Breaking down the Wizards’ win against the Bulls

The Washington Wizards shrugged off the injury/illness absences of Deni Avdija, Kyle Kuzma, Tyus Jones and Bilal Coulibaly and beat the Chicago Bulls for their third straight victory. This is the team’s first three-game winning streak since January 2023.

This game with the Bulls was entertaining in its own way. That is to say, if you’re entertained by slick attacks that can put the ball through the hoop, this one wasn’t for you. If you find it fun to see close competition between imperfect players doing their best, this one was a delight.

If you give me the choice, I’ll take “nice game” most of the time. But I always like hard-fought matches between guys who strive to overcome their weaknesses and fight to achieve victory.

This game defies easy explanations. The Wizards certainly owe much of this victory to stellar play up the middle. Richaun Holmes and Marvin Bagley III combined for 30 points on 18 shots, plus 17 rebounds, two assists, a steal and a block. Holmes pulled down seven offensive rebounds, and a 14-9 offensive rebounding advantage was key in such a close game.

But the Bulls centers were also great. Andre Drummond came off the bench to record a double-double in his first 12 minutes of action. He finished with 10 points, 12 rebounds and two blocks in 19 minutes. Nikola Vucevic only had five field goal attempts (and still scored nine points), but contributed with 16 rebounds, three assists and three blocks. The Bulls’ bigs totaled 19 points, 28 rebounds, four assists and five blocks.

The Wizards slightly outshot the Bulls (47.4% efg to 47.1%), and if you look without looking at the numbers, you might conclude that Chicago lost due to its inability to hit open threes. There’s some truth to that, except… well… the Wizards couldn’t make open threes either. The Bulls shot 10-35, 28.6% from three. The Wizards shot 14-49 for an identical rate of 28.6%.

Overall, the teams shot 40.8% from the floor and 28.6% from three-point range, resulting in an effective shooting percentage of 47.3%.

Neither team could be condemned if anyone accused them of defending well, although it’s fair to say both teams gave a legitimate effort.

The Bulls were probably hurt more by strange officiating – players were literally knocked to the ground in violent collisions on one side only to be given a contact foul on the other – but they were also +10 in attempts free throw and +8. free throws made.

Thoughts and Observations

• Corey Kispert had an atrocious shooting night – 6-18 from the floor and 3-10 from deep (a 41.7% efg) and he had two turnovers, but he also had a career-high 12 rebounds, plus three assists and two steals.
• Johnny Davis had his best game of the season – eight points on 3-6 shooting, 2-4 from three-point range, plus two rebounds and three assists. He once again made a good defensive effort. Now, is this reproducible? I’d lean towards “no” because the shooting form is questionable (his two misses were really ugly), and he looks slow most of the time. But he’s pretty big and strong for a guard, and he seems to understand how to use those attributes on defense.
• Jordan Poole was fine. On time. He did his usual mixtape dance and dribbles that resulted in stalwart defenders like Vucevic still steadfast. His shot selection is nausea-inducing. His decision-making is apparently aimed at pushing him well beyond the point where his skills might allow him to succeed and straight into the realm of “test your luck”, and sometimes his luck pays off. By NBA standards, his efficiency (109 offensive rating, 50.0% efg) was mediocre. In this game, it was a net positive for the Wizards.
• The Bulls broadcast praised Jared Butler, who finished the game with 13 assists, some of them on nice passes. He also shot 3-12 from the floor, 0-6 from three and had four turnovers.
• Tristan Vukcevic made five shots in nine minutes in his second NBA game, including 2-4 three-pointers.
• Alex Caruso is an excellent defender. He regularly started possessions in one corner and, thanks to switches and good old hustle, ended them up top or in the opposite corner where he affected the Wizards’ shots.

Four factors

Below are the four factors that determine wins and losses in basketball: shooting (efg), rebounding (offensive rebounds), ball handling (turnovers), fouling (free throws made).

Statistics and measurements

Below are some performance metrics, including Player Production Average Game Score (PPA). PPP is my measure of overall production, which credits players for the things they do that help a team win (scoring, rebounding, playmaking, defending) and criticizes them for the things that hurt (missed shots, turnovers, poor defense, fouls).

Game Score (GmSC) converts individual production into points on the scoreboard. The scale is the same as the points scale and reflects the level of each player. total contributions for the game. The lowest possible GmSC is zero.

APP is a per-possession metric designed for larger data sets. In small sample sizes, the numbers can get strange. In PPA, 100 is average, higher is better, and the replacement level is 45. For a single game, the replacement level is not very useful, and I reiterate caution regarding small samples sometimes producing strange results.

POSSIBLE is the number of possessions each player had on the floor in this game.

ORTG = offensive rating, which is points produced per individual possession x 100. The league average last season was 114.8. Runs produced are not the same as runs scored. This includes the value of assists and offensive rebounds, as well as sharing credit when receiving an assist.

US government = rate of offensive use. The average is 20%.

ORTG and USG are versions of statistics created by former Wizards assistant coach Dean Oliver and modified by me. ORTG is an efficiency metric that takes into account the value of shots, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. USG includes shots from the floor and free throw line, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers.

+PTS = “Points Plus” is a measure of points gained or lost by each player based on their efficiency in that game compared to the league average efficiency over 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 produce 22.8 points in the same 20 possessions. Thus, the player in this hypothesis would have a +PTS score of -2.8.