What's new
By:

Rubio/Crowder threes vs. Conley/Bogdanovic threes

infection said:
Who can tell us our defensive numbers with Favors next to Gobert vs. anyone else next to Gobert but the same other 3 players? I'm not really convinced we lose much defensively. I think Favors' value to us defensively is diminished with him at the 4, and I don't believe the drop off to Davis is that big, plus the added possessions for his significantly better rebounding.
Click to expand...

Can sort it out here: https://stats.nba.com/lineups/advanced/?Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular Season&TeamID=1610612762&sort=DEF_RATING&dir=1

I think our most effective lineups offensively didn't involve Favors w/ Gobert. Defensively, Favors seems interchangeable with Gobert, unless I'm missing something? I'm honestly not overly hot with the filters.
 
Last edited:
infection said:
So the idea has been mentioned previously about imaging all the threes Rubio and Crowder shot being shot by Conley and Bogdanovic, so I wanted to give a short breakdown:

Last year Ricky and Jae combined for 776 threes, which is 29% of all our threes. They combined for 32.5%.

Last year Mike and Bojan combined for 784 threes on 40.7%.

As the total attempts are nearly identical, I'm going to correct each total by splitting the difference and assuming 780 attempts. The difference between Ricky/Jae and Mike/Bojan is 9.27 ppg vs. 11.61 ppg, or 2.34 ppg.

Some stats whiz tell us what 2.34 ppg of differential means in the big picture.
Click to expand...

You are undercutting the point total. Locke did this on his show today or yesterday in that you have to factor in the Quality of shot as well. Both Rubio and crowder got 52 and 55 percent respectively QOS. That makes their actual percentage a lot worse. I think Conley and Bojan were between 48 and 50 percent and they overperformed significantly.

The measurable point differential on offense is going to be higher, probably MUCH higher, than 2.34 point per game. Even if teams work to limit shots of Conley and Bojan, it is just going to raise the QOS of Spida, Jingles, Royce, and Rudy. All of those players have shown what they can do with room.
 
Losing Favors hurts us for the regular season where depth is critical, but it is negated by adding Conley, Bogdanovic and Davis who are all better suited for the Jazz in the postseason. That’s the big takeaway here. The Jazz should be better in the playoffs because they now have better shooting and more shot creation. For all the good that Rubio, Crowder and Favors brought to the table. . . Conley, Bogdanovic and Davis are better for their postseason success.
 
framer said:
You are undercutting the point total. Locke did this on his show today or yesterday in that you have to factor in the Quality of shot as well. Both Rubio and crowder got 52 and 55 percent respectively QOS. That makes their actual percentage a lot worse. I think Conley and Bojan were between 48 and 50 percent and they overperformed significantly.

The measurable point differential on offense is going to be higher, probably MUCH higher, than 2.34 point per game. Even if teams work to limit shots of Conley and Bojan, it is just going to raise the QOS of Spida, Jingles, Royce, and Rudy. All of those players have shown what they can do with room.
Click to expand...

Reading **** like this makes me wanna throw 25K down on O53.5.
 
I'm as big of a Favors fan as there is on this board and he will be missed defensively and offensively as the back up 5. However another factor to consider in the measurable defensive ratings is it is easier to play defense after a made shot than it is after a missed shot. So even though the defense personnel wise may take a small hit, scheme wise it may get a bump from being able to play from a set defense more often.

Although pace of play may also pick up so that would also effect the defensive numbers giving more overall possessions a game.
 
The Clips are just 55.5, Rox 53.5, Nuggets 52.5, Lakers 51.5...our number being that high scares me.
 
infection said:
Who can tell us our defensive numbers with Favors next to Gobert vs. anyone else next to Gobert but the same other 3 players? I'm not really convinced we lose much defensively. I think Favors' value to us defensively is diminished with him at the 4, and I don't believe the drop off to Davis is that big, plus the added possessions for his significantly better rebounding.
Click to expand...

Outside of the this set, I didn't find any lineups with enough minutes to make the measurement meaningful.

From 82games: (lineup mins offense defense)
Rubio-Mitchell-Ingles-Favors-Gobert 492 1.08 1.02
Rubio-Mitchell-Crowder-Ingles-Gobert 467 1.20 1.09

Mitchell-O'Neale-Ingles-Favors-Gobert 105 1.09 .98
Mitchell-O'Neale-Crowder-Ingles-Gobert 100 1.21 1.00
 
Each point in point differential translates to 2.7 expected wins over the season, according to the standard rule of thumb. So the 2.34 extra points theoretically translates to 6.3 additional wins. That would put us at 56-57 wins next year.

I'd caution, however, that all the comments arguing about how the point differential should really be higher than 2.34 (though not totally without merit) are too optimistic overall, I think. (LogGrad's 9-point differential would have us at 74 wins, for example.) We're expecting best-case scenarios and ignoring everything else. It seems we're setting ourselves up for a hard fall with this type of reasoning if it turns out that we don't have a 60-win season. I don't think that's realistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top