What Else Would They Be?

Mike Lee offered up this piece about Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld, Coach Randy Wittman optimistic about upcoming season. Leaving aside the “well, of course, what else would they be?” factor, there were some tidbits that are worth a little scrutiny.

Grunfeld on expectations for upcoming season: ”We’re excited about the upcoming season. We finished last year off strong. Obviously, our young players have worked hard in the offseason. They’ve shown improvement and we want to build on what we started to establish last year. Obviously, our initial goal is to be a playoff contender and ultimately, by the end of the year, make the playoffs.

Standard GM babble that doesn’t mean much of anything. The first sentence that catches my eye is that one about young players working hard in the offseason. This is a story being repeated right now in every NBA city by owners, executives, coaches, players, journalists, pundits and fans alike. It sounds and feels good, but if every team’s young players are working hard and getting better…how much advantage does one team get over another?

In reality, a large number of those stories are chicken manure. Some guys worked hard; others didn’t. Some guys used their time well and improved their games; others didn’t.

And there’s yet another thing to consider — let’s say for the sake of discussion that Kevin Seraphin, Jan Vesely and Chris Singleton all put in a ton of work this offseason and really, truly, genuinely got better. How much will it make a difference? These guys were among the league’s least productive players last season. They’re each coming from such a low level that they could make major improvements and still be bad.

Wittman on his expectations for Kevin Seraphin: “I have high expectations for all of our guys coming in. Do I have expectations for Kevin to have a better year than he did last year? Yes. … Kevin…his confidence level now, and how he holds himself now, being here pretty much all summer working on his game to make that next step. Yeah, I expect that from our young guys to continue that growth. I think we saw it with Jan. Jan had a good summer, whether it was just with us in the summer league or what he did, playing with his national team. You know, those are positive things and you hope that now they can carry that over into the season.”

The team is still prepping for training camp so they’re still peddling optimism. You’re not going to hear a coach saying something like, “Seraphin was really bad last season and we’ll have to see if he’s improved before we’ll count on him as a part of the rotation.”

It would surely be nice if Seraphin could somehow regain the form he showed at the end of the season before last. That guy was at least a competent NBA player. Last season, he was awful — the league’s least productive center, according to my analysis. Seraphin is a weird bundle of contradictions. He has a massive, muscle-bound frame (he says he currently weighs 277 and has a body fat percentage 0f 9.5%), but he rebounds like a small forward. He has a smooth looking post-up game, but those smooth-looking shots miss more often than they hit. And he’s a turnover machine.

Confidence is wonderful, but it needs to come with competence. After his terrible play last season, I’m skeptical about whether he’ll ever be a useful NBA player. By all means give him a chance in training camp to show he’s improved. But I wouldn’t count on him as part of the rotation.

Grunfeld on meeting offseason goals: “I think we had some goals of what we wanted to accomplish. We wanted to upgrade our backup point guard position and Eric [Maynor] has been with us now, three weeks in a row. He’s very solid, very steady. He brings a little poise to the game. He knows how to play. So we feel we’ve upgraded that position. We wanted to get a stretch four and Al [Harrington] will provide that for us. And we also wanted to make sure our young players continue to develop. Our young players, like Seraphin and Vesely, as Randy just spoke about, and Bradley Beal. I think one of the things that Brad also did was improve his ball handling, and try to play better in the pick and roll. He worked on his body and is outstanding shape. As all of our young players are. So, we wanted to see improvement from within and we wanted also address some of the positional needs that we felt like we had and I think we have. And I feel like the continuity of having 11 players back from last year’s roster will also help us.”

Here, Grunfeld is making the same assertion I’ve been seeing all summer — the Wizards have upgraded at backup PG by signing Eric Maynor. Maybe Grunfeld and “everyone” will turn out to be correct, but I don’t think so. My analysis reveals Maynor as unproductive throughout his career — both before and after his knee injury.

Last season, A.J. Price was better. Per 36 minutes, Maynor generated exactly one assist more than Price. But, Price shot better from the floor and the free throw line, got nearly twice as many rebounds, and had 1.2 fewer turnovers per 36 minutes.

For what (in my analysis) is actually a DOWNgrade at backup PG, the Wizards spent their biannual exception. On the first of day of free agency. Which meant that they didn’t have the BAE to spend later when they could have signed other reserve PGs who would have been upgrades over Price, or when they could have signed a reserve big man like DeJuan Blair. But, hey, who needs depth in the frontcourt when you have Seraphin and Jan Vesely?

Wittman on maintaining continuity: “We’re going, as a coaching staff, the last two or three weeks, evaluating how we want to conduct camp, and it’s so much easier when you’ve got … 11 that understand why we’re doing things, how we’re going to do things. That makes it a lot easier in my mind, in terms of evaluating how much you throw at them and how they handle it and all that. So that’s a positive. We established ourselves from a standpoint defensively, and that’s not going to change. That’s got to be first and foremost as we head into camp, that foundation that we built and that they built. They bought into this system and that system won’t change. They know what that system is already compared to last year with as many new faces as we had, that you had to teach that new system. That’s always a positive.”

