Why, Wizards, Why?

I watched Friday night's thrilling overtime win against Phoenix and, while I certainly enjoyed the thrill of victory, I was almost sad to see the Wizards win. The trouble is that when you see the 'zards take down one of the league's elite teams -- on the road, in the fourth game in five nights, no less -- you start developing dreams of glory. But these are still the Wizards, the team that's managed to get blown out by New York and Memphis. What's the deal? Noam Scheiber has a theory that he spells out here which happens to be very similar to one I concocted during a Saturday morning Metro ride.

I think the actual explanation, though, is simpler. Look here and, roughly speaking, you'll see that whether or not the Wizards win seems determined almost exclusively by how many points Gilbert Arenas scores. There are really only two games -- a December 9 loss to Houston where he scored 41, and an ugly November 28 win over Atlanta where he scored 21 -- where this breaks down. It would be worth doing a more sophisticated analysis that distinguished scoring driven by a high usage rate, scoring driven by high shooting efficiency, and scoring driven by a fast pace. One way or another, though, this mostly seems to come down to the wattage of the team's star power.

Comments

"I was almost sad to see the Wizards win."

You misspelled the team name. There ain't no "D" in the Wizars.

Posted by Petey | December 24, 2006 2:49 AM

"One way or another, though, this mostly seems to come down to the wattage of the team's star power."

Welcome to the NBA. Is this the first game you've watched?

This is a far more valuable concept than anything you'll pick up in a Dave Berri book. Big players make big plays. Big plays win big games. It's not all that complicated.

And that's why the Phoenix game is so impressive. It's utterly insane to claim you're going to drop 50 on someone out of revenge. To go out and actually back up the claim is a form of greatness.

Gilbert's whole 'chip on the shoulder' schtick really isn't schtick at all. He's a solid second or third team all-NBA player right now, and he's been loudly claiming that he deserves to be first team. Now, if he can go and back up that particular claim, the 'zards will have a serious shot at going very deep into the playoffs over the next couple of years.

Star power wins NBA titles. The proper analysis isn't about plugging usage rates into a spreadsheet. It's about determining the wattage of Gilbert's star.

Posted by Petey | December 24, 2006 3:16 AM

Having watched the game twice, I'm worried about Phoenix. And here's why: 15 game winning streak, close game/overtime, the only time more than 1 or two of the bench guys were standing was when Amare went baseline on Jamison. Bad, bad team mo for a supposedly tight bunch.

Also, I love that Petey is now citing to FreeDarko. Are you StopMikeLupica over there? There is a degree of Isiah love that rings familiar...

Posted by Pooh | December 24, 2006 3:38 AM

I have no particular position on the efficacy of statistical analysis of basketball players/teams/games, but Petey, unless individual star power is something you can figure out independent of a team's wins, you're just saying that successful teams are successful. Or maybe you’re making an interesting claim about how star power matters so much in the NBA that the quality of your second or third best player isn’t very important, but that’s obviously a claim which statistics would either verify or falsify.

Posted by washerdreyer | December 24, 2006 3:40 AM

"I love that Petey is now citing to FreeDarko."

I think those sketches are fucking brilliant.

"Are you StopMikeLupica over there?"

I haven't commented over there, but were I to, I'd almost definitely do it as 'Petey'. Lupica is a bit of a self-serving scumbag with little interesting to say, however. And I thought that even prior to his Global War on Zeke.

"I'm worried about Phoenix ... Bad, bad team mo for a supposedly tight bunch."

Meh. They were a tired team. They got stuck in the snowstorm in Denver, and it was the last game before xmas.

You should be worried about Phoenix because they don't seem all that good to me. Helluva regular season team though.

I'm about to start 7 Seconds or Less, which I'm pretty psyched to read.

Posted by Petey | December 24, 2006 4:10 AM

"...unless individual star power is something you can figure out independent of a team's wins..."

Of course it is.

Posted by Petey | December 24, 2006 4:15 AM

Arenas is now demanding a contract extension which should keep the Wizards wonderfully mediocre for years to come.

Posted by Rob | December 24, 2006 11:09 AM

The loss to the Knicks probably has more to do with the Knicks than the Wiz. They often compete and beat some of the top teams in the league, but then get wrecked by the likes of the Sixers (a la last night). This sort of inability to be up for every game seems to be a sign of bad coaching, but the Wiz loss to the Knicks is, I think, more about the fact that all their talent will come together for a great game every once in a while.

Posted by brian | December 24, 2006 12:03 PM

Based solely upon my opinion formed after viewing the games, I would say the zards early losses can be blamed on the lack of an inside (defensive) presence in the fourth quarter. EJ simply wasn't playing Etan or Haywood in the fourth; instead he played Jamison at the 5, with predictable results. Now, with the emergence of Haywood in the last 8-10 games, we might see EJ actually having the confidence to play one or both of them throughout. So I blame the coach in part, but also given the personnel difficulties he was having, it's not a stretch to say the players had not yet proven that he should have confidence in them.

Posted by dc | December 24, 2006 2:58 PM

Also, that was the best game DeShawn Stevenosn has played, like, ever, right?

Posted by Pooh | December 24, 2006 10:17 PM

Star power wins NBA titles. The proper analysis isn't about plugging usage rates into a spreadsheet. It's about determining the wattage of Gilbert's star.

That's much too black-and-white a statement. If it were true to the extent you seem to be claiming, Garnett would have a ring by now. But, in reality, Garnett hasn't even been to the playoffs in a few years.

Aside - don't look now, but (despite the loss to the Sixers, who - hey - look pretty good) the Knicks are probaby the team to beat in the Atlantic. They're coming together pretty well...

Posted by Al | December 25, 2006 12:44 PM

"That's much too black-and-white a statement. If it were true to the extent you seem to be claiming, Garnett would have a ring by now. But, in reality, Garnett hasn't even been to the playoffs in a few years."

You obviously need the glue guys, and having a second guy with mega-wattage is pretty damn helpful too. In other words, put MJ in his prime on the Charlotte Bobcats, and that team is struggling to hit .500.

But almost every year, the NBA champ has a legit 1st team All-NBA player on it. There's only one ball. A single player who's got an edge on his elite peers gives his team a big advantage in going deep into the playoffs.

Posted by Petey | December 26, 2006 9:48 PM