What's new
By:
Filters

Rubio/Crowder threes vs. Conley/Bogdanovic threes

infection

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
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.
 
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...
Good post/thread

Then there is the effect the swapping of those guys will have on the efficiency of Spida and the space Rudy will have on the paint.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last year Conley was the #1 option and really some nights the only option for the Grizzlies and Bogdanovic was the #1 option for the Pacers, they're now going to be the second and third options for the Jazz. They should get better looks this season because the defenses won't be able to focus on them as much.
 
It might make more of a difference in close games. The following are games we lost last year by 3 or less points in the regular season:

Fri, Oct 19
vs
Golden State
Golden State
L124-123

Wed, Oct 31
@
Minnesota
Minnesota
L128-125

Sun, Dec 2
@
Miami
Miami
L102-100

Sat, Dec 22
vs
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
L107-106

Fri, Feb 22
@
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
L148-147 2OT

Mon, Mar 4
vs
New Orleans
New Orleans
L115-112

Thu, Mar 21
@
Atlanta
Atlanta
L117-114

Might make more of a difference in those and allows us to pick up an extra three or four Ws. May have helped in Games 3 and 5 last year too against Houston. Particular Game 5 when we needed points so badly...
 
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.
 
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 does. The main thing is the D cannot sag off of the PG anymore. Allowing Conley and Mitchell a 1v1 opportunity, allowing a PnR action with Gobert or a pick and pop with Ingles and Bogey waiting on the corners? Donovan is one of the better ISO players in the game right now and Conley is deadly in PnR and clutch situations. On paper, it makes a world of difference.
 
Agreed with everything said regarding how the real differential is greater than the 2.34 ppg from a concrete three point percentage swing, but just looking at it in a worst-case-scenario, as conservative way as possible, and looking just at that stat in a vacuum, we scored 111.7 ppg last year which was good for being tied for 17th. Adding 2.34 ppg takes us to #10.
 
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...

Would have put us right behind Milwaukee in point differential... Hard to just say we are adding 2.34 pts in a vacuum.

If we get good health out of our key guys we will win anywhere from 55-60 games. Our record in close games has also been bad... if that changes who knows.

It is a huge change in effectiveness, but also as others mentioned having shooters on the floor will open up other stuff.

Gonna be an exciting year.
 
Also, adding 2.34 ppg of differential takes us from 5.2 points to 7.54 points, and from 4th in differential to 2nd in differential, behind only Milwaukee at 8.8 points (dat Eastern conference doe).
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Would have put us right behind Milwaukee in point differential... Hard to just say we are adding 2.34 pts in a vacuum.

If we get good health out of our key guys we will win anywhere from 55-60 games. Our record in close games has also been bad... if that changes who knows.

It is a huge change in effectiveness, but also as others mentioned having shooters on the floor will open up other stuff.

Gonna be an exciting year.
Click to expand...
Damnit you beat me to it.
 
Do have to consider that the defense COULD get a little worse. Maybe we give up a few more points.

Favors was a good defender

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Do have to consider that the defense COULD get a little worse. Maybe we give up a few more points.

Favors was a good defender

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top