Our Scheme, Not Lillard's Absence, is Responsible For the Recent defensive success

I still don't even understand the concept behind bringing McCollum off the bench. If you're still going to play him and Lillard the same number of minutes they do currently, then what you're really asking for is staggering their minutes so they aren't always on the floor together. But at the number of minutes they currently play, a lot of overlap is unavoidable. So who cares if some of that overlap happens at the start of the first and second halves?

Start them, stagger their minutes so that one of them is always on the court and you're splitting them up as much as is possible for their minutes-played and also assuring that one high-level playmaker is always on the floor.

 

Lets dissect my post based on 3 minutes...

 

Apparently it's too have better defense against starters, playing Lillard and CJ together against benches. Thing is, you'd still have worse defence against bench players, letting them score more than usual, which has the same result as starting both.

 

Yeah, and there's way too much variance implicit in that anyway. Each team has their own substitution patterns and has their stars at different positions. Some reserves' strengths may be better equipped to take advantage of these guys' defensive weaknesses. Even if the defensive stylings of Lillard/McGollum (<--intended, has anyone done that yet?) would be better mitigated against reserves in general, the effects would be watered down to nearly nothing due to that variance.

 

I honk the argument is this. What ideas it matter if we score 28 in the first quarter of the other team scores 35?
The thought process is to give up some of that scoring to add more of a defensive presence limiting the other teams scoring. So we end quarts more like 22-18
I am not advocating either way, just trying to clarify he opposing viewpoint that seems to not have been mentioned.

 

Minimize it all you want, but of all the recent top 6th men of the year, 33 MPG is the most any of them have played in a season. And that was one of them for one season, 10 years ago. So, at the very least, you are talking about reducing the PT of your second best player by nearly 10% as if that's somehow a good thing.

If you actually bother look at the PT for guys like Terry, Manu and Crawford, you will see that their PT once they went to the bench full time dropped to between 25 - 29 MPG.

You also completely ignored the fact that not one of these players moved to the bench during the prime of your career. They all did it around the time they turned 30.

So, rather than a snarky seven word response that addresses none of the issues I raised, how about an articulate response that explains in some detail, why exactly removing our second best player, and most efficient 1st quarter scorer, from the starting line up and reducing his minutes somehow benefits the team?

BNM

 

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't match our personnel or our situation. It really only works if the inferior offensive player is a significantly better defensive player, and the stats just don't support that. Allen Crabbe isn't Bruce Bowen. Not even close.

Some people claim Crabbe is a better defender than C.J. based solely on his length. Others on this same forum say Crabbe is a shit defender, the worst on the team. A position that is supported by the fact that he does have the worst DRtg on a bad defensive team. But that's just one stat and the difference is small. Let's ignore that for a minute (why not, we've been ignoring it all season).

So, here's a few more numbers from 82 games.com.

In terms of team play, when C.J. is on the court, our TEAM scoring differential is -3.1 points per 48 minutes.

When Crabbe is on the court, our TEAM scoring differential is -6.9 points per 48 minutes.

These are the numbers for all games played through 12/28. So, while the sample size is less than half a season, it is not insignificant. C.J. has played in 70% of all available minutes for the season, and Crabbe has played in 58%.

So, any supposed advantage Crabbe provides to the TEAM is a net negative of 3.8 points per 48 minutes WORSE than when C.J. is on the court.

In terms of individual match-ups at the SG position, since that's what we're talking about here, C.J. scores 32.0 points per 48 minutes while giving up 20.3 points per 48 minutes. That makes C.J. a net positive, compared to his SG counterpart, of +11.7 points per 48 minutes. That's a pretty big scoring differential. In fact, it's the best on the team.

It's true that Crabbe does give up fewer points per 48 than C.J., but it is more than offset by his reduced scoring. Plus most of Crabbe's minutes at SG are against the other team's second stringer, C.J. is guarding the other team's starting SG. In any case, Crabbe scores just 12.7 points per 48 minutes at SG, while giving up 13.2 points per 48 minutes for a net of -0.5 points per 48 minutes. That's a swing of -12.2 points per 48 at the SG position when Crabbe plays there instead of C.J.

So, in terms of team performance, the total point differential suffers when we play Crabbe compared to when we play C.J., and in term of individual match-ups, we lose our biggest match-up advantage when playing Crabbe at SG instead of C.J.

I know this is all just numbers pulled from various web sites, but I have yet to see a single stat posted by any of the Crabbe should start coalition that shows how the team is better off with him starting instead of C.J. All we get are these hypothetical scenarios about why we COULD be better IN THEORY. How about some facts to support your theory guys?

BNM

 

Sure we can. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

I can't remember...was Aminu out all last season?

 

And Stotts should've had us playing this brand of defense from day 1. Can't use Aminu as an excuse as to why he didn't.

 

what was our defensive ratings after aminu was moved to the "4" and Mo became a stater? i don't know where to find such things. might explain why he was happy with the scheme and its results.

 

i accept your surrender

 

As long as Stotts doesn't, I'm fine with that.

BNM

 

bench production...both your best scorers have the ball more and it's easier to hide one guy on d than 2...sure they'll overlap but our bench has lost a lot of leads and not built many...how you start can tire out the opposition or your team ..

 

So, C.J., is our most efficient 1st quarter scorer. He is most often the one who gets us off to a hot start and keeps us in games early. How does that tie into this whole start Crabbe narrative?

BNM

 

It doesn't unless you start Crabbe and have something to go by....we've seen Dame and CJ start games all season. I know that bench scoring has been pretty anemic

 

Yeah, but as long as you make sure one of the two is on the court at all times, you're already dividing them as much as is possible without cutting their minutes. Once you've done that, I don't think there's any relevance to whether some of the overlap is at the start of the game or not.

 

Deffinitely dont want to starts crabbe. Would prefer trading him

 

So scoring less at the start justifies putting up a better "bench points" total? That mashed no sense.