- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Maybe I'm wrong...but I think we have a group of pretty much horrible individual...
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:12 am to DallasTiger45
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:12 am to DallasTiger45
quote:Right, I think it's more than fair to throw that right out the window, but then the question is, what is or isn't valid then?
Swapping Dyson for CJ and getting better offensively makes less than zero sense lol
Another example, is our least favorite NOLA son, Anthony Davis. We don't like to praise him but I don't think anyone would disagree that he's an elite, one of the best defenders in the game. But the Lakers are decidedly better on defense when he's off court.
Another example is Dyson. We're only slightly better on defense when he's on the court, but we're better on offense by a larger number. The numbers would suggest we are better offensively at a higher rate than defensively with Dyson on vs off.
Just looked up Herb, almost exact same thing. We have the exact same DRtg with or without Herb, so the data states Herb makes no difference at all defensively(just the data, don't kill me lol.) But we're +1.4 with Herb on the court on offense.
What are we supposed to do with all this?
This post was edited on 2/22/24 at 11:13 am
2
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:14 am to Dinky Mulberry
It's what you get with a team of wings ...
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:15 am to shel311
Herb and Dyson create a ton of transition buckets
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:17 am to shel311
quote:
Either the % or the raw number of wide open 3s we give up in relation to the rest of the league
23.7% of the shots we give up are "wide open" 3's, which is tied with the Lakers for the worst in the league. Raw numbers, we give up 20.8 wide open 3's per game.
quote:
3pt% on those wide open attempts
Opponents are shooting 35.4% on those shots, which is the best in the league by a full 1.2% (second best is the Blazers at 36.6%.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:17 am to DallasTiger45
quote:
Swapping Dyson for CJ and getting better offensively makes less than zero sense lol
I’d imagine our steals, turnovers forced and buckets in transition all get a boost with that lineup. That could partially explain it
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:23 am to shel311
The Dyson vs CJ offensive discrepancy is likely because of quality of shots. CJ tends to be a shot-chucker so we lose some possessions with him shooting early into the shot-clock. Dyson defers a lot so the Pels have a better chance of BI or Zion taking a higher-quality shot.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:25 am to mhasen1
quote:But logic would dictate that our defense would also be statistically better when they're in but it's not.
Herb and Dyson create a ton of transition buckets
It is ever so slightly better for Dyson but I think you get the overriding point I'm making.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:27 am to Epic Cajun
quote:
23.7% of the shots we give up are "wide open" 3's, which is tied with the Lakers for the worst in the league. Raw numbers, we give up 20.8 wide open 3's per game.
quote:Feels like some luck has to be at least part of that
Opponents are shooting 35.4% on those shots, which is the best in the league by a full 1.2% (second best is the Blazers at 36.6%.
Can you do last season to see if it's similar? If so, that has to take some of the luck out of the equation I'd think?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:29 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:I hear you but how would that positively affect the offense but not make us statistically better on defense when, say, Herb is on vs off?
I’d imagine our steals, turnovers forced and buckets in transition all get a boost with that lineup. That could partially explain it
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:33 am to shel311
quote:
Can you do last season to see if it's similar? If so, that has to take some of the luck out of the equation I'd think?
Last season 21% of shots that we gave up were wide open 3's, raw numbers of 18.2 wide open 3's per game. Which was the 4th highest rate in the league.
Opponents shot 36.1%, which was the second best in the league.
I don't know the stats on shot locations, but maybe we are preventing corner 3's and forcing opponents to shoot above the break 3's
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:36 am to Epic Cajun
quote:I mean, it's either a complete coincidence, which I'd say there's some greater than zero chance but very small, or Willie has found something that deserves a shite ton of credit.
Last season 21% of shots that we gave up were wide open 3's, raw numbers of 18.2 wide open 3's per game. Which was the 4th highest rate in the league.
Opponents shot 36.1%, which was the second best in the league.
I don't know the stats on shot locations, but maybe we are preventing corner 3's and forcing opponents to shoot above the break 3's
Could be, as you and someone else stated, who is shooting the 3s and where they are shooting them from.
