Over the last week or so, there’s been a lot of discussion over at Free Darko about the effect of playing two players with similar skill sets as a way to complement each other.  As Bethlehem Shoals put it:

I can’t remember if I’ve said this before, but I totally believe that the way to neutralize a star players’ limitations (or quirks) is to pair them with a similar player, not his logical opposite. Think Arenas/Hughes, or the Wade/Mayo thing that didn’t happen, or the Wade/Gordon rumor. Redundancy is the new complementary, unless you’ve thought really hard about the latter. And it seems like that could very easily bleed into the kind of philosophy I’m talking about, since there’s no reason that minimizing weaknesses has to take priority over stockpiling strengths.

No one can deny that the Arenas/Hughes pairing was a successful one.  In their 3 years together (1 in Golden State, 2 in Washington) the two of them teamed up to become the best backcourt duo in the league. Gilbert’s only trip to the second round of the playoffs came with Larry at his side and Hughes’ best season came with Gilbert that same year.

Since they’ve parted ways, they haven’t been able to recapture the magic.  Gilbert got a better 2nd option in Caron Butler and his numbers have gone up since Larry left, but he hasn’t been able to get out of the first round.  Meanwhile, Larry Hughes also found a better Batman to his Robin in LeBron James and he’s been able to make it farther into the playoffs, but his production has dropped off significantly since he left D.C.

Of course, there are other factors behind the failures that each of them have faced since they went their separate ways.  Gilbert’s only had one healthy season since Larry left, and Hughes’ game just wasn’t a good fit alongside LeBron’s.  But there’s no denying that the two had a unique, duplicative chemistry that helped both players.

While each player enhanced the other’s strengths, the one major weakness the two shared (man-to-man defense) reared it’s ugly head in the second round of the ’04-’05 Playoffs when Dwyane Wade averaged 31 points as the Heat swept the Wizards out of the playoffs.  Because both of them were better suited to play off the ball, neither one had an answer for the slashing Wade.  Even though it was a flawed pairing, there’s no doubting that it was a successful pairing, even though it didn’t fit the tradition yin/yang pairing where each player’s strength balances out the other’s weakness:

Why did Hughes/Arenas sort of work? They couldn’t man up to save their lives, but they created a ton of turnovers by playing off each in passing lanes. Something that, incidentally, neither has matched since 2004-05. Now, it’s not like they were the same player: Hughes is a better rebounder and has a mid-range game, Arenas is deadlier off the dribble and bombs from anywhere. But the point is, their differences were incidental. What allowed them to work together well was their similarities.

So what allowed the two of them of work together where other duplicative combos failed?  I think there’s two factors involved:

1. Likemindedness – When you have two players with similar skill sets playing together, the natural reaction for both players is to see it as competition for one spot rather than work together to maximize their strengths.  Gilbert and Larry realized that they would only be as successful as their running mate, so they knew that they would have to find ways to make each other better.  It helped that the two of them were good friends during their time together and they continue to to have a close relationship to this day, so the need to show the other that they were the alpha dog was never an issue.
2. The system – The Princeton offense that the Wizards run doesn’t rely on a strict point guard, shooting guard classification as much as other teams, so their flexibility was an asset to the team, rather than a detriment.  If these new redundancy combos like Marion/Beasley and Randolph/Wright are going to work out, the coaches have to find a system that caters to their flexibility.

With all of that said, am I advocating a trade to bring Hughes back to D.C.?  Absolutely not.  Hughes is older, slower than he was back then and makes waaaaaaay too much money for it to be a viable option.  I just think that Shoals makes a very valid point that redundancy can work when it’s done the right way with the right personnel.