The team has been selling “continuity” as part of its plan since they made the trade to get Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza. As I’ve written in other places, I think they have the “let’s keep everyone together” part too early in their plan. Continuity is outcome, not a goal. When a team starts winning, it makes sense to keep it together. When a team loses, it’s nuts to say, “We’ll start winning if we keep these guys together.”

No, teams are bad because the players are unproductive. The GM of a bad team shouldn’t be thinking about continuity, he should be thinking about how he get rid of dead weight on his roster and bringing in better players.

Then of course there’s consideration given to what the team’s goals are. In this case, their goal is to compete for a playoff spot. When you’re 178 games under .500 over the past decade (by some weird coincidence, the number of years Grunfeld has been at the helm), I guess that qualifies as a stretch goal. And, they have a realistic goal of achieving it, especially if Okafor’s neck heals. Still, it might have been wise to get another big man (not a SF masquerading as a PF like Al Harrington) in case something happened to one of the team’s 30+ year old bigs.

Speaking of Harrington — while it made Wall (and some fans) happy to sign an officially designated “stretch four” (a power forward who shoots jump shots and doesn’t rebound much), Harrington’s biggest contribution will be to keep Vesely, Singleton and (possibly) Seraphin off the floor. Each of that group landed among the league’s 15 least productive players last season, and it’ll be a net gain if some combination of Harrington and Trevor Booker can consume some of the 3,246 minutes they played last season.

Think about that a sec. Three of the 15 least productive players in the game last season were on the floor for 16.3% of the team’s minutes. Wow.

So, Harrington can help just by playing reasonably competent basketball (which he’s done in the past) and keeping those three on the bench. That said, I continue to think that the team’s best stretch four is Trevor Ariza — a tough-as-nails competitor who can shoot the three.

The Opening Line Problem

I’m working on the final revision to my mystery novel, which will be available for purchase in about a month. This is supposed to more of a proofread — just double-checking for typos, misspellings, wrong words, etc. But as I keep reading, there’s a thought nagging at me: the story is starting in the wrong place.

Back story: Many revisions ago, I kidnapped a chapter from the middle and lashed it to the front of the book. Chapter 1. Why? I loved the opening line it gave me:

As best I can remember it was the first time I’d awakened naked and face down in a pool of my own blood.

See what I mean?

Chapter 1 then became about the protagonist extracting himself from a no-tell motel — an event that actually happened in the middle of the story’s timeline. Chapter 2 leaps back a few weeks to the “beginning.” From there the story is told chronologically.

This is a fairly common dramatic technique, and it worked for me as I wrote the book. But now? I’m thinking it might be better pluck what’s now Chapter 1 and replant it in its original home — Chapter 13. That means I have to write a new opening.

Which isn’t really that big of a problem. It just wasn’t what I expected to be doing at this point.

The real challenge, of course, will be crafting a new opening line. And, I admit I’m more than a little nutty about opening lines. I often wander bookstores reading opening lines to see what grabs me. I’ve read dozens (maybe hundreds) of books out of my normal reading genres based strictly on a killer opening.

Some of my favorites:

Call me Ishmael. — Herman Melville, Moby-Dick
The office of the university president looked like the front parlor of a successful Victorian whorehouse. — Robert B. Parker, The Godwulf Manuscript
Maman died today. Or maybe yesterday; I can’t be sure. — Albert Camus, The Stranger
When the car stopped rolling, Parker kicked out the windshield and crawled through the wrinkled hood, Glock first. — Richard Start (Donald Westlake), Backflash
All this happened, more or less. — Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five
You better not never tell nobody but God. — Alice Walker, The Color Purple
He was awake a long time before he remembered that his heart was broken. — Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls
I am doomed to remember a boy with a wrecked voice — not because of his voice, or because he was the smallest person I ever knew, or even because he was the instrument of my mother’s death, but because he is the reason I believe in God. — John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meaney
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. — George Orwell, 1984
I am an invisible man. — Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. — J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
I was arrested in Eno’s Diner. — Lee Child, The Killing Floor
I sat across the table from the man who had battered and tortured and brutalized me nearly thirty years ago. — Lorenzo Carcaterra, Sleepers
It was a diamond all right, shining in the grass half a dozen feet from the blue brick wall. — Dashiell Hammett, The Dain Curse
When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man. — Richard Stark (Donald Westlake), Firebreak

That’s enough for now.

Writing Lessons from Kennedy Center’s Page-to-Stage Festival

On Monday, the Kennedy Center dropped curtain on its 12th Annual Page-to-Stage festival — a weekend of script readings and open rehearsals of plays and musicals being developed by DC-area theater companies. I’ve been going for awhile now, and I watched all of two live reads and part of another this weekend.

The two I watched in full — Ella Fitzgerald: First Lady of Song and The Music of Nina Simone — have great potential as the individuals involved in those productions continue to raise money and do the work necessary to bring them to the stage. The “partial watch” play — Civilizing Lusby — has a good premise (and therefore good potential), but didn’t hold my attention.

