Comment from neal
Time October 10, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Thank you sportswiz. Very informative. I would have rated Jordan higher but it’s hard to argue with the other rankings. And looking at them, it’s hard to make a case for Arenas being an MVP candidate.

Comment from LilGil
Time October 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Well honestly I almost never agree with the rankings, and this time won’t be the exception.Tony Meija ranking Gil 20 overall… Sorry but I don’t buy this. Then John Hollinger (who already predicted the Wiz a 33 wins season…) ranking Arenas 8th, okay, but some of the players who are ahead him wouldn’t if I had make this ranking. Finnaly Mike Kahn thinks that Parker’s better than Gil, well I won’t comment but just imagine Gil in a team with such a potential as the spurs have, don’t you see finals mvp coming towards you??

Comment from SportzWiz
Time October 10, 2007 at 1:16 PM

No problem Neal. Glad you enjoyed it. Keep checking back for more updates and rankings.

Comment from wizkid034
Time October 10, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I agree with LilGil. Hollinger is a bonehead, and I personally think he does not have a clue about the game. He comes up with this “complicated” formula and it just proves him to be wrong about his earlier thoughts. The fact that he only thinks the Wiz will win 33 games show how much of a moron he is. True, two of our stars are returning from injuries, but there is nothing so far that suggests Gil and Caron will not return to form. I think Hollinger said something to the extent “how much better can Gil get, I think he has topped out in potential.” Gil still has plenty of potential and has proven that, like a fine wine, he only gets better with age.

Thanks for the stats…at least they get people talking.

My view is that we can rightly expect the Wiz to compete for an East championship. Heck, we were in first place in the conference last year before the injuries hit. Now, we are deeper. If we can stay healthy and play consistently on defense, we will be MUCH better than we were last year. I think this can be a 50 win season.

Comment from Nara
Time October 10, 2007 at 2:42 PM

I personally think a lot of these stat “gurus” just like to spit out articles based on crap like PER just to write an easy article. It’s hard to believe even John Hollinger himself really believe that Tim Duncan is going to be a worse player this coming season than Chris Paul. Statistics wise, someone like Carlos Boozer might score more or what not than Timmy but anyone with half a head will know that Boozer would be a loooooong shot to replicate what Timmy does for the spurs. It’s not just about the points that a certain player puts up or the rebounds he collects. Whatabout all the times Tony Parker got open layups because the opposing centers are afraid of leaving TD? Or when Oberto collects the rebound when it was TD that boxed the other two bigs out? Anyone really believe that KG is so over the hill that he’d be worse to have on your team than Dirk?

Bottom line, stats are stats. They are not the game itself. True fans of the game can appreciate these articles for the entertainment values that they hold but know to toss them out before watching a real game.

Comment from LilGil
Time October 10, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Just forgot to thank you for the stats sportzwiz

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Stats are not the game, but wins (and losses) are. They are numbers, stats.

Hence there ought to be a way to relate player ratings to team results, right? What if you could rate every player on the Wizards (or any other team) in terms of how many wins he contributes during the season, and then when you added up all those numbers for the whole roster there was a 96% relationship between that total and the total team wins. Would you think that was an accurate way to rate players?

That’s how the Wages of Wins “win score” rating works, and that’s how accurate it is. I.e. it is a far better measure of player performance than Hollinger’s.

One of the authors of The Wages of Wins has a blog. I recommend it. But you won’t like this article:
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/the-anti-nets/

Comment from neal
Time October 10, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Anyone who says that Arenas has reached his potential hasn’t watched the guy in my opinion. If he eventually does reach his potential he’ll be the top PG in the game (by that time Nash and Kidd will be retired). He’s already an outstanding player but not close to his potential in my opinion.

Comment from elysia
Time October 10, 2007 at 3:41 PM

has anyone read the article on yahoo!sports about the east? since when has there been trouble (this season/summer) between arenas n coach jordan, as well as between jordan n grunfield?

Well here’s the article if u wanna read it: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AgUOj4CmwFjh.CBeSPOoFpuR0bYF?slug=aw-eastquestions100907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Comment from neal
Time October 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Thanks for the link, elysia.

