The Wizards lost again, this time to the Charlotte Hornets. It was their ninth straight defeat, and they’re back in last place.
The Wizards starting lineup was the youngest in NBA history — Will Riley and Tre Johnson are both 19. Alex Sarr and Bub Carrington are 20. Kyshawn George was the old guy at 22. Yes, they should have started Justin Champagnie (age 24), but I like using the opportunity to get Riley his first NBA start and taking advantage to set the record.
The game was replete with some of the same-old-same-old. They had plenty of defensive breakdowns. They got dominated on the glass. And yet, I saw some things in this one that I _think_ are positive signs for the future.
* Throughout the night, Sarr’s combination of length, agility, and skills were way too much for the Hornets to handle — at least on the offensive end. He was too strong and long for Moussa Diabate and Miles Bridges. He was much too quick for Ryan Kalkbrenner. He shot over defenders whether big or small.
* Jamir Watkins was a defensive menace. He tallied five steals and two blocks, including an open-court strip of Collin Sexton (which resulted in a breakaway dunk) and alert plays in passing lanes.
* Repeatedly in my notes are entries about the team’s well-designed offensive system. Some examples:
* At 9:11 of the second quarter, the Wizards ran a high screen action to get an open look out top. If you’ve watched any game this season, you’ve seen this action. In this example, Sarr screen for Johnson, who immediately went into a three-point shot upon receiving the pass from George. He got fouled and ended up at the free throw line. This is an example of Washington’s offensive design — it’s a difficult action to defend and comes with a set of options if the primary action is covered. Brian Keefe’s challenge: getting his exuberant youngsters to consistently execute the system.
* Probably my favorite observation in this one was noticing something new: Tre Johnson producing gravity. In transition during the third quarter, the threat of Johnson at the three-point line drew a hyper-aggressive closeout. He attacked the closeout and drove middle. Charlotte’s defense collapsed on him, he kicked to George, who got a wide open three, which he missed. He drew defensive attention beyond the three-point line throughout the second half, which helped give his teammates more space to operate.
* In the fourth quarter, the Wizards defense was actually good. The results (108 defensive rating) weren’t all-time great, but their communication was excellent, their switches were seamless, and they worked together as a unit to keep Hornets players from driving. They forced Charlotte deeper into the shot clock and forced them to take difficult shots. Charlotte made enough of those shots to secure the win, but the defensive process was mostly what it needed to be.
* Sturdier perimeter defense — meaning preventing or cutting off drives — is important to Washington’s defense. Even in that fourth quarter, Charlotte paint touches led to open threes. They shot just 1-8 from deep in the period.
* Champagnie and Sarr both had terrific fourth quarters.
* I don’t know the numbers, but my eye tells me Sarr is superb when switching onto smaller players on the perimeter. His ability to get low and move was key to Washington’s fourth quarter defense.
* Another great example of Johnson’s gravity came with about 4:10 left in the game. The Wizards set stagger screens to bring Johnson up from the corner. Charlotte covered the initial action well, so Johnson cleared to the weak side, and Carrington dribbled to the right. Sarr immediately re-screened for Johnson to come back to the middle, who caught the pass on the move and drove into the lane. Four (4!) defenders reacted to him. He kicked to Champagnie in the corner, who swung it to Carrington out top for a wide open three.
* One more example of Keefe’s good play design — with 2:30 left in the game, the Wizards ran a devilish baseline out of bounds play. Washington gets a surprisingly high number of layups and dunks on BLOB plays, and this was one of them. In this version, Champagnie ran a fake screen action — it _looked_ to the defense like he was going to set a back screen for a teammate to cut to the basket. At the last second, he slipped the screen and made the cut himself. He came open for a dunk. Superb design.
The Wizards have a long ways to go with players executing the scheme, getting stronger, and getting smarter. They really need George to become a consistently better decision-maker…if he’s going to retain a significant on-ball roll. Still, I think there’s reason to be encouraged. They’re showing improvement and there’s room for plenty more.
Below are the four factors that decide wins and losses in basketball — shooting (efg), rebounding (offensive rebounds), ball handling (turnovers), fouling (free throws made).
The four factors are measured by:
* eFG% (effective field goal percentage, which accounts for the three-point shot)
* OREB% (offensive rebound percentage)
* TOV% (turnover percentage — turnovers divided by possessions)
* FTM/FGA (free throws made divided by field goal attempts)
eFG%
55.7%
60.8%
54.4%
OREB%
22.7%
33.3%
26.1%
TOV%
12.9%
20.9%
12.8%
FTM/FGA
0.083
0.291
0.210
PACE
100
99.6
ORTG
114
118
115.6
PPA is my overall production metric, which credits players for things they do that help a team win (scoring, rebounding, playmaking, defending) and dings them for things that hurt (missed shots, turnovers, bad defense, fouls).
[**PPA**](https://kevinbroom.com/ppa/) is a per possession metric designed for larger data sets. In small sample sizes, the numbers can get weird. In PPA, 100 is average, higher is better and replacement level is 45. For a single game, replacement level isn’t much use, and I reiterate the caution about small samples sometimes producing weird results.
POSS is the number of possessions each player was on the floor in this game.
ORTG = offensive rating, which is points produced per individual possessions x 100. League average so far this season is 115.1. Points produced is not the same as points scored. It includes the value of assists and offensive rebounds, as well as sharing credit when receiving an assist.
USG = offensive usage rate. Average is 20%.
ORTG and USG are versions of stats created by former Wizards assistant coach Dean Oliver and modified by me. ORTG is an efficiency measure that accounts for the value of shooting, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. USG includes shooting from the floor and free throw line, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers.
+PTS = “Plus Points” is a measure of the points gained or lost by each player based on their efficiency in this game compared to league average efficiency on the same number of possessions. A player with an offensive rating (points produced per possession x 100) of 100 who uses 20 possessions would produce 20 points. If the league average efficiency is 114, the league — on average — would produced 22.8 points in the same 20 possessions. So, the player in this hypothetical would have a +PTS score of -2.8.
_Players are sorted by total production in the game._
Justin Champagnie
32
67
147
14.8%
3.1
216
4
Jamir Watkins
29
60
135
14.2%
1.7
199
12
Bub Carrington
32
68
136
17.9%
2.5
160
\-12
Alex Sarr
37
78
118
21.9%
0.4
99
\-16
Tre Johnson
37
76
111
28.1%
\-1.0
82
\-2
Will Riley
23
49
131
9.8%
0.8
79
\-22
Kyshawn George
25
53
87
28.7%
\-4.4
66
\-10
Sharife Cooper
9
20
145
9.8%
0.6
123
6
Malaki Branham
8
16
94
23.1%
\-0.8
42
8
Anthony Gill
7
15
55
14.4%
\-1.3
\-116
12
Brandon Miller
33
70
124
26.9%
1.6
204
15
Moussa Diabate
32
67
146
13.5%
2.8
146
13
Kon Knueppel
32
67
127
18.0%
1.4
130
\-9
LaMelo Ball
32
66
108
30.9%
\-1.6
122
6
Miles Bridges
29
60
124
25.2%
1.3
132
3
Collin Sexton
16
33
108
24.1%
\-0.6
195
\-8
Ryan Kalkbrenner
16
33
159
12.4%
1.8
134
\-9
Josh Green
15
32
180
7.9%
1.6
78
10
Grant Williams
19
40
60
11.3%
\-2.5
1
1
Sion James
16
34
65
28.0%
\-4.8
\-70
\-2
See More:
* [Washington Wizards Statistical Analysis](/washington-wizards-statistical-analysis)