For a writer, live reads are useful because they put the spotlight on the written word. There’s no staging or pyrotechnics or spectacle to distract from what the writer has put to paper. That’s slightly less true in musicals, such as the two diva plays, because there’s singing (and the singing was fantastic), but most of the audience’s experience is in hearing actors speak words and in hearing a narrator read scene descriptions.

Here are some writing lessons I took from the weekend:

Thou shalt avoid exposition. Don’t write anything “so the audience will understand.” A couple years ago, I saw a Page-to-Stage read of a play about Lincoln. There were lines like, “Hello Mary, my dear wife of 19 years…” In the Ella production, there were multiple lines of dialogue that had characters saying they were backstage at X venue or saying what year it was or talking about another character using first and last name. The trouble with these lines is that a) they’re boring; and b) the delivery ends up being stilted because they’re not words actual humans would speak. Work necessary exposition into the story as ammunition for conflicts.
Thou shalt get to the point. In Civilizing Lusby, the first 10 pages or so were devoted to a family dispute about a rambunctious teen aged girl who smiled at too many men for her mother’s comfort. Yawn. There was a little tidbit thrown in about the father needing some banker’s son on his side for something, which I assume they got to later on because I left at that point. According to the description in the program, the play was about a Chesapeake waterman taking his revenge after a couple businessmen have his shack condemned so they could build a railroad. The high-spirited daughter flirting with every man she meets was worth a couple minutes — not the first 10.
Thou shalt present characters, not characterization. Civilizing Lusby did this best. The wild girl, the disapproving mother, the adoring father trying to be stern for the sake of his wife but not quite making it — these felt like real people. The Nina Simone show did a reasonable job as well, presenting a first-person “as told by” story that gave her take on her story. The Ella Fitzgerald show — not so much. They characterized her by talking about the pictures on her dressing room wall, having her fire her cousin/assistant, and having her say “shit” now and then. But, the non-linear presentation left the feeling that Ella mainly had stuff happen to her — NOT that she was an active and aggressive force in achieving personal goals. Which leads me to…
Thou shalt give your protagonist clear goals. The contrast between the Nina Simone and Ella scripts couldn’t be more evident on this one. At any point, the director could have called a stop and asked the audience what Simone wanted. The answers would have flowed — to be the first black classical pianist, to get into Curtis, to find love, to avoid the IRS, to come to peace with her father, to contribute to the Civil Rights Movement…and so on. Simone had a series of goals that shifted as she moved through her life — many of which she failed to achieve. But, the point here is that the audience always knew what they were. Not so, in Ella’s story where she never seemed to want anything except to “sing pretty for the people.” They presented major events in her life, of course, but Ella seemed almost a bystander to them, not the cause of those events. While that can happen “in real life,” it a) makes for bad drama, and b) is unlikely for someone who accomplished as much as she did in life.

Those are the lessons I got from Page-to-Stage this year — avoid exposition, get to the point, create characters NOT characterization, and give your characters clear goals.

The Leonsis Interview with Mike Wise: Some Thoughts In Response

Washington Post columnist Mike Wise sat down with Wizards owner Ted Leonsis for a 45-minute interview. The transcript is here, and I recommend reading the whole thing. I’m going to pull out a few of Ted’s comments that I think are worth commentary and/or analysis.

First, though — kudos to Ted for doing the interview at all. I disagree with much of what he says, but I appreciate his openness and willingness to face reporter questions. It’s more than a lot of owners do.

Leonsis: Wall, Crawford and Beal, that’s a pretty good three-guard rotation. We want to bring in a seasoned backup point guard. … And so what our belief is, we’re hoping John Wall and Beal become real stars that we keep and kind of build around them. Can Wall and Beal and Crawford one day be Isiah, Dumars and the Microwave? Right, I mean, that would be a pretty good backcourt.

I wish Ted had included “potentially” in this comment because it’s not a good three-guard rotation. And yeah, Isiah, Dumars and Vinny Johnson did make a good backcourt. But let’s be real: none of the Wizards “trio” have proven to be “good” NBA players. Wall has been average. His “glory stats” (per game points, rebounds and assists) look pretty good, but his shooting has been atrocious and his overall efficiency (including turnovers) has been awful.

Crawford is bad — one of the least efficient high usage players in league history. Since the NBA implemented the 3pt shot in 1979-80 there have been 930 player seasons in which a player received at least 1500 total minutes and had a usage rate of 25% or higher. Crawford ranks 907th in individual offensive rating (individual points produced per 100 individual possessions).

During that span, there have been 851 player seasons with an individual offensive rating at least 3 points per 100 possessions better than Crawford. If we limit the look to players in their first two seasons, there have been 121 player seasons fitting the criteria above. Crawford ranks 108th on that list. Virtually anyone in the NBA could score as many points as Crawford did last season if he shot as frequently.

Beal, of course, has played zero minutes in the NBA. I predict that he’ll be a good player. In my draft analysis, Beal’s score in YODA was similar to freshman SGs like Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler and Vince Carter. So there’s hope.

