Wizards Training Camp Day 3

The Wizards will take the court for the first to practices at 10:45 or so. The second workout is scheduled for 6 p.m. One of the interesting things so far is that Gilbert Arenas has been leading a group out onto the court extra early each day. On Saturday, eight guys went. Yesterday, 14 showed up.

"Coach Arenas" as Eddie Jordan called him is staying as involved as possible. That is a huge departure from the approach he took following his surgery last November. Arenas was hardly ever around, did not travel and was not the lively lockeroom presence that he normally is.

"These guys are here two hours before practice and they are putting a lot of work in individually and with coaches," Jordan said yesterday after ending the official practice early. "Once we see that we've got the quality of work in at a high level and then I see it diminishing a little bit, then I'd rather stop it and let everyone enjoy the quality of it rather than the quantity."

Following the morning practice, I'll drop an update. Not sure how Antawn Jamison is feeling today on that hip but I'll let you know later.


By Ivan Carter |  September 29, 2008; 10:38 AM ET
Previous: McGuire is Making a Move | Next: Wizards Get Some Scrimmaging in

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



AJ might want to check with Dr. Andrews for a 2nd opinion??????? GA might want to give him a call too......

Posted by: Bullets Fever #1 | September 29, 2008 11:10 AM

GO REDSKINS...I mean Wizards!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Burg w/ a U | September 29, 2008 11:15 AM

I'm loving what I'm seeing/hearing in the early going. Teamwork, chemistry, effort, and improvement from the youngins. Everything we are looking for. We know what the group is capable of, we just need to find out if they are likely to capitalize.

Posted by: www.ultimatefootballnetwork.com | September 29, 2008 11:53 AM

Again, it's Gil leading by example by organizing shooting practices. Leadership isn't always about being vocal.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 12:08 PM

Ivan, how's McGee looking so far. Is he "raw talent" that we have to wait 2 or 3 years on? Or can he make a contribution to this team this upcoming year?

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 12:21 PM

Normally I list the minutes I hope to see guys get during the season. It's subject to change but based on our current roster, this is about what I would hope for:

AD - 30 minutes at PG
Dee Brown - 10 minutes at PG
Juan Dixon - 6 minutes at PG/situational offensive sub

GA - 35 minutes when he's fully back
AD - 10 minutes at PG
Dee Brown - leftover minutes depending on matchup (more against small quick PG's)
Juan Dixon - mop up time only after GA is back

DStephenson - 32 mpg at SG
NY - 16 mpg at SG
Juan Dixon - situational offensive sub

CB - 35 mpg at SF
DM - 13 mpg at SF

AJ - 30 mpg at PF
AB - 18 mpg at PF
JMcgee - scraps/situational defensive sub/blowouts

BTH - 30 mpg at C
ET - 10 mpg at C
AB - 8 mpg at C depending on matchup
OP - scrap minutes/ situational offensive sub

DSong - no time / practice player


The 'situational sub' tag means that against certain guys we may have to play the matchups. We might need Dee Brown against small quick guards or we might want more Juan Dixon if Deshawn's shot is off.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 12:25 PM

...and if/when CB gets hurt, AB should start in his place and play 35 minutes. He's my first starter at PF or SF in case of injury. In fact, if he really has gained weight he might be my first guy at C as well.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 12:27 PM

Mark, Songaila is our best shooting big man. I know he's only 6'8 or so, but he's perfect for pick and roll situations. I see him getting about 15-20 minutes a game. Plus he's got a nasty streak that most of the Wiz can't bring.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 12:32 PM

we might want more Juan Dixon if Deshawn's shot is off.


Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 12:25 PM

LMAO. Understatement of the Year!!!

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 12:40 PM

Stevenson is a better career shooter from 2 and 3 than Dixon. He's also a better defender, ballhandler, and passer.

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 1:52 PM

Again, it's Gil leading by example by organizing shooting practices. Leadership isn't always about being vocal.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 12:08 PM

And Arenas said as much in a video interview on the Wizards site. He said he "doesn't want the leadership role..... in public." but that he was helped when he was a young player in Golden State - so he wants to help the younger players now.

Posted by: Rook | September 29, 2008 2:02 PM

..then I guess we need to plan for more DS than Dixon, Kal. I guess I'm giving him credit for his UMd days but it sure seems liek he shot the ball pretty good when he was here. I know that ballhandling was his weakness, for sure.

I'm all for NY getting any spare SG minutes anyway. I think he's got a good chance to be pretty special.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 2:05 PM

I'm not sure if here's a way to get the info from lenovo or not but if I really needed a bucket and had to choose between Juan and Deshawn, I'm leaning towards Juan still regardless of the career numbers. I just feel like he is able to get a better shot. He probably feels that way, too. That might explain his worse career numbers. DS has very good shot selection usually. I remember he was "Mr Fifty" for a while.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Until Dixon actually makes the team, planning his minutes is putting the cart before the horse.