Jordan has said that Grunfeld sorta forced Arenas on him. But he said that in the midst of an interview where he was praising Arenas, essentially saying that he had been wrong about Arenas. Jordan has repeatedly praised Arenas highly. The article says Jordan wants Arenas to improve his leadership and defense. That’s not the same as saying there’s trouble between the two. Arenas himself has, in so many words, said that he needs to improve his D and that he’s not the team leader.

There has obviously been some disagreement between Jordan and Grunfeld on players. In addition to the initial one re. Arenas, Jordan liked Thomas over Haywood. Grunfeld didn’t. Maybe others. But I don’t know of any important ill will over it. Grunfeld is obviously firmly in control of player acquisition and Jordan decides who plays how they go about it. It doesn’t worry me that they disagree occasionally.

That article smacks to me of creating something to make the author’s article interesting.

Comment from Nara
Time October 10, 2007 at 4:39 PM

ditto to everything neal just said. Now I don’t have to write a long post to say what I wanted to say b/c neal just said it all. props.

Comment from elysia
Time October 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM

thank you i was wondering….. the author kind of blew it out of porpotion, probably to make something out of nothing.

Comment from Wizards4Life
Time October 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM

i dont get that link you posted tom how can LBJ be better than areans because we all know he is the only one on the team that can score and he wont take a last sec. shot half the time he passed the ball off but thats the only time he passed it so i dont even get the way that guy came up with that score just dose not add up to me!

Comment from aznzero
Time October 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM

hibachi clearly should be ranked first

Comment from neal
Time October 10, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Tom, I just read the Wages of Wins article. I understand his logic, but I don’t agree with his conclusion. His essential point – that Arenas isn’t good enough to be the necessary superstar to lead us to the conference title – may or may not be true as time goes on. I don’t think Arenas has peaked. More importantly, I think we have greater depth, better coaching, and better chemistry and commitment than last year. But ….. we’ll see.

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM

The Cavaliers won 50 games last year. They also won 50 games the year before. How do you think they did that?

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 10, 2007 at 8:35 PM

neal – one of the main discoveries made by the WoW analyses is that, unlike e.g. nfl players, nba players are extremely consistent from year to year. I am a big Gilbert Arenas fan, but he’s not going to suddenly become the efficient player he hasn’t ever been.

Of course, *anything* is possible — but if you go on the data that exists, Gilbert is likely to already be the player he will be for the rest of his career. That’s a really good player too. But, his numbers (and remember the sum of the numbers determines the wins and losses) are not superstar numbers. Gilbert had the lowest fg% of the top 25 scorers in the league; he turns the ball over more than one would want, and he doesn’t rebound to speak of.

If you shoot a low %, but you are one of the top scorers in the league, you get there by taking a lot of shots. If you take a lot of shots, but you have a low fg %, then you *miss* a lot of shots.

I hope everyone doesn’t get on me, but numbers are numbers. It’s just like Dave Berri says: Gil is a really good player, Caron is a really good player, AJ is a really good player, AD is a really good player. But what gets you to the championship is one or more *great* players — great by the numbers.

Comment from Wizards4Life
Time October 10, 2007 at 10:17 PM

they got lucky thats how they did that lol

Comment from BruceO
Time October 11, 2007 at 3:13 AM

lol.. wizards4life thats how it went down. Tom i think gils field goal could improve. We all know he can shoot better than average from the outside. His issue is the mid range game. I had been watching his percentage and I think a huge part is because he shoots more threes than say for instance wade.
His TO’s too are as a result of long range unnecessary passes. I think whatever it takes to calculate his numbers can be improved simply by improving those things. I think arenas rebounds decently for a point gaurd. The only ones I know for sure rebound better than him are baron davis and jason kidd. I don’t know any other pg;s who do. we improved our WOW starts by dumping some negative contributers. I also think as they work more as a team defensively and offensively their numbers may go up. And then when the numbers go up we;ll start saying oh look they’re winning more games.
Tom as a team what areas do you think we have to improve specifically? I think some offense should come from the shooting gaurd and center spot. utilize our bigs to wear down the other team in half court settings, have efficient easy sets like the ones jazz use e.g pick and rolls. defensively I think some length will help clog lanes and defend. Cleveland has Z, verajeo and gooden doing that and they were pretty good rebounders last season. Also I think the length enables us to funnel players to the shot blockers. LAt years lineup only had one shot blocker whos easy to avoid. At some point last night cleveland had to watch out for blatche, haywood , pech and Dmac who can all blocks shots.
I’m glad we have a big lineup in arenas, caron, Dmac or blatche, jamison and haywood. Were Jamison can play SF, blatche PF or caron SF, Dmac SG and jamison at PF. I was cracking up when we have Dray. pech, haywood, nick and gil on the floor at the same time. It’d been funnier if it was Dmac instead of nick.