Leonsis: That’s why I looked at are we better at using our money in space to get Okafor and Ariza, then hoping and praying that we can get a free agent that believes and wants to come here. Then you hope while making a free-agent deal, those deals are pretty high-priced. Two years.

I understand what Ted’s hoping to do by using the cap space on Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza, but I think it’s a bad strategy. As I wrote a few days ago, they would have been smarter to buy out Rashard Lewis and amnesty Blatche, and then used the resulting cap space to outbid Dallas for Elton Brand (amnestied by Philly and picked up by the Mavericks for $2.1 million), outbid San Antonio for Danny Green (hugely underrated and re-signed for $4 million per season — an absolute bargain), and outbid Atlanta for Lou Williams (an efficient, 3rd guard type who signed for the mid-level exception). And they still could have had $8-9 million in cap room next offseason.

What the Wizards have done is buy a couple years of mediocrity at best. And at the end of those two years, they won’t be in position to pursue free agents because they’ll need to re-sign John Wall (they hope) and they’ll have other contracts coming due for extensions and renewals. This was their shot to use their cap space to add young players who fit their rebuild — they spent it on Okafor and Ariza.

Leonsis: We’ve made big investments in the analytic side and the technology side. … Besides our in-house guys, we have one cool guy: Joe Sill. Joe presents on occasion at that stats thing at MIT. Double-math PHd. He’s almost like a technical trader on Wall St. I can pick a company you should invest in. He’ll never meet the CEO, but he knows from the numbers which ones to pick. …

I do think there is a big, big role in informing some decisions. Also, that the little things have value. Our defensive rebounding — and the defensive rebounding stats of our guards — improved dramatically when Nene came and JaVale left. So, getting guards who can rebound becomes important. If your forwards are pushing their men out, that’s not a stat. That’s something you follow. That means the guards have the opportunity to get the rebounds and initiate their own break. Teaching rebounding becomes important. So Beal is a real good rebounder as a guard who fits really good with what we’re trying to do.

I’m a stat guy, so I like that they’re investing in analytics. Joe Sill is a “regularized adjusted plus minus” guy, and definitely a smart guy. The “promise” of RAPM is that it’s results are more accurate than straight (APM) because of something called “ridge regression,” which reduces standard errors. RAPM and APM are numbers I pay attention to, but I’m dubious about their utility because I’m not persuaded that the proponents fully understand all the factors that go into the “adjustment.”

Leonsis:

We’re also one of the few teams have installed this super heat-seeking missile cameras. Have you heard about this? We have these HD cameras. Another Stanford kid does it for us. This thing creates real-time heat maps. Literally you can get down to the pixels on the floor. Where are the shots being taken, where are the shots being made, where are the picks being made. It does interesting things like, how many dribbles on a fast break does your guard hold the ball before he dishes off, and was their a good shot made versus other guards in the league.

How does this work in practice: You tell a guard you were negating your speed by dribbling two more times. And then, when you dribble only three times and then you dish, we convert 70 percent of the time. All of this data then gets used in practice, like, in coaching sessions.”

I’ll tell you a lesson I learned 10 years ago with Ron Wilson and Adam Oates. I’ll never forget this. Adam Oates was the [quarterback] of our power play. Adam didn’t even know he was doing it, but he would put his skate up against the wall and bring that skate down and then get that pass. When the [power play] became not productive, he stopped doing that, and he was collecting the puck just a little further away, seven or eight inches away, from the half board.

The entire geometry of the ice changed, six or seven inches. Rob Wilson showed him, I remember, and said, ‘Just do that: Put your skate against the board.’ The power play came back. So that to me, as an owner, was the first indication that a little thing reviewed, fixed, coached can have unbelievable, big positive impact.

So we wanted to use as many tools as we can to try to give us advantage, and bringing in some of these coaches from winning programs. Bringing in these analytics, bringing in high IQ, good people it’s all a part of trying to change a losing culture to a winning culture.

This sounds really cool, and I’d love to analyze the take. The information is ultimately going to be as good as the analyst, and hopefully the team has good ones in place.

Interesting exchange between Wise and Ted about Blatche:

Q. I was reading quotes from two years ago about how much you thought signing Blatche to an extension was a great idea. Two years later, does this qualify as your biggest disappointment of owning the Wizards’ thus far?

A. Yes — we made a mistake — although the NBA has had close to $250 million of amnestied players to date — sometimes you get a chance to take a mulligan under the new rules and that is what we did.

Q. Who bears the most responsibility for the fact that he didn’t work out in Washington?

A. We are all in it together — so we are all to blame. Buck has to stop with me though as owner. I appreciate Andray’s apology to the fans and I hope he is able to turn around his career.

Q. Given your belief in redemption, was it particularly hard to cut him loose?

A. No, it wasnt. It was in best interest of franchise.

Ultimately, the person who bears responsibility for Blatche’s failure in Washington is Blatche himself. Had he worked hard, played hard and had a better attitude, he’d still be with the team and he’d be productive. He had ability. He just never put in what was necessary to come close to maximizing it.