This post was edited on 2/22/24 at 11:37 am
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:37 am to shel311
These numbers are both a little crazy and what you would expect. This is the On/Off DRtg and the difference between the 2 for the main rotation players:
Jose 104.9 114 9.1
Trey 106.9 114.2 7.3
Larry 106.9 113.3 6.4
Naji 109.3 112.9 3.6
Dyson 111.2 111.4 0.2
Herb 111.9 110.7 -1.2
CJ 112.9 110 -2.9
Zion 112.6 108.9 -3.7
JV 115 107 -8
BI 117.1 109 -8.1
So Jose has the biggest defensive impact, and the worst defenders are exactly who you thought they were, except I honestly thought BI wouldn't be this bad. Dyson and Herb are where the numbers get crazy, but I think it's because they are having to play with the Big 4 a lot more. The other guys play a lot with other bench players.
To me the bottom line is Herb and Dyson keep the defense afloat with terrible defensive starters, and the rest of the bench guys push them from treading water on defense to being good. If Zion and Ingram could just be neutral on defense the team would be contenders.
I think Willie absolutely deserves credit for the defense. I've made multiple posts this year where I question the board's general disagreement with his defense first rotation philosophy, because it does appear to be paying off. It's just not how most of us want to manage the team.
Jose 104.9 114 9.1
Trey 106.9 114.2 7.3
Larry 106.9 113.3 6.4
Naji 109.3 112.9 3.6
Dyson 111.2 111.4 0.2
Herb 111.9 110.7 -1.2
CJ 112.9 110 -2.9
Zion 112.6 108.9 -3.7
JV 115 107 -8
BI 117.1 109 -8.1
So Jose has the biggest defensive impact, and the worst defenders are exactly who you thought they were, except I honestly thought BI wouldn't be this bad. Dyson and Herb are where the numbers get crazy, but I think it's because they are having to play with the Big 4 a lot more. The other guys play a lot with other bench players.
To me the bottom line is Herb and Dyson keep the defense afloat with terrible defensive starters, and the rest of the bench guys push them from treading water on defense to being good. If Zion and Ingram could just be neutral on defense the team would be contenders.
quote:
I mean, it's either a complete coincidence, which I'd say there's some greater than zero chance but very small, or Willie has found something that deserves a shite ton of credit.
I think Willie absolutely deserves credit for the defense. I've made multiple posts this year where I question the board's general disagreement with his defense first rotation philosophy, because it does appear to be paying off. It's just not how most of us want to manage the team.
This post was edited on 2/22/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:42 am to shel311
quote:
Could be, as you and someone else stated, who is shooting the 3s and where they are shooting them from.
We're giving up the 4th highest number of above the break 3's, and opponents are shooting the second worst on those.
We're giving up the 5th highest number of corner 3's, and opponents are shooting the 10th worst on those.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:57 am to Dinky Mulberry
quote:
Maybe I'm wrong
You’re wrong IMO, but that’s ok. We switch and help a TON, I’d be willing to bet we’re in the top 5 in that respect. That means the individual defensive talent isn’t less important. Being able to guard multiple positions, awareness and communication is more important. We have to give Willie credit here, we’ve been good at defense despite the starters being more offensive players. We’re smart about who we leave open for three, and we get alot of deflections and turnovers.
I understand if some don’t like Willie Green, but it would be a shame to not give him a ton of credit for our defense.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:07 pm to DallasTiger45
quote:
3) we’ve allowed the lowest 3 point shooting percentage in the league, which has a fair amount of luck to it.
I don't think you can say that without getting into the splits. Are we contesting more 3s than the league average?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:10 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
I don't think you can say that without getting into the splits. Are we contesting more 3s than the league average?
We give up the highest percentage of wide open 3's in relation to total shots given up in the league.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:15 pm to Epic Cajun
Lol, then yeah, it's a lot to luck
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:17 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
What about catch-and-shoot %?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:25 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
What about catch-and-shoot %?
3rd most catch and shoot 3's given up
2nd most as a percentage of total shots
We have the best opponent shooting percentage on catch and shoot 3's, by almost a half a percentage point 34.9% vs 35.3%
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:28 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
I don't think you can say that without getting into the splits. Are we contesting more 3s than the league average?
I meant that 3 point % in general has a fair amount of luck to it. I’m unsure how much luck ours has involved- it seems like we’ve “cracked the code” the last two years where we give up a lot of looks but get teams to shoot poorly on them? That seems somewhat unsustainable when stated that way, but over 2 years suggests it may not be? It’s strange.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News