Are the Wizards *Really* Better Without Arenas?

Must be a slow news day in the NBA world, with the Bostocalypse rolling along and all. I mean, you do have the intriguing stories of the Heat's utter collapse, the Laker's resurgence and the Piston's "killin' 'em softly" but those stories must be boring.

Nah, it's all about the eternal question: is a team without it's best player any better?

We go through it every year. This time it's Randy Hill over at Fox Sports:

A much larger sample can be found in Washington, where the Wizards have been without Agent Zero (left knee) for their last 23 games. The Wizards (17-16 overall) have won 14 games without Arenas, but only five on the road.

"Gil is pretty notorious for dribbling away the shot clock while looking to score," the Eastern Conference advance scout said. "It's not surprising that they've had some success without that because (Wiz coach) Eddie Jordan runs some of that Princeton stuff and it seems to work better when dribbling is kept to a minimum."

Without Arenas, the Wizards still have two top-flight scorers in forwards Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler. Butler, who averages 16 points per game for his career, has increased that by six points this season. He's knocked in 25 or more points in 11 of Washington's games since Arenas sat down.

Butler and his buddies soon will be put to the test, with two games against Boston and one with Dallas coming up in their next six.

"Losing a star player over part of an 82-game season can be a motivating factor for teammates in the short term," the scout said. "Plus, it changes the way a team plays and how teams are forced to play against them. That can provide a temporary advantage."

And having the opportunity to knock off a few weaker teams can't hurt.

"Trust me, while having ball and player movement can be a coach's dream," the scout said, "losing a star player for a long period of time usually turns out to be a coach's nightmare."

Intriguing argument. But let's see what Michael Lee, who follows the Wizards for a living, has to say:

The Wizards' 14-11 record since Arenas had surgery to repair a torn left meniscus is discussed daily in these parts, and now that the Rockets are winning without their leading scorer, some pundits are wondering if the respective teams of Arenas and McGrady are better without them.

The answer is no.

[snip]

It's easy to say trade a superstar, but the last few mega deals (McGrady to Houston, O'Neal to Miami, Iverson to Denver and Garnett to Boston) have left the teams that traded their stars 50 cents away from having a quarter. The Garnett deal is the latest glaring example, given how the Celtics are the most improved team in the league while the Timberwolves have made the steepest decline from last season.

Plus, Arenas is one of the toughest players in the league to defend. He's a game-changer. You need those kind of players, especially in the playoffs. I just think it would be better to see a healthy Gilbert playing alongside the vastly improved Butler and the steady Jamison. I know the Wizards went 3-5 with that trio this season, but it was obvious that Arenas wasn't himself, the knee was still wobbly.

People tend to forget that when those guys were in the starting lineup together - and healthy - the Wizards went 33-21 in 2005-06, and 33-21 last season. Maybe I'm wrong, but 66-42 looks like a pretty decent record to me. A .611 winning percentage plays out to a 50-win team over 82 games.

There is a difference between being good enough to beat bad teams and good enough to beat good to great teams consistently. For the Wizards and Rockets, that difference is Arenas and McGrady, respectively. Reason being, the perception of those teams changes with their best players on the floor. With a healthy Arenas or a healthy McGrady on the floor, the Wizards and Rockets are scarier. Those guys have the potential to go off at any minute and demoralize the opposing team.

Yes, they do. All the more reason to keep Arenas right here.