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 2:10 PM

If Dixon were so able to "get a better shot" he'd have a better shooting percentage. He's a streak shooter in the classic sense. If he's hot, he can put up points in bunches. If he's off, he'll lay out more bricks than Habitat for Humanity. And when he does get good shots, they're generally set shots off someone else's set up. He's too small and too weak a ballhandler to reliably create shots when guarded by opposing 2 guards

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 2:14 PM

I'm not sure if here's a way to get the info from lenovo or not but if I really needed a bucket and had to choose between Juan and Deshawn, I'm leaning towards Juan still regardless of the career numbers. I just feel like he is able to get a better shot. He probably feels that way, too. That might explain his worse career numbers. DS has very good shot selection usually. I remember he was "Mr Fifty" for a while.

Posted by: mark | September 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Who cares? Neither are going to be major options in key situations anyway.

And I'd take DeShawn and his more efficient offense anyway.

Posted by: Pradamaster | September 29, 2008 2:29 PM

Juan is a much better shooter than DS. You can't go off of numbers all the time. Numbers lie. If I take 2 shots and make 1, then i'm a 50% shooter. DS is a good spot up shooter but as for pure shooting and scoring, Juan is better

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 2:56 PM

Untrue on every mark.

Neither is a great shooter, but Stevenson is a more efficient shooter because he has better shot selection and is more judicious about what shots he takes (of course, he can afford to be because shooting isn't his only asset). Dixon is a gunner, a volume shooter who thinks nothing about throwing up 8 shots to hit two. He has to because he knows that aside from putting the ball in the hole, he brings nothing to the table. He is, by no definition, a good shooter. Most streak gunners aren't.

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:04 PM

"You can't go off of numbers all the time. "

Preaching to the converted. Doesn't change the facts though.

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:06 PM

And what, exactly is "pure" shooting versus "spot up" shooting? There's no difference in this case regardless, because Dixon is a spot-up shooter. He doesn't create off the dribble or penetrate to the hole.

As for Dixon being a better scorer ... their career scoring averages are pretty much identical (8.7 vs. 8.9).

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:09 PM

Good point. But saying Juan is one dimensional isn't fair. I think he's the all time steals leader @ UMD. And with the Wiz he averaged 2 steals a game.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 3:14 PM

I guess i'm going off of Dixon's Terp days when he was the primary scorer and had plays ran for him. Not much to go off of for Stevenson. Didn't really follow his game until he came to DC. But from what i've witnessed since his arrival is he's a decent shooter who benefits from playing with 3 guys who can draw a double team, leaving him wide open. But he was exposed, in my eyes, the past two playoffs when in 07 he shot 10% for the series and except for game 3 in 08, put up the exact same numbers.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 3:20 PM

Of course neither one of them is a better shooter than Roger Mason. Or passer. Or ball handler for that matter. Should've found a way to keep him.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 3:23 PM

"Neither is a great shooter, but Stevenson is a more efficient shooter because he has better shot selection and is more judicious about what shots he takes (of course, he can afford to be because shooting isn't his only asset). Dixon is a gunner, a volume shooter who thinks nothing about throwing up 8 shots to hit two. He has to because he knows that aside from putting the ball in the hole, he brings nothing to the table. He is, by no definition, a good shooter. Most streak gunners aren't.

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:04 PM "

If you look at the comparative stats, you'd note that Juan averages 19.9 min with 8.9 pts, while DS averages 24.3 min with 8.7 pts.

Therefore, the statement that DS is a more "efficient shooter" is wrong. In fact, Juan is a more efficient scorer based on minutes played vs. output.

Average field goal attempts is almost a wash at 8.1 vs. 7.9 respectively.

Juan takes more 3's, but has a lower 3 pt. FG percentage.

Assists are almost a wash at 1.7 vs. 1.9.

Juan is more of a money FT shooter with .830 vs. .709.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=1707

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=808

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 3:25 PM

"Of course neither one of them is a better shooter than Roger Mason. Or passer. Or ball handler for that matter. Should've found a way to keep him.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 3:23 PM "

If Mason was so good, then why didn't he start?

Mason was a decent player for a one and done playoff team, but he was playing mostly against 2nd team competition. He ain't all that.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 3:31 PM

"Therefore, the statement that DS is a more "efficient shooter" is wrong. In fact, Juan is a more efficient scorer based on minutes played vs. output."

Nope. Efficiency isn't based on point total or minutes. It's based on points per shot. Stevenson takes fewer shots to get the same number of points, making him a more efficient shooter by definition. The difference isn't huge, but it's there.

