. We really bashed him when he was likely to fall out of the rotation at the beginning of the season and he has proved us wrong. He isnt an allstar (yet) but he looks very very promissing!
"If you don't shoot, you can't score"
Johan Cruijff
" My psychiatrist just doesn't know what I go through. He is a Lakers fan" Hambonejackson
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jan 18, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
WP has a 90 percent correlation to wins?
That sounds completely false – got a link? Last study I remembered, WP did worse than all other measures.
Yep it definitely does
can’t find the exact quote for it, but here’s a link for all wins produced number since 2001:
http://nerdnumbers.com/automated-wins-produced
You should be able to tell from that the correlation is about 90%. I think a little higher
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
It makes sense that the net of all the players would predict wins well
It’s kind of circular reasoning that way. (If the team is successful as a whole, the team wins! Shocker.) The problem is in the allocation, which is relevant to this discussion. The system does a horrible job of accounting for which players are actually responsible for that success. If a player draws a lot of attention, and therefore misses shots, he’s “hurting the team,” while all the marginally talented guys around him feasting on open looks and put-backs look like studs. A few great examples are the Lakers and Mavs.
According to Wins Produced:
In LA Pau and Odom are much better than Kobe. Uh-huh.
In Dallas, Kidd and Chandler are the REAL reasons Dallas is winning. (Don’t be distracted by the fact that they’re 2-8 with Dirk out. Kidd and Chandler produce wins, baby!)
"Be patient or be a Heat fan" - MR
by steadyhand on Jan 18, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't understand your logic
You can’t deny that it accurately weighs the components of a box score. So, I guess what you’re saying is that superstars like Dirk and Kobe make their teammates put up better box scores (by shooting efficiently), which I think is a valid argument. Still, WP shows you how much a box score directly affects wins, and in that way its extremely valuable. Sure, players might play a little better with a superstar, but they control the overwhelming majority of their statistical contributions.
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 9:09 PM EST up reply actions
Do you think Nick has produced less than one win? That's what WP says.
But the team is 6-9 since he moved into the staring role…
Rashard Lewis came to the team as Nick Young began to start
According to WP, Rashard Lewis is extremely productive. Using roundabout reasoning like “the team is good when this guy starts, so he can’t be bad!”, or “this guy can’t produce that few wins, I know he’s great!” just sounds foolish
by zl on Jan 19, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
i'd say crediting Nick with less than 1 win this season is foolish.
Slavish devotion to any stat or set of stats despite what you actually see when watching the games is missing the forest for the trees.
He's saying that it doesn't assign credit to said wins correctly
Because the box score is woefully incomplete as a way to measure basketball, according to even the most avid statisticians in the NBA now (including Daryl Morey). Numbers aren’t accumulated on their own. An assist, for example, happens because the passer dishes it to the scorer, who is left open because a defender is either a) too slow to rotate, b) willing to live with said player shooting because a conversion rate isn’t high, c) because the threat of a player on the weakside prevented help from coming or any number of possibilities. That pretty much applies to any stat (though rebounds, which ironically is the one WoW places more value in than any other models do, are less dependent on other players. Even here, though, others box out guys and don’t get credit for rebounds if they don’t grab it).
WoW doesn’t understand this complexity and instead assigns a linear model to everything, which is why it is horrendous at actually predicting the future on its own. Of course, so are other models, which is why using a model to predict the future on its own is ridiculous. But at least the other models have either good science (SCHOENE) or measure something limited (PER, which only really measures offense). WoW does neither. It essentially suggests that a complicated game is too complicated and instead makes it all seem so simple. In the process, it misses so, so much.
Anyway, the Mavericks’ example pretty much blows a hole in your theory that players don’t really change when conditions change around them.
Of course it can't explain everything
There are parts of basketball that don’t show up in the box score, and they do have an effect on wins…hence the high, but not perfect, correlation. Yes, setting good screens and defending well does impact winning, and WP doesn’t take that into account. Still, WP does take into account the overwhelming majority of what it takes to win. As a result, it has a high correlation to actual wins and is consistent from year to year. If a stat does both of those things, you can’t argue that it is without merit.
by zl on Jan 19, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
How well do you understand these stats?
Let me ask you this:
Could you create another model that predicts wins just as well, but which attributes wins to different players?
If so, could you do it using all the same variables?
"Be patient or be a Heat fan" - MR
It's not a bunch of random numbers
I understand why you’d be skeptical if you think of it that way. I would recommend reading the books (Wages of Wins and Stumbling on Wins); they give a much better explanation of the formulas and what goes into them than I can, but I’ll try my best.
Basically, a player only helps his WP by scoring efficiently. He has to shoot above the league average of 50% efg, and obviously getting to the line and shooting a high percentage there helps considerably.