Comment from neal
Time October 11, 2007 at 7:36 AM

I’m too lazy to do the comparison, but I’ll bet Arenas rebounds better than most point guards.

What we’re talking about are the reservations Jordan had when Arenas came here: He’s not the classic Steve Nash type of point guard. He’s improved a little in that respect since he came. I hope he improves more. I’m sure Jordan has talked to him about it. Maybe I’m living in hope.

I don’t buy the idea that you need a great player to win it all. Why wouldn’t three all-stars and a solid supporting cast be as good as one great player and a solid supporting cast?

Comment from odawg
Time October 11, 2007 at 8:30 AM

“Gilbert had the lowest fg% of the top 25 scorers in the league.

If you shoot a low %, but you are one of the top scorers in the league, you get there by taking a lot of shots. If you take a lot of shots, but you have a low fg %, then you *miss* a lot of shots.”

The reason why Gilbert has such a low fg % is because he shoots more three pointers then anybody else in the league. Well, at least he did last year. I think he was one of two players that shot 500 or more(Alston being the other). He shot 55(roughly ten percent) more then Alston.

All your stat indicates is that if he shot fewer three pointers his fg percentage would be much higher. Indeed, if you average only his 2-pt fg %, I remember it being good. He just needs to drive more.

Comment from odawg
Time October 11, 2007 at 8:38 AM

I’ll do the comparison for Neal, Arenas was twelth in the league for guards averaging 4.6 Rebounds per Game. This is not just point guards, but all guards as well as a few small forwards that are also called Guards even though they’re really not.

Edit to my last comment, I remember that Arenas shot worse percentage-wise then usual this year then he did in the rest of his career when controlling for three pt shots. He’ll probably do better next year.

Comment from Nara
Time October 11, 2007 at 9:40 AM

WoW are still JUST STATS. End of story. It doesn’t tell you if bobcats are gonna hustle their butts off on a particular night and beat a tired spurs team or not. It doesn’t tell you who has the little things the stats can’t possibly tell you (ex: demanding double teams, spreading the defense with your presence, or getting open shots for teammates even if they don’t make it, etc). WoW may or may not be better than some other stats for a particular point of view but at the end of the day, stats are stats. Can’t tell you if Kobe’s gonna go bonkers and score 80 on you or if Boobie is gonna rain 3s like he’s larry bird or something.

Comment from Nara
Time October 11, 2007 at 9:42 AM

BTW, boobie sucks. I hate everyone on the cavaliers but I hate boobie almost as half as much as LeBron and I HATE LeBron. Gawd i hate lebron. Hope he never wins a ring.

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 11, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Ok, here’s how I think about these things: the NBA is partly an example of human competition and in that sense it’s all about winning. But another part is *entertainment* and that part is about a zillion things that don’t necessary figure in to championships.

Sometimes you get a player who is both truly great and truly entertaining — Michael is the greatest example, Magic would be another one. Sometimes you get one who is great but not particularly entertaining — Tim Duncan for example.

Gil is a *terrific* player, but he is no Michael, Magic or Duncan. However, in addition to his contribution to winning, he is also incredibly entertaining!! He has tons of charm, he give his all, he is incredibly articulate, he hits last-second shots… it’s enormous fun to watch him. I’m a huge Gilbert Arenas fan.

I’d love for the Wizards to win a championship, but even if they don’t I’m not unhappy with this team. I love its effort, I love the big 3, I love the new bunch of kids, I love the Wizards’ brand of ball, and so forth. And one of the biggest factors is Gilbert. He has huge personality; imagine what he is going to be like on TV after he retires! He’ll be another Charles Barkley.