On the (to me) difficult to understand decision to give Ernie Grunfeld another two years running the Wizards:

Leonsis: With Ernie what I found was, could we be on the same wavelength? Would he build team with eight or nine first-round picks? Could he make trades? I thought trading Gilbert was impossible. I thought trading Rashard was impossible.

It’s hard to even unpack what I think are faulty assumptions by Ted. Any player can be traded if you’re willing to pay the other guy’s price. They could trade Arenas because they took back a contract almost as bad. They were able to trade Lewis because they could solve all of New Orleans long-term salary cap issues with a single trade. And somehow, Grunfeld also gave up a 2nd round pick to make it happen. And New Orleans then used the cap room they acquired from the Wizards to trade for a 23-year old PF who happens to be supremely underrated.

I like several of the guys working for Grunfeld, but I have little belief that Grunfeld will build a title-contending team in Washington. The moves they made this offseason seem designed to get the Wizards in contention for the playoffs for the next two years. That is, contention for the 7th or 8th seed, not for a division title and a top 3-4 seed. To me, it’s a disappointment to see the team go for a sacrifice bunt when they had an opportunity to swing for the fences.

That said, I hope I’m wrong.

More Reasons to Not Like the Wizards Trade for Okafor and Ariza

New Orleans acquired Ryan Anderson with the cap space they acquired from the Wizards.

A week before the NBA draft, the Washington Wizards traded the expiring contract of Rashard Lewis and a 2nd round pick to New Orleans for Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza. Over at the Wizards board on RealGM, I went on record as strongly disliking the trade.

The argument in favor of the trade was that it provided some certainty. The Wizards could be assured of having a couple solid players on the roster without worrying about the mercurial nature of NBA free agency.

My objection: it dealt away ALL the team’s cap room for at least the next two years in exchange for a couple guys who will help the Wizards contend for the 7th or 8th playoff spot for the next couple seasons — not compete for a championship within the next 3-5 years. In effect, the Wizards won’t have cap room for the foreseeable future because of pending contract renewals that will come due.

The counter to my objection has generally been to talk about the difficulty Washington would have recruiting free agents. But, there are more ways to use cap room than merely signing free agents, and preserving the flexibility to pursue some of those “ways” would have been preferable to the trade they made.

And the events of this offseason demonstrate that.

While some NBA teams have been overpaying players, others have been snapping up relative bargains. Dallas, for example, claimed Elton Brand in the amnesty waiver draft for just $2.1 million. His production last year was worth $9.4 million, according to my salary formula.

Brand’s teammate Lou Williams — a combo guard who scores efficiently — signed a mid-level deal starting at $5 million. His production last year was worth $8.8 million.

The Spurs re-signed the criminally underrated Danny Green for three years and $12 million total ($4 million per season) — Green’s production last season was worth more than $7 million.

Phoenix recently amnestied Josh Childress, a SF who has disappointed in the desert. And, while Childress hasn’t been worth his contract, he’d be an asset to a team as an off-the-bench swingman for 25-30% of his deal.

Had the Wizards bit the financial bullet and bought out Lewis for $13.7 million, and followed that up by amnestying Blatche, they would have had sufficient cap space to outbid Dallas for Brand, outbid Atlanta for Williams, and outbid San Antonio for Green. Then they could have used minimum salary deals to bring in depth players.

Or, they might have been able to use the cap space they traded to New Orleans to do what the Hornets did — acquire 23-year old PF Ryan Anderson in a sign and trade with the Magic.

Amnesty Blatche Now

I don’t want even go into the rabbit hole of why the recent trade of Rashard Lewis and the 46th pick in the draft for Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza was bad for the Wizards. I’ve hammered away on that front on the RealGM board and I’ve said what I want to say on that subject.

Today I’m writing because of this tidbit in Mike Lee’s “Insider” blog at the Washington Post:

The Wizards could potentially create more spending money by using the amnesty provision – a one-time clause that allows teams to waive a player and have his contract removed from the salary cap – on Andray Blatche. They have until July 17 to make a decision on Blatche, who has three years and $23 million left on his contract. Grunfeld said Blatche is currently training with former Maryland star, NBA player and coach John Lucas in Houston.

“He’s under contract with us,” he said. “He’s out working out with John Lucas right now. Working hard. Trying to get back into shape and doing the kind of things that he needs to do.”

I understand that the Wizards want to get something from their investment in Blatche. He still has three years and $23.4 million remaining on his contract. And it’s sorta possible the Wiz could get “something” from Blatche if he can just…fix his body and mind. But, the juice just ain’t worth the squeezing. Even when Blatche was “good”, he wasn’t. Even during his best stretch of play for the team, he still was inefficient offensively and lacklust on defense and on the glass.

The environment around the team improved significantly when they separated him from the team. They should make that situation permanent.

