Multiple times this summer, I’ve heard it claimed by fans, pundits, and current/former coaches, players, and front office types that the Wizards are deep. My instinctual reaction is skepticism. I delved into statistical analysis in part because so much of what I heard from the “experts” on TV when I was a kid didn’t seem accurate.
I’d watch Player X (names redacted to protect the innocent) would grab a rebound, and I’d hear the “analyst” (almost always a former player) make a claim like, “Player X is
a strong rebounder.” Then The Sporting News would arrive in a couple weeks, and I’d look it up and see that Player X almost never got rebounds.
I’d see highlight packages that included a volume scorer like Dominique Wilkins dishing out multiple assists — clearly assembled to create an impression that he was a generous playmaker. TSN would let me know he was averaging 2-3 assists per game. (This is in no way meant to smear Wilkins, who was a) one of my favorite players, and b) earned his Human Highlight Film moniker.)
As I’ve written before, I wasn’t alone in this observation. One time, when he maybe 12 year old, I was watching a game with my son. Well, I was tracking the Wizards’ defense, and he was working on a school project and listening to the announcers spew statistical nuggets and other factoids while I sighed and the Wizards got pummeled. Again.
Anyway, at one point then-broadcaster Steve Buckhantz intoned something like the Wizards being third in the league in total offensive rebounds over the past nine days (or something), and my son asked, “If the Wizards are so great at everything, why do they always lose?”
So, I approach this “Wizards are deep” claim with skepticism. Let’s unpack.
“Deep” in sports generally refers to the idea that a team has multiple good players at the same or multiple positions. When the San Francisco 49ers had Joe Montana and Steve Young at quarterback, they had depth. When the Washington Redskins had Joe Theisman and Tom Flick, they did not.
Here’s my current best guess at the team’s depth chart for this season:
- G: Trae Young | Tre Johnson | Bub Carrington | Tre Mann
- W: Bilal Coulibaly | Kyshawn George | Khris Middleton
- F: AJ Dybantsa | Will Riley | Justin Champagnie
- C: Alex Sarr | Anthony Davis | DeAndre Ayton | Tristan Vukcevic
Note: In my thinking, there are four NBA positions nowadays — guard, wings, forward and centers. Coaches can (and do) mix and match when making lineups. This year, I anticipate the Wizards will start games with one guard (Young), two centers (Sarr and Davis), a forward (Dybantsa) and a wing (either Coulibaly or George).
Also, if you think Johnson is more of a “traditional” shooting guard/small forward type than a shooting guard/point guard type, feel free to mentally shift him to the wing bucket.
So far, this is a bunch of names. Part of being deep is that the players have to be good. Entering the season and assuming health, the Wizards can be confident that Davis, Young, and Sarr will be good to very good. Barring a catastrophic case of Idon’tcareitis Ayton probably makes that list too.
That’s four guys we can be sure will be good. Three of them play the same position.
My next tier is the probably at least average to maybe good. In this group: Coulibaly, George, Champagnie, Middleton. The first problem here is the Wizards don’t want to play two of them major minutes (Champagnie and Middleton). Champagnie because he’d be snacking on minutes that could go to his younger and more ballyhooed teammates. Middleton because he’s old (by NBA standards) and has had multiple significant injuries the past few years.
Next up: the probably below average (or worse) group. That includes Dybantsa and Johnson. In Dybantsa’s case it’s primarily an age-based evaluation. Not many teens are even average in the NBA. Turns out, it’s a tough and competitive league, and it takes time for a kid to learn how to excel.
By the way, arguably the only elite teenage rookie will be Dybantsa’s teammate this season. Davis posted a 178 PPA in 1,846 minutes in his age 19 season with the New Orleans Hornets. The only teen to beat that score was Zion Williams for the same franchise, but Williamson managed just 668 total minutes.
Where were we? Oh yeah, the probably below average guys. My thoughts on Johnson are draped on two main hooks: he’s young, and I didn’t see the athletic tools or all-around performance it usually takes to be an above average NBA player. I could be wrong — this is best guess, and Johnson (like any young player) can do the work and become great.
That leaves the probably not too good guys: Carrington, Riley, Vukcevic, and Mann.
By my count, that makes the Wizards six deep with average(ish)-or-better (eight if you count the two guys they don’t want to play much) and two more who probably won’t be good this season but will play anyway in hopes they will become good in the relatively near future.
I could see some upwards push from guys I anticipate being below average, if they work hard and improve. Odds are, some of the team’s youngsters will get better and some won’t. One of the lessons of NBA history is that it’s not safe to assume young players will improve. Sometimes they just don’t.
So, I think the best way to talk about the Wizards and depth is to say they might be deep this season, if several players improve more than anticipated. I don’t think it’s safe to believe they have the kind of depth that will make them competitive in any consistent way. There’s too much uncertainty around the relative quality of half the roster, which is compounded by significant uncertainty about the health and reliability of others the team hopes will form a veteran foundation.