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

neal, you question whether a superstar is needed to win a championship. Take a look at this post, and at this one too, on Dave Berri’s blog.

In short, 80% of your wins are caused by the play of 20% of your players; it just doesn’t much matter what the other 80% of your players do.

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 11, 2007 at 3:27 PM

BruceO asks me what I think we need to improve on as a team.

First of all lets understand that *more than half the players in the NBA* are either average or worse than average NBA players. That’s just math, right? And then lets understand as well that every single guy in the NBA can play ball.

So getting really good and contending for a ring is *a wicked problem!* For one thing, you gotta have a true superstar. The best way to get one of those is to have the #1 draft pick (although, as 2001 taught us to our great regret, there are no guarantees). The second best way is to have boatloads of money to spend on a free agent w/o worrying about luxury tax, etc. The Knicks have demonstrated that this way is not guaranteed to work either!

I guess what I’m saying is that better coaching of and execution by our guys won’t bring us a ring. (although it will make the team better and more entertaining)

Now… if McGuire turns out to be a superstar, and Pecherov turns out to be as good as his idol Nowitzki, and Blatche gives Kevin-Garnett-style effort to match his special skills, and Nick turns into Ray Allen, why then we’re in good shape!!

One thing for sure — this is going to be an incredibly entertaining and fun season. I’m incredibly pumped for it, as you can probably tell from the fact that i just wrote three lengthy posts in a row! GO WIZARDS.

Comment from neal
Time October 11, 2007 at 9:30 PM

Well, Tom, after reading those posts on Dave Berri’s blog I’m wondering if maybe he’s right. I still don’t like the idea, though.

Glad to see you’re as pumped as I am in spite of no superstar in sight.

Comment from GrifonRacing
Time October 11, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Just my opinion, but, I don’t think you need a “superstar” to win a championship. It helps, but, I’d think a deep, versatile team that has enough talent and chemistry to cover each players weakness with another players strength would also be a threat. Don’t Know? We may have just such a team?

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 12, 2007 at 7:13 AM

The great thing right now is that the Wizards really do seem to have changed and developed in the off-season, yet all the starters are back.

The only part of the rotation beyond those 5 that is set is AD. The rest is up for grabs, and that makes it really interesting. Especially since we are hoping to get 15-20 more minutes a game from the bench than last year (so the big 3 can play fewer minutes).

Comment from neal
Time October 12, 2007 at 7:44 AM

I really do hope Jordan doesn’t persist in playing the big 3 40 minutes a game. We’ve got backups that are very close to as good and that way everyone keeps his intensity up.

With two guards released yesterday there’s only one cut left – unless we pick up someone else’s released player. So Hall, Taylor or Massenburg will go. I vote for Massenburg.

Comment from WizardsFirst
Time October 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM

The wizards bench completely out-classed the cavs bench in the first game, in case you forgot. This team has had the lowest bench production in the league many often in the last few seasons and I think we all need to watch how they do in this weekends preseason games, because if im right our supporting cast will do more than enough this year to help the Big 3 break the 50 win plateau, perhaps even 55

Comment from Tom Mandel
Time October 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM

The 16 currently there include Etan — we might get a dispensation for Etan (but I doubt Ernie will want to pay another salary).

I wonder whether Massenburg isn’t there to provide a professionalism example for Andray?

Wouldn’t be a big loss to drop Taylor for that matter.

Comment from GrifonRacing
Time October 12, 2007 at 9:44 PM

I think the Wizards will hang onto Mr. Massenburg just to have a little cushion given the unknowns of Mr. Blatche and Mr. Pescherov. Mr. Hall seemed to solidify himself some the end of last year. Mr. Taylor is very atheletic, but, hasn’t shown much in the way of basketball skills. If they do cut Mr. Taylor I just hope Mr. Mason has been working on his ball handling.

Comment from GrifonRacing
Time October 12, 2007 at 9:48 PM

I’m curious to see how they fare defensively against Dallas. If they put two defensive games together against two good teams I’m going to be very optomistic about our chances this year.