The team’s apparent attempt to bring him back for yet another chance makes no sense to me. He doesn’t just need to “get in shape.” He needs more than to drop a few pounds, he needs a radical reworking of his body. He needs things like strength, burst, agility, leaping ability — things he should have been developing during his seven NBA seasons. Blatche needs remedial work physically, and improving his play is dependent on him DOING that work consistently over a period of time. Which, of course, is something he’s showed no inclination of ever doing. But this time will be different, right?

Then factor in that the physical side of things is the easy part of getting something useful out of him. The way he thinks the game, his on-court decision-making — it’s facacta. He has to learn that a shot isn’t good because he’s decided it’s time for him to fling the ball at the hoop. He needs to learn how to rebound; how to move his feet on defense; how to use his length on defense; how to set screens, make smart passes, move without the ball, find open spaces, cut to the basket hard, and more. He needs to learn how to run the floor hard to both offense and defense. He needs mental toughness to get through mistakes and bad stretches instead of wincing and grimacing and suddenly coming down with some pain to explain why he just f-ed up. He needs to stop blaming his coach and teammates when something goes wrong and start owning the fact that he’s pissing away what could have been a terrific NBA career.

In other words, he still needs to learn how to actually play basketball in a way that might help his team win.

Yet the Wizards hold out hope they can rehab him and get something useful for him. And maybe they will. All it’ll take is a transformation of his body, mind and personality. Hey, at least they have a full offseason. Hope they packed a Snickers. Doh, not a Snickers for Blatche. How about an apple?

2012 NBA Draft Position Rankings from YODA

Earlier today, I posted overall rankings for the 2012 NBA Draft using my draft analysis system, which has been dubbed YODA. Here’s the same information, but this time by position. In this post, I’m adding in a standardized score to show the differences between players.

The best score in YODA history was Shaquille O’Neal’s sophomore year at LSU. In the standardized score I’m showing, Shaq’s season scored a 36. Everyone else scales below that. Zero means the player rates as an average prospect.

Here are all players with a draftable score in YODA:

Point Guards

Damian Lillard — 7
Kendall Marshall — 4
Tony Wroten — 0
Reggie Hamilton — 0
Jordan Taylor — 0
Casper Ware — -1
Scott Machado — -1
Lazeric Jones — -3
Marquis Teague — -3
Scoop Jardine — -3
Tyshawn Taylor — -4

Shooting Guard

Marcus Denmon — 12
Bradley Beal — 8
Will Barton — 5
Dion Waiters — 5
Darius Johnson-Odom — 2
Jeremy Lamb — 2
John Jenkins — 1
Orlando Johnson — 1
Devoe Joseph — 0
Doron Lamb — -2
J.R. Cadot — -2
Kim English — -3
Matt Gatens — -3
Tanner Smith — -3
Jared Cunningham — -4

Small Forward

Jae Crowder — 16
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist — 8
Harrison Barnes — 3
Jeff Taylor — 1
Quincy Miller — 0
John Shurna — 0
Ken Horton — -1
Moe Harkless — -1
Chris Johnson — -2
Darius Miller — -3
Robbie Hummel — -3
Chace Stanback — -3
Wendell McKines — -4
Alex Young — -4
Terrence Ross — -5

Power Forward

Anthony Davis — 28
Draymond Green — 7
Thomas Robinson — 6
Jared Sullinger — 3
Terrence Jones — 3
Ricardo Ratliffe — 2
John Henson — 0
Kevin Jones — 0
Drew Gordon — 0
Quincy Acy — -1
Trevor Mbakwe — -1
Perry Jones III — -2
Arnett Moultrie — -2
Mike Scott — -3
JaMychal Green — -3
Bernard James — -3
Jack Cooley — -3

Center

Tyler Zeller — 15
Miles Plumlee — 3
Andre Drummond — 3
Meyers Leonard — -1
Garrett Stutz — -3
Fab Melo — -3

The Draft According to YODA

Over the past couple months, I’ve been posting regularly in the draft threads on the Wizards board at RealGM about my research into evaluating NCAA draft prospects. The project is an effort to use college stats, as well as measurements, times and scores from draft combines to project which players are most likely to become good professionals.

The system I’ve come up with involves using per minute stats, includes an accounting for level of competition, and adjusts for age — a great performance from an 18-year old freshman is more impressive than the same performance from a 23-year old senior.

After referring to “the system” several times on the boards as Ye Olde Draft Analyzer, someone dubbed it YODA and the name stuck. The results? Time will tell on this year’s draft class. In previous years, YODA’s predictions have been good, but that’s the subject for a later post at some point in the future.

Below are the players as they’re rated by YODA. I’ve divided them into “tiers” — basically groupings of players by quality. The separation between Tier One and Tier Two is significant; the differences between players in the same tier are insignificant.

Here’s how I think about the tier system. Teams generally give themselves a better chance of succeeding when they pick best player available rather than focusing on specific roster needs. This should limit “reaches.” Plus, getting the best player gives the team another asset for trade purposes. Of course, it’s not always clear who the “best player” actually is.