And Dixon's FT shooting is a pretty much negligible factor because he almost never gets to the line (about 1.6 times per game).

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:33 PM

"I guess i'm going off of Dixon's Terp days when he was the primary scorer and had plays ran for him. Not much to go off of for Stevenson. Didn't really follow his game until he came to DC. But from what i've witnessed since his arrival is he's a decent shooter who benefits from playing with 3 guys who can draw a double team, leaving him wide open. But he was exposed, in my eyes, the past two playoffs when in 07 he shot 10% for the series and except for game 3 in 08, put up the exact same numbers.

Posted by: C.Bell | September 29, 2008 3:20 PM "

DS is really a spot up shooter and defender. He's a kick back kind of guy, who gets the kickback from guys who doubled up or are stopped when driving.

Juan though, can penetrate/drive to create his own shot.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 3:34 PM

No, he can't. Not effectively. Not in the NBA. He's lacks the ball skills to get easy separation off the dribble against good defenders or finish around the rim over bigger players (which most players in the NBA are), unlike Nash or Iverson, two other small guards who excel at it.

Posted by: kaloram | September 29, 2008 3:39 PM

"Nope. Efficiency isn't based on point total or minutes. It's based on points per shot. Stevenson takes fewer shots to get the same number of points, making him a more efficient shooter by definition. The difference isn't huge, but it's there.

And Dixon's FT shooting is a pretty much negligible factor because he almost never gets to the line (about 1.6 times per game).

Posted by: kalorama | September 29, 2008 3:33 PM "

Unfortunately, not all shots are created equal and efficiency as how you define it is not as critical as effectiveness (pts/min).

Going by your definition, if a player plays 40 minutes and goes 1 for 1 for a 3 pointer, then he's really efficient by your definition with an efficiency ratio of 3 to 1.

In the end, it's a wash between these two players.

You then can factor in salary, which shows that Juan is the better investment based on "efficiency"/salary.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 4:33 PM

"No, he can't. Not effectively. Not in the NBA. He's lacks the ball skills to get easy separation off the dribble against good defenders or finish around the rim over bigger players (which most players in the NBA are), unlike Nash or Iverson, two other small guards who excel at it.

Posted by: kaloram | September 29, 2008 3:39 PM "

I guess then, that he should camp out at the 3 pt line like DS and make his money there.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 4:34 PM

Dixon takes more shots per minute than Stevenson, shoots a lower percentage, and scores the same number of points.

That's it right there. He does more work to produce the same result: a little under 9 points per game. That's inefficiency no matter how you slice it.

Factor in the obvious facts that aside from scoring, Stevenson brings more to the table (defense, ballhandling, passing, rebounding) than Dixon, and it's not even close.

Posted by: kalaroma | September 29, 2008 5:40 PM

"Dixon takes more shots per minute than Stevenson, shoots a lower percentage, and scores the same number of points.

That's it right there. He does more work to produce the same result: a little under 9 points per game. That's inefficiency no matter how you slice it.

Factor in the obvious facts that aside from scoring, Stevenson brings more to the table (defense, ballhandling, passing, rebounding) than Dixon, and it's not even close.

Posted by: kalaroma | September 29, 2008 5:40 PM "

Effectiveness is the best measurement and is really measured as output over time.

Based on that, Juan clearly has the edge as he produces about the same amount of points over less time.

You're basing your argument on "work" as it relates to taking a shot (eg. Juan takes more shots but has same average score).

Work in fact is defined by the amount of time played. Work by your definition is the number of shots, but nobody is just standing behind the line shooting a set shot.

True "work" is the exertion of energy involved in driving and getting the shot off.

Therefore, your definition of work (# of shots) is flawed because you omit the energy expended to create and execute the shot because it can't be quantified.

Therefore, the most accurate indicator is points/time on the court, and Juan wins that one when you consider points/minutes played.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 29, 2008 9:37 PM

"True "work" is the exertion of energy involved in driving and getting the shot off."

Then Dixon should have plenty of energy, given the rarity with which he does either of those things (thus his paltry 1.6 per game FTA average).

As for the rest .. BS as usual.

Posted by: kalorama | September 30, 2008 12:57 AM

"Then Dixon should have plenty of energy, given the rarity with which he does either of those things (thus his paltry 1.6 per game FTA average).

As for the rest .. BS as usual.

Posted by: kalorama | September 30, 2008 12:57 AM "

LOL!

Your definition of efficiency is weak.

Not only is your definition of "work" bogus, but you don't even differentiate the fact that different shots, although part of the point total, have different value (3 pointer vs. 2 pointer vs. free throw).

BS as usual.

Again dude, it's points/PT.

Posted by: DC Man88 | September 30, 2008 8:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company