The fallacy of "status quo" and the Washington Wizards
Few things grind my gears more than when I hear the criticism that the Wizards have committed to the same core rotation that has never won more than 45 games and advanced deep into the playoffs. In the first place, it's lazy analysis, but worse yet, it's wrong.
Yes, there have been mainstays in key spots. Gilbert Arenas has always been on the roster, though not necessarily in the main rotation because of injuries. Eddie Jordan has always been the coach. We have always run the Princeton offense. Antawn Jamison has always been the glue guy.
But that doesn't mean the roster has always been the same. Anyone want to guess how many members of that 2005 team are still on the roster only four years later? The answer is four. The only guys left are Arenas, Jamison, Brendan Haywood and Etan Thomas. Otherwise, the entire roster is guys acquired after 2005. That hardly strikes me as long-term roster stability.
But fine, let's say that we're talking about a shorter time period. Instead of measuring the names on the roster, though, wouldn't it make more sense to see whether the rotation itself has stayed the same over a certain time period?
5 comments
| 3 recs
|