That’s where the tiers enter the picture. Players who are “about the same” fall into the same tier. When a team’s pick comes around, they can use this process to pick whichever player on the same tier best fits their needs. They should avoid “reaching” into a lower tier to pick for need.

Anyway — the prospects according to YODA (along with sample players through the years who rated on the same tier):

NOTE: The tiers are numbered for this year only. They’re not historical tiers — that’s a work still in progress.

Tier One

Historical: Kevin Durant, Greg Oden

Anthony Davis, PF, Kentucky — Davis posted the most impressive freshman season I’ve analyzed. He’s the second rated prospect in YODA behind Shaquille O’Neal’s sophomore season. Similar YODA scores: Kevin Durant and Greg Oden.

Tier Two

Historical: Allen Iverson (SO), Zach Randolph (FR), Carmelo Anthony (FR)

Jae Crowder, SF, Marquette
Tyler Zeller, C, North Carolina

Tier Three

Historical: Jason Kidd (FR), Josh Howard (SR), Tim Duncan (JR)

Marcus Denmon, SG, Missouri

Tier Four

Historical: Paul Pierce (JR), Tony Allen (SO), Gilbert Arenas (FR), Ty Lawson (FR)

Bradley Beal, SG, Florida
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, SF, Kentucky

Tier Five

Historical: Caron Butler (SO), Brandon Roy (JR), Rudy Gay (FR), Mike Miller (SO)

Damian Lillard, PG, Weber State
Draymond Green, PF, Michigan State
Thomas Robinson, PF, Kansas
Will Barton, SG, Memphis
Dion Waiters, SG, Syracuse

Tier Six

Historical: Ryan Anderson (SO), Ben Gordon (JR), Roy Hibbert (SR), Karl Malone (FR)

Kendall Marshall, PG, North Carolina
Jared Sullinger, PF, Ohio State
Miles Plumlee, F/C, Duke
Harrison Barnes, SF, North Carolina
Terrence Jones, F, Kentucky
Andre Drummond, C, Connecticut

Tier Seven

Historical: Antawn Jamison (SO), Deron Williams (SO), Jordan Crawford (SO)

Darius Johnson-Odom, SG, Marquette
Jeremy Lamb, SG, Connecticut
Ricardo Ratliffe, PF, Missouri

Tier Eight

Historical: Chris Singleton (JR), Jarrett Jack (SO), Harold Miner (FR), Charlie Villanueva (SO)

Jeff Taylor, SF, Vanderbilt
John Jenkins, SG, Vanderbilt
Orlando Johnson, SG, UCSB
Tony Wroten, PG, Washington
Quincy Miller, SF, Baylor

Tier Nine

Historical: Jared Dudley (JR), Gerald Wallace (FR), Hakim Warrick (FR), Lester Hudson (JR), Morris Almond (SR), Michael Redd (SO)

John Henson, PF, North Carolina
Reggie Hamilton, PG, Oakland
Kevin Jones, PF, West Virginia
Jordan Taylor, PG, Wisconsin
John Shurna, F, Northwestern
Devoe Joseph, SG, Oregon
Drew Gordon, PF, New Mexico

That’s enough to get through the first round. Tier 9 players are average prospects historically, according to YODA. In the “historical” sections, I’ve included a few representative players. It’s worth nothing that good pros have come from many “tiers,” which is demonstration of the reality that a) evaluating prospects is an inexact science; and b) that MANY young players have the capability to be quality professional players if they work hard enough and smart enough. The reality is that EVERY player arriving in the NBA needs to improve. The difference between a kid who becomes an All-Star and a kid who’s out of the league in three years is very much about the amount of purposeful, deliberate, well-considered work each player puts into developing his game and his body.

Who Do You Want Shooting In The “Clutch”?

Here’s the situation: Your team is involved in a close game (margin no farther apart than 5 points either way) in the 4th quarter or overtime. The question: Who do you want shooting the ball for your team?

The popular answer over the past decade has been Kobe Bryant. According to legend (and even polls of general managers), no one is more clutch than Kobe. No player of recent vintage can surpass (or even match) Kobe’s incredible, incomparable, sublime skills as a “closer” of games. Right?

Kobe fans would love the chance to regale us with details of why he’s such a great closer. They’d list great performances and incredible buzzer beaters, and we could all sit around and marvel at the incomparable daring-do.

Or, we could go to the Play Index and Basketball Reference and look up the numbers.

This season, in the 4th quarter and overtime when the scoring margin is 5 points or fewer (in either direction), Bryant leads the league in shot attempts. But, among the 37 players with at least 40 field goal attempts in the 4th quarter or overtime with the game margin within 5 points, Kobe has the has the 4th WORST shooting percentage — .327. Only Kevin Garnett (.325), OJ Mayo (.308) and John Wall (.238) have shot worse this season in clutch situations.

Well that’s just this year, right? Small sample size.

Since 2000-01, Bryant has 2094 field goal attempts, including 434 three-point attempts. His FG% on those attempts: 41.5%. His 3pt%: 29.7%. His eFG: 44.6%.

Hmm.