This is the one part of wins produced that is fishy. It doesn’t take into account usage; that certain players are efficient because they don’t take a lot of shots, while other players have to take a lot of shots (and not score that efficiently) in order to maintain the efficiency of the rest of the team. On the other hand, people often exaggerate the degree to which this is an issue. At some point, a player is shooting so inefficiently that, regardless of how many shots he’s taking, he’s hurting the team (think, maybe, melo this season). Also, players who are scoring more tend to experience a boost in overall rep regardless of their shooting efficiency. For example, Amare Stoudemire is shooting 50.6% this season, easily his worst since 2004. But, he is scoring 26 ppg, and therefore considered an MVP candidate. Is WP underrating him this season? Probably, but not that much, and he’s certainly nowhere near MVP.
Apart from scoring, all the other statistical categories are given considerable weight. This causes a player like Chris Paul, who does pretty much everything well, to be considered one of the best players of all time by WP. Paul excels in statistical categories (steals, rebounds, shooting percentage) that are typically ignored by NBA analysts (at least when it comes to point guards). On the other hand, inefficient, one dimensional players who don’t do anything well except score a lot of points (Brook Lopez is probably the poster boy), are rated poorly by WP. Also, because WP considers statistical categories like rebounding to be of similar value as scoring, players who are fantastic at, for example, rebounding, are rated very well by WP, while most NBA fans consider rebounding secondary to scoring. Consequently, players who rebound well and score efficiently, like Marcus Camby, are rated much more highly by WP than most people who follow the NBA.
What I will say overall is that WP shouldn’t be that controversial. Click on the link I posted, and look at the top players according to WP. It’s really not that shocking. Here’s the top 10:
1. Kevin Love
2. Chris Paul
3. LeBron James
4. Dwight Howard
5. Pau Gasol
6. Al Horford
7. Dwyane Wade
8. Blake Griffin
9. Lamar Odom
10. Zach Randolph
Is that list really that shocking?
by zl on Jan 22, 2011 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
How about the fact that
Per 48 minutes, JaVale rates out higher than Kobe or Dirk?
Well
JaVale is 27th in the league in WP48 among player with 1000+ min. That’s because poor defense (other than steals and blocks) doesn’t show up in WP, and WP can’t take into account usage, so players who score a lot aren’t rated as well as people expect. So, while I think Kobe and Dirk help their teams win more than JaVale, I think it’s a lot closer than most people think.
by zl on Jan 22, 2011 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
No.
Kobe and Dirk are penalized by the Wins Produced metric because they are the ones to take the shot when the shot clock is winding down. At the end of quarters or when their team runs through their offensive set and can’t get a good shot within the flow of the offense, Kobe or Dirk gets the ball and is asked to create a shot for themselves. Those situations leave you with low percentage shots, but guys like Kobe and Dirk are able to do more in that situation than other players can.
If you gave the ball to JaVale in those situations instead, he would probably end up posting a negative WP score.
Every team has a player or two who is trusted with the ball in those situations with the clock winding down. That’s a consistency across teams. So even though WP is grossly inaccurate at the player level, it balances out at the team level. Final result is that WP does a reasonable job at the team level, even though it is worse than useless when it comes to comparing individual players.
JaVale is nowhere close to Kobe or Dirk. Not even close. Totally different leagues.
Actually, it's a gross understatement
Didn’t even mention all the stuff that JaVale stinks at that doesn’t show up in the box score. You also have to compound his weaknesses with everything said elsewhere in this thread and others about JaVale’s bad defensive positioning, bad offensive spacing, running out on the break before the rebound is secured, chasing blocks, setting poor screens, etc., etc., etc.
But back on point, I think you need to consider the differences between points scored when the defense is set and the clock is running down, points scored within the flow of the offense in the half court, and points scored when the defense is not set.
Kobe and Dirk are great because of their ability to get points in the second and especially the first category.
JaVale does a very good job of creating opportunities for himself that fit in that last category (fast break points and offensive rebound stick backs), but he stinks in the other two.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse
WP may reflect what it takes to win on a team level, but it does little to actually properly assign who is responsible for what on an individual level, for all the reasons I’ve described over and over. The way you write that, it sounds like you’re saying screen-setting and defense are completely separate and small entities. What I’m saying is that those things directly lead to box-score stats, which WP spits out and assigns to individuals, even though the actions behind him that don’t get measured lead to the result.
Let’s take that play from the Utah game as an example here. WP assigns a certain amount of value to John Wall for making the assist, and assigns more to Nick Young for making the three-pointer. But what WP doesn’t get is that neither of those stats would have been accumulated without the following things happening:
1. JaVale McGee setting an outstanding screen to free Wall.
2. The two Jazz defenders failing to communicate
3. Andray Blatche (I think it was him) diving down the lane underneath the bucket, which forced Raja Bell to help off Young and account for him.
4. Rashard Lewis (I think) having the rep of a good three-point shooter, which prevented his man from rotating quickly enough to Wall.
