Monday, March 11, 2013
Is John Wall a Franchise Player?
Let me start by telling you something that you already know: losing sucks.
Ask any Bobcat fan (provided, of course, that you can find a Bobcat fan).
Losing, inevitably, breeds high draft picks. And those picks should, in theory, make teams better. For example the Wizards have selected with one of the Top 6 selections in each of the past three drafts. Odds--hell, even common sense--would suggest that they would hit on a franchise player in at least one of those drafts. The question is: have they? In those three drafts the Wizards have selected John Wall, Jan Vesely and Bradley Beal. In terms of threesomes they rank somewhere behind the new Star Wars trilogy, and slightly ahead of that Cuervo-fueled threesome you had Freshman year of college.
It's not really the Wizards fault, though. They were awarded (yes, I don't believe that the "lottery" actually exists) the Number One pick in 2010. In 2008 the No. 1 pick was Derrick Rose, 2009 was Blake Griffin, and in 2011 it was Kyrie Irving. Rose. Griffin. Wall. Irving. Which one doesn't belong on this list?
What I will day is this: John Wall is a very good basketball player. Is he a franchise player? I don't think so.
Neither does Stan Van Gundy.
In a Washington Post blog post from early January (before Wall returned this season) Van Gundy aired out his feelings. He told the Post's Dan Steinberg:
“I’d love to tell you you’re two years away; I really don’t [see it]. That roster doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I know they’ll be better when John Wall comes back. He’s certainly got talent, but I don’t know that even John Wall is a great player to build your franchise around. I don’t know WHO you’re building around, so it’s tough to even think about what the construction of your team is. That’s just a bad basketball team.”
The article was posted in early January, when the Wizards were reeling and Wall had yet to return. In context, Van Gundy's statements are certainly justifiable. Now, in early March, they are debatable.
Wall has played in 28 games this season and based purely on averages he is having his worst statistical season. He is only averaging 30 minutes per contest thus far, however, and as the Wizards continue to incorporate him into the rotation (his minutes have steadily been increasing) his numbers are likely to improve.
But that's not the story. Basketball is the quintessential team sport, especially in ways that Baseball and Football are not. In Basketball, the fate of a team is linked to the intertwining teamwork of the 8 or 9 players who check in each night. There are screens set, rebounds snatched, passes thrown, shots taken and made, all of which contribute to the success or failure of a team on a given night. John Wall, as the starting point guard and face of the franchise, is expected to contribute more than others. He just isn't.
There is always talk about the intangible "leap" that players make on a year-to-year basis. Kyrie Irving made the "leap" this year, so to did Paul George. The "leap" usually takes place after a year or two of professional experience. So Year 2 or Year 3. The Wizards are currently in Year 3 of the John Wall Experience (Or, as Wikipedia calls it: "The John Wall Era"), and have seen marginal success. In terms of winning percentage there is an upward trend, though going from an F to an F+ is still a failing grade. From 28% to 30.3% to 32.8% this season, the Wizards are slightly better, even if it looks like they will once again find themselves in the Top 6 of the 2013 Draft. The Wizards have better players and are more talented than in 2010-2011, Wall's rookie season, but the proof is in the pudding. The Wizards aren't winning that many more games. And John Wall isn't any better than he was as a rookie.
The biggest knock against Wall, and the one so many people seem to harp upon, is his penchant for turning the ball over. And that's true. In fact, Wall has become more reckless with the basketball in his three years in the league. His turnover percentage, an estimate of turnovers per 100 possessions, has increased every year, culminating in 2013's 19.9%. Or, to put it another way, one-fifth of Wall's plays end up in the hands of opponents. If that seems like a lot, it's because it is. Wall also uses the lion share of Wizards possessions (27.6%), something not altogether unexpected from a No. 1 pick and face of the franchise. Obviously, it's the lack of production that Wall gives the Wizards that draws the ire of people like me.
Putting his numbers in some context with comparable point guards in the NBA, it's clear that John Wall does not belong in the class of the NBA's second tier point guards. Brandon Jennings TOV% and usage rate are 12.8% and 24.1%, Deron Williams' are 15.7% and 23.8%, Russell Westbrook's are 13.8% and 32.4% and Tony Parker's are 12.5% and 28.2%. (Guys like Rajon Rondo, Steve Nash, Ricky Rubio and Chris Paul are too pass-first to be compared with Wall, and Kyrie Irving and Stephen Curry are too score-first). Wall's style of play is reckless. He flies up and down the court with a degree of reckless abandon, making ill-advised passes into non-existent windows, forcing fast-break lay-ups (and a one man face-break offense) when the team's personnel is better suited to a slow-it-down style.
At this point in his career the turnovers are concerning, but understandable. The Wizards are afraid to clip the wings of a dynamic player, someone with the ability to push the action and take advantage of lethargic defenses, and rightly so. Neutering Wall would be a huge mistake, eliminating, essentially, the only playmaking threat the Wizards have.
So, what can be done?
John Wall has to become a better shooter. That HAS to be the next step. Really, that is the only step because of how miserable Wall is shooting the ball outside of the paint.
In 2013 he is shooting 58% inside 3 feet. Between 3 feet of the rim to the three point line he is shooting 35%, and from three he is making a paltry 11%. Simply put, he can't shoot, and it is a huge disadvantage to the Wizards' offense. The biggest knock against LeBron James coming out of high school was his poor shooting ability (and by no means do I mean to compare the two players). He soon came to realize the positive effects adding a jump shot would have on his game and worked hard to add a jumper. Now, in 2013, he is shooting 56% from the field and 40% from three. If Wall can add a jump-shot to his natural driving ability he can be a special player. Until then, the Wizards have a huge question mark. What to do with John Wall?
The Wizards picked up their team option on John Wall for the 2013-2014 season in October. So the Wizards will have at least one more year of John Wall playing basketball, and one more off-season of Wizards fans tweeting #WallIn before Mr. Wall considers leaving Washington.
Given what Wall has shown in his first three seasons the Wizards may have to consider letting Wall walk. His value in the open market will be high. Like, way too high. For the Wizards, they will need to take a look at whatever kind of money the Milwaukee Bucks (or whatever team) throw Brandon Jennings this off-season, because that is going to be similar to what Wall will want, and it will likely be max money.
Are the Wizards willing to pay max money to a player whose career PER is 16.6 (league average is 15)? Should they be?
The Wizards are 15-13 since Wall has returned this season, and the offense has looked better (though still ranked just 25th in efficiency), but the clock is ticking on Wall. The decision will have to come soon. Do they trade him for draft picks and risk losing a potential franchise guy? Or do they sign him to a max deal and risk him never playing up to the money?
If the Wizards have learned anything from the Gilbert Arenas mess they found themselves in it's that the team needs to be careful with it's money. And that was with a sure thing. John Wall is no sure thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I never had a Cuervo-fueled threesome Freshman year of college but if I did, it would certainly rank higher than John Wall, Jan Vesely and Bradley Beal.
ReplyDeleteI think that's debatable.
ReplyDelete