I went back through the records and found 246 individual players who generated 768 player seasons since 2000-01 in which the player averaged at least 1.0 FGA per game in “clutch” situations (4th quarter or OT, margin of the game 5 points or fewer). The averages:

FG%: 42.4%
3pt%: 34.1%
eFG: 46.4%

In other words, the greatest closer of the past decade has actually been a below average shooter in clutch situations.

If we slice off everyone with fewer than 900 FGA (to find a group most like Kobe in terms of longevity and volume), Kobe still ends up below average in shooting from the floor.

FG%: .422 vs. Kobe: .415
3pt%: .333 vs. Kobe: .297
eFG: .459 vs. Kobe: .446

Make the cut 200 total games in this situation and we get the same story.

The point is not to bash Kobe, but rather to highlight the utility of stats. Fans (and at least some basketball decision makers) “know” what they see. They don’t need stats — those are just for a bunch of geeks.

Except, subtle distinctions are virtually impossible to see. Take two hypothetical players. Both play exactly the same number of minutes for a team. They’re identical players in every way (including attempting 10 field goals). Over 82 games, that’s 820 FGA each. The only difference: One is a 50% shooter, the other a 45% shooter.

Over the course of a season, the difference is 41 made shots — one additional made shot every other game. If you say you can see that difference, you’re lying.

One of the values of stats is to check the claims that slide off the tongue so easily. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Did what others say happened really happen?

We get to find out whether Kobe really is a great clutch shooter, or whether he’s average (or below average) in the clutch. There’s value in that.

The underlying point to the Kobe hagiography is that any story about a basketball player’s successes is incomplete without accounting for the failures as well. When I hear that a player averaged 18 points and 8 rebounds, I don’t have enough information. How often did he shoot? How often did he get to the line? How many assists? How many turnovers? How many offensive rebounds?

Efficiency matters — a lot.

At this point, let me pause and say that I think Kobe is a terrific basketball player. He’s one of the better players of his generation, and he’d almost certainly go on my Rushmore of all-time NBA shooting guards. He’s not Jordan, but that’s not much of a criticism — Jordan was outlandishly, preposterously dominant.

But we’re all done a disservice when legend and hyperbole take the place of reality. Kobe’s done enough to be recognized as a great player. His fans don’t need to make stuff up to prop up his legacy. His overall meh clutch shooting needs to be considered, but there are more than enough accomplishments for Kobe to go down as an all-time great.

Wilt’s 100-point Game, Perspective Please

Wilt 100 — Wilt scored 100 points, but Kobe's 81 might have been the more impressive feat.

Like most basketball fans, I’m an admirer of Wilt Chamberlain. He was a dominant figure — no question one of the all-time greats. When I get around to posting my “Rushmore” lists, he’ll make several of them. For those who don’t know, today is the 50th anniversary of the day Wilt scored 100 points in an NBA game — highest individual scoring game ever.

This morning, in inimitable ESPN full-hype style, Mike & Mike celebrated Wilt’s achievement by wondering if it’s the greatest individual performance in sports history. As is normally the case when discussing basketball, the radio conversation was long on cliches and meaningless hype, and short on meaningful analysis. Not a single person mentioned “pace,” for example.

I was left wondering not whether Wilt’s 100 points was the greatest individual performance in sports history, but whether it was even the single greatest scoring performance in NBA history.

So, I’ve dusted of my era translator and taken a look. What I’ve done is take the top scoring games since the 1985-86 season (which is when Basketball Reference’s box score database begins) and translated those games to Wilt’s phenomenal game.

In that 100-point game, Wilt shot 36-63 from the floor and 28-32 from the free throw line. His 100 points accounted for 59% of his team’s 169 points that game.

Compare with Kobe’s 81-point game against Toronto 1/22/06. Kobe shot 28-46 from the floor, 18-20 from the line and accounted for a stunning 66% of the Lakers 122 points. Kobe’s 81 points translated to the game where Wilt scored 100 — 112 points.

Here’s a list of the NBA’s top scoring games since 85-86, resorted by translated points to Wilt’s 100-point game.

What we see is an illustration of how much the game has changed. NBA teams shoot far less frequently in today’s game than they did in Wilt’s. This simple fact reduces opportunities for players to compile the gargantuan numbers Wilt (and other players of that era) posted.

However, viewed through the lens of a player’s “share” of his team’s production, we see similarities between players today and players of yesteryore. Lebron James is like Oscar Robertson. Maybe Shaq is like Wilt. Maybe Dwight Howard is like Bill Russell. This doesn’t diminish the mythical players that came before — it puts them in a context that’s familiar and gives insight into what we’re seeing today.

So, back to Mike & Mike for a second, Wilt’s 100-point game was a great performance, but arguably not the greatest scoring performance in league history. These translations suggest Kobe’s 81-point night might have been the best ever scoring game, followed by David Robinson’s 71, then a tie between Wilt’s 100 and Jordan’s 69.

Let’s celebrate the 50th anniversary of Wilt’s great game. But let’s keep it in proper context and let’s do it with perspective.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: