What's new
By:
Filters

Rubio/Crowder threes vs. Conley/Bogdanovic threes

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.
 
idiot said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's perfect because I'm anticipating 56-57 wins exactly.
 
The thing I didn't account for earlier is that the Jazz were at 54 expected wins last season. Adding 6 to that would get to 60.

Again, I'd rather be cautious and pleasantly surprised if it turns out this way, rather than expect it and be disappointed if it doesn't. But to each their own.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Because we’ve always played better as the dog. And also because Vegas always wins...so if everyone is betting the over...
Click to expand...

then they just keep raising the line. They are just trying to balance the over and under getting each at close to 50% is how they win.
 
idiot said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was OFFENSIVE point differential. Defensive will have a say in the final outcome. Also, and I hate to say it, there will be injuries.
 
framer said:
then they just keep raising the line. They are just trying to balance the over and under getting each at close to 50% is how they win.
Click to expand...

I know what they’re doing and why. My point is, to this point, most ppl, maybe even the far majority, is betting the over. Setting it now at 54.5 does not necessarily mean ppl will bet the under. Tbh not an overly scientific thing. More just whenever one thing is bet, the other thing usually comes in. It’s like this way in the nfl. My buddy runs a pool every year. Whenever one team is bet by 80+% of the participants, the other team covers like 80% of the time. Not saying I’m right btw. This is just what my lifelong addiction tells me.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
I know what they’re doing and why. My point is, to this point, most ppl, maybe even the far majority, is betting the over. Setting it now at 54.5 does not necessarily mean ppl will bet the under. Tbh not an overly scientific thing. More just whenever one thing is bet, the other thing usually comes in. It’s like this way in the nfl. My buddy runs a pool every year. Whenever one team is bet by 80+% of the participants, the other team covers like 80% of the time. Not saying I’m right btw. This is just what my lifelong addiction tells me.
Click to expand...

With the line set at 54.5, you would be betting on an injury to Gobert or one of the other starters on the under. Not much room for error with a margin like that. Chances are, there WILL be an injury. Championship teams generally get the lucky break of avoiding them. on paper the jazz are definitely 4.5 games better than last year.
 
framer said:
With the line set at 54.5, you would be betting on an injury to Gobert or one of the other starters on the under. Not much room for error with a margin like that. Chances are, there WILL be an injury. Championship teams generally get the lucky break of avoiding them. on paper the jazz are definitely 4.5 games better than last year.
Click to expand...

It seems the majority of other teams in the West are better as well.
 
I think the Jazz win 56 games and get the second-seed. I truly don’t see them falling below the third seed (barring catastrophically bad luck with injuries).
 
LogGrad98 said:
It's a bigger effect than just the raw points. It would have dramatically changed defenses played against us. It would have opened up more opportunities for other players. I bet it would be at least 3x that in real point differential. At 9 pts it will really change the outcome of many games. Hard to quantify really but I believe it would have had a pretty strong impact.
Click to expand...

It also means more close, winnable games without having to foul and stop the clock. Alot of the 7-10 point losses @TheStormofWar didnt include in his good list were probably much closer without all the free throws. That alone will add at least 2-3 wins, exciting wins, if not more.
 
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...
I feel totally comfortable claiming that if Conley and Bojan were on the team last year instead of Ricky and Jae, they would have combined for more than 776 attempts.

Add this to the many other points already made.
 
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...


Yea, we're basically the same team. Those stats are the only ones that differentiate Wins and Losses. Defense, and team chemisty won't effect that at all. And it's not like the ENTIRE Western Conference changed. Your right, best off-season of the Utah Jazz existence and we're the exact same team. It's not like the moves of the other 29 teams in the NBA have anything to do with the number. We can basically determine we're gonna suck by taking one stat of two guys. The rest is history!!!! Rubio and Conley are almost exactly the same!!! Crowder and Bojan, can't even tell their game apart. Almost identical! You know who else had similar games?? Wilt Chamberlain and David Wood. Damn near the same. If you remove the massive overall stats, their turnovers were so close! Must be the same player!

Let's quit calling common sense "common", because apparently its not.
 
Win totals year to year have nothing to do with the talent or potential of a team. Every team makes changes. The Jazz are not going to have the highest win total, but they are going to win the Championship this year. They're destined.
 
Lakers_Slapper said:
Win totals year to year have nothing to do with the talent or potential of a team. Every team makes changes. The Jazz are not going to have the highest win total, but they are going to win the Championship this year. They're destined.
Click to expand...
Hmmm that's not completely true, teams that don't really make moves like Denver this offseason and Utah last offseason should have similar records the next season.

Sent from my SM-G965U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top