The Washington Wizards’ second most productive player last season was someone they acquired with a 10-day contract in Febuary of 2024. A couple weeks later, they signed him to a two-way deal. A calendar year later, they signed him to a four-year $10 million contract with a team option on the final season.
I’m talking about Justin Champagnie, of course. And Champagnie — despite haphazard minutes and an apparently eternal case of bedhead — has already outperformed the contract. Don’t be shocked if the Wizards decline that option so they can give him a better deal after next season. Well, depending on a big “if.”
When the Wizards start trying to win, Justin Champagnie could end up with a bigger role.
When the Wizards start trying to win, Justin Champagnie could end up with a bigger role.
NBAE via Getty Images
If the Wizards hold an open competition for roles and minutes, I suspect Justin Champagnie would emerge as one of the team’s starting forwards. “Suspect” is doing some work because the Wizards have kept him in a reserve role while they gave developmental minutes to their draft picks.
Only thing: on a per minute basis, Champagnie has outperformed all of them, except Alex Sarr.
I kinda get the coaching staff’s reticence at elevating him. His game is more “four” than “three” though his size (6-6, 205) is more “three” than “four.” He’s somehow effective, efficient, and productive…and shot just 31.9% from three this season — exactly the same percentage as Bilal Coulibaly.
Basketball-Reference’s position estimator doesn’t know what to do with him. B-R guesstimate’s he spent 77% of his minutes at small forward or shooting guard. Drill into the lineup data and you’ll quickly see he played close to zero minutes at either.
Eliding the issue that traditional position designations are meaningless in the modern NBA, Champagnie’s real position is “forward.” He rebounds, defends up in size reasonably well, is a willing and effective screen-setter, and he has some of the requisite perimeter skills basically everyone except behemoths and freaks need. And the behemoths and freaks often need some perimeter skills too.
Last season, the Wizards entered the season with Champagnie firmly planted on the bench. He didn’t surpass six minutes until the sixth game of the season. After a couple strong games in limited minutes, he returned to single digit playing time for three more games. The on-court time got more steady after that, but he went over 30 minutes just five times all season.
This season, Champagnie set new per possession career bests in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. He set a new low in turnovers (just 1.5 per 100 possessions) and a new high in offensive rating (nearly 10 points per possessions better than average).
And while I’ve previously cited research to explain away the lack of plus/minus impact from his younger teammates, the Wizards have been better each of the past two seasons with Champagnie on the floor — +3.5 per 100 possessions last season, and +4.8 the year before.
This is not to say the Wizards have been good with him out there. They’ve been -9.0 or worse both seasons. It’s more accurate to say they’ve been less awful when he plays.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think Champagnie is a viable starting forward on a good team. He’d be a valuable rotation guy on a good team — a seventh or eighth man who will make a bunch of right plays, avoid mistakes, and rise to the intensity of truly competitive basketball.
And I think there’s a better than 50/50 chance that he’ll take minutes from more celebrated teammates in a fair competition.
Below is Champagnie’s performance ekg for this season. The graph suggests a greater level of consistency than the game-to-game data shows. The 5-game, 10-game, 20-game, and full season rolling PPA scores were relatively consistent, but his score in my consistency index was 84 — about the same as Sarr’s. That’s much more consistent than Coulibaly’s or Kyshawn George’s. I suspect the consistency of his production would improve with a more consistent diet of minutes.
If there’s one thing on Champagnie’s page in the spreadsheet it’s a relative lack of high-end games. This season, he had just six games with a PPA over 200, and 17 over 150.
If I had to add one more thing, it’d be that his overall PPA score (105) this season was just around average.
Okay, there’s one final thing: this was his age 24 season, an age where players typically have made their biggest leaps forward. From 25 forward, improvement tends to be more incremental before beginning to decline in their late 20s and early 30s. And then there’s often a cliff (at least traditionally) at ages 32-33.
That’s jumping ahead quite a bit — the point here is that he’s at an age where “what you see is what you get” is a likely outcome. The words I’d use to describe what I’ve seen are ones like decent and competent. I’m hopeful guys like George and Coulibaly are able to relegate him to the bench.
But my guess is when they’re battling for postseason seeding or they’re in the playoffs, Champagnie will be out there in high-leverage situations and one or more of his more ballyhooed teammates will be watching from the sidelines.