As a direct result of all four of those things, plus Wall’s own ability to penetrate, his floor vision, and Young actually hitting the shot, the play occurred. Yet WP only assigns any “credit” to Wall for the assist and Young for the shot. The fact of the matter is that Wall would not have gotten that assist, and Young would not have made that shot, without the contributions listed above that show up nowhere in the box score.
So sure, yes, the box score as a total entity tells you a lot about winning, but it doesn’t credit everyone appropriately either. That’s why it’s frankly a pointless model.
I disagree
I think the basic point that we are disagreeing upon is the degree to which a player is responsible for their box score stats. I’m saying that a player is responsible for the large majority of his box score stats, and you’re saying that he is not. My response would be that, box score statistics, especially rebounding, are consistent enough from year to year that a player should be given credit for them.On the other hand, adjusted plus-minus stats, which I take it you’re a fan of, are remarkably inconsistent from year to year. You certainly have a rational and legitimate beef with WP (at least you acknowledge it properly weighs box score stats, something most people can’t get past), but I disagree.
Thank you
Given that we would like to use numbers to help us predict the future, it makes no sense to put much weight in a stat that uses circular logic to reflect the past.
Another predictor
The five-man unit of Wall, Young, Lewis, Blatche and McGee have a +43 over 125 minutes.
+59 in home games, -16 on the road
And against a miserably weak strength of schedule (.393).
But hey, that lineup is .500, and that’s better than under .500.
Of course it is
Because those are the five best players on the team, and it’s in comparison to the rest of the roster, which generally is bad.
It’s instructive, of course, but not on its own.
PER correlates to individual quality and performance
If you take a look at the list of top 10 or any ten on the PER charts, it’s reasonable.
How the individuals fit together is another matter. With the current 5 starters and 3 benchmates, the fit looks good to me. For example, the players are complementary on O and D.
But the performance (10-27) does not fit the personnel. Injuries are part of the answer, but not all of it.
i do think though that PER favors bigmen playing significant minutes because the rebounding is a BIG variable in the equation
It gives you a general idea but you cant read to much into it imho. For example, i think PER makes McGee one of our better all around players because he gets 8 rbpg.
Also i wish there was an advanced statistic that takes all the elements of the game into account witch are needed to produce a win as a team. I mean, if you have a mediocre rebounding C who scores a lot paired up with a PF beast on the boards that maybe is not as potent scoring, you will still have a succesfull bigman combo, but both players will have a rather low PER.
"If you don't shoot, you can't score"
Johan Cruijff
" My psychiatrist just doesn't know what I go through. He is a Lakers fan" Hambonejackson
by Dutch Hoopfan on Jan 18, 2011 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Try wins produced...
not the most popular stat. I know a lot of people hate it, including Mike, but you should check it out:
by zl on Jan 18, 2011 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
This team is about to explode
Two subtle changes are going to make a big difference.
First, Flip seems to have woken up and realized that Yi is better at C than PF. Yi is a decent backup center, but a terrible PF. He loses track of his man out on the perimeter far too often to defend anyone who can knock down a J.
Second, and more importantly, for the last few games, JaVale has been playing farther away from the basket. Ten to fifteen feet out, instead of five to eight feet out. JaVale’s offensive rebound numbers are going to drop somewhat, but that extra space around the rim is going to make a big difference for the other Wiz kids. It’s no accident that we have seen much more low post play from Blatche and even Young the last few games. It’s no accident that Wall has been much more effective with his penetration and dish game recently. It’s a direct consequence of the extra space inside.
Prediction: We are about to make a surge in the standings. By the end of February, we will have a solid hold on the seventh spot in the East. For a month and a half, we will look like a young playoff-bound team, but we will end up falling just short of the playoffs because of a rough schedule to end the season. We finish with 11 of our final 17 games on the road, and two of our last four games are against the Celtics, who will see us as a potential first round match up and will throw everything they have at us to try to prevent us from gaining any confidence.
Two simple changes by Flip and JaVale are the difference between winning and losing. I guess that makes Flip and JaVale responsible for the losing we have gone through up to now.
Dray
At best mediocre defense and rebounding + horrible true shooting percentage and turnover numbers = losses. That he plays a ton of minutes and has a high usage rate doesn’t help either. Yi’s pretty bad, too, but he’d actually be a decent guy to have around if he took a step back and took threes instead of long twos.
Follow me on twitter -
http://twitter.com/TheRealTPruitt
This is ridiculous
I haven’t even read the posts, which i probably will not on this one. The coach plays the players. we see the rooks do pretty good in their roles, but a good inside player would have helped win a few games, and we saw flip almost blow yesterday’s game by putting hinrich in for a minute towards the end (okay this article was written 3 days ago, but you get the point). This team can only play with what the coach sends on the floor and it amazed me how flip leaves blatch and in the past miller in a game no matter how they play, so why have this poll, leaving out the main culprit?
#thatisall
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
