Top
Close
Follow Us ON

© 2017 Broom on the Warpath

Advertise Here Flag

Do the Wizards Look Good on Paper?

Wizards head coach Randy Wittman says the team looks good on paper. Do they?

Over at the Washington Post, Michael Lee reports that Wizards head coach Randy Wittman said the team "looks good on paper." He bookended the comment with standard caveats about not winning games on paper, but the statement begs the question: Do the Wizards look good on paper?

Since I plan to look at each player in detail in the coming weeks, this is going to be a quickie peek at the team using the rating system I've developed through the years. It's a combination of box score and on/off data, each weighted and balanced in a way to accurately reflect which individual players contribute most to winning games. The rating is based on per minute stats.

In my system, 100 is average. A score of less than 100 means the player has below average productivity. A score above 100 means the player has above average productivity. I set replacement level at approximately the 10th man on the worst team. Replacement level on my scale is 60.

POS  Player  2012  2011 
PG John Wall  97 87
SG Bradley Beal  n/a  n/a 
SF  Trevor Ariza 103 75
PF Nene  129  158
C Emeka Okafor  108 123
PG A.J. Price  77 47
SG Jordan Crawford 60  48 
SF Chris Singleton  51  n/a 
PF  Jan Vesely  73  n/a 
C Kevin Seraphin  102  26
F Trevor Booker  110  110
G/F  Cartier Martin  87  76 
G/F  Martell Webster  63  71

Dunno about you, but that doesn't look good on paper (or in pixels). It looks...well...below average. It looks like a team that could win 36-40 games. And it looks like a team that made moves that will inevitably keep one or more of its productive players from last season (Seraphin and Booker and/or Vesely who improved throughout the season) on the bench. 

What I'd say about this roster is that it has the potential to be good (meaning 45 wins) if Wall makes a quantum leap forward in his third season, and/or if Beal is excellent as a rookie. 

Load