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

[Boob-No-More]

I like the idea of starting turner and giving cj that jason terry 36 minutes off the bench ball handler roll tbh

There is no such thing. Jason Terry has never once in his 18-year NBA career averaged 36 MPG off the bench.

He's been coming off the bench for so long, I think people forget Terry was a full time starter for the first 8 years of his NBA career. The only time in his NBA career Jason Terry averaged 36 MPG was when he was in his mid-20s (same age as C.J.) and a full time starter (same as C.J.).

Terry did not become a 6th man/full time back up until after he turned 30. The most minutes Jason Terry ever averaged coming off the bench was 33.1 MPG, at the age of 30, the very first year he became a 6th man. The next year he was at 32.2 MPG and then 30.5 MPG. Those were all in DAL. He has never even averaged 25MPG as a reserve for any team since he left DAL six seasons ago. The myth of Jason Terry being a 36 MPG off the bench guy is just that, a myth. It never happened.

Ditto for Jamal Crawford. He did not move to the bench until the age of 29 (turned 30 later that season) and has never averaged more than 31.1 MPG coming off the bench in his 19 year NBA career. The second, and last time, he even averaged 30 MPG off the bench was the next year, his last in ATL six seasons ago. His career arc was exactly the same as Jason Terry's - starter throughout their mid to late 20s averaging > 36 MPG, moved to the bench the season they turned 30, saw their minutes drop to low 30 MPG range for a couple seasons and then mid to high 20 MPG range after that.

In fact, I can't think of any recent (as in last 25 years) top 6th man type players that played that role in the prime years of their career. All of Manu, Terry, Crawford were starters during their mid to late 20s. Others, like Harden came off the bench early in their career (like C.J.), but became full time starters by the time they reached their mid-20s (like C.J.).

And, keep in mind that all of these players, at the time they were coming off the bench would have been no better than the third option on offense if they'd been in the starting line up (Harden behind Durant and Westbrook; Manu behind Tim/Kawhi and Parker; Crawford behind Blake and CP3, etc.). It makes zero sense to me to move your second best player and most efficient scorer to the bench in the prime of his career.

You WILL reduce his minutes in doing so, and that's why all of the most obvious examples (Terry, Manu, Crawford, etc.), were not moved from full time starters to bench players until later in their careers when the reduced minutes made sense to extend their careers.

The rotation that makes the most sense is to start the game and finish the game with both Dame and C.J. on the court and stagger their rest breaks in between so that there is always at least one on the court at all times (except garbage time in blowouts).

BNM

 

[BlazerWookee]

But now that Stotts has finally realized he should be more unpredictable and innovative guarding the pick n roll, we've had good to great defense in 3 of the last 4 games.

You don't seriously think it's a coincidence that changes like this are being implemented now that Aminu is back in the lineup and rounding nicely into game shape, do you? Like Stotts just came up with a new idea out of the blue a few days ago?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You don't seriously think it's a coincidence that changes like this are being implemented now that Aminu is back in the lineup and rounding nicely into game shape, do you? Like Stotts just came up with a new idea out of the blue a few days ago?

Maybe @HCP finally got Stotts to read the forum.

 

[Denny Crane]

This seems like as good of a thread as any to make a comment on coaching and defenses. Some people around here have been clamoring for Stotts' head because he's not a good defensive coach. There have been comments about how the Blazers need someone like Thibs to come in and install a solid defense. Now, Thibs is a really good defensive coach. You'll get no argument from me on that, but I couldn't help but notice that in the last game, when the Blazers only had ONE significant offensive threat, the TWolves defense couldn't get the job done. All they had to do was hold CJ to somewhere near his scoring average and they walk away with the W. Instead, he dropped 43 on them and won the game for the Blazers. The TWolves have a bevvy of young, athletic players, including KAT who we would all kill to have in a Blazers uniform. But they are YOUNG. Coaching is an essential part of defensive success, but a bigger part is getting game experience and learning some of those veteran tricks that make teams with a solid defensive rep so hard to score against.

A big part is getting very young $millionaires to listen to the coach.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nobody on the team averages 36 minutes.

Our 6th man, Crabbe, averages 28.9. That's 4th on the team behind Dame, CJ, and Mo.

CJ averages 34.4.

Of course we could start Crabbe, play him 28.9, and play CJ his 34.4 coming in from the bench.

It's technically doable.

 

[BonesJones]

Nobody on the team averages 36 minutes.

Our 6th man, Crabbe, averages 28.9. That's 4th on the team behind Dame, CJ, and Mo.

CJ averages 34.4.

Of course we could start Crabbe, play him 28.9, and play CJ his 34.4 coming in from the bench.

It's technically doable.

So where do CJs 7 minutes of rest come each half?

 

[Denny Crane]

So where do CJs 7 minutes of rest come each half?

Invert his PT now.

He plays 7, rests 5. Something like that.

So he'll come in at 5:00 into the game and play 7.

To get 34 minutes, he has to rest 14 minutes. 14/4 = 3.5/quarter.

There's no rule he couldn't start the 2nd half, either.

The math simply works with him coming in 6th man (because it works as is).

 

[BonesJones]

Invert his PT now.

He plays 7, rests 5. Something like that.

So he'll come in at 5:00 into the game and play 7.

To get 34 minutes, he has to rest 14 minutes. 14/4 = 3.5/quarter.

There's no rule he couldn't start the 2nd half, either.

The math simply works with him coming in 6th man (because it works as is).

So does he get subbed in 3.5 minutes into the game? What's the point then in not starting him?

Also, you'll still have CJ and Dame on the floor the same amount of time. What's the point in having them on the floor later in quarters?

What's the point in starting him the 2nd half but not having him start the game?

It just makes no sense.

 

[BonesJones]

You don't seriously think it's a coincidence that changes like this are being implemented now that Aminu is back in the lineup and rounding nicely into game shape, do you? Like Stotts just came up with a new idea out of the blue a few days ago?

It makes sense an Aminu is really effective at hedging and blitzing. The thing is, the scheme fits the rest of our bigs better too, and I've been clamoring for this scheme change for over a year. You can't really say that Aminu being out was the reason we weren't playing this type of defense.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nobody on the team averages 36 minutes.

Our 6th man, Crabbe, averages 28.9. That's 4th on the team behind Dame, CJ, and Mo.

CJ averages 34.4.

Of course we could start Crabbe, play him 28.9, and play CJ his 34.4 coming in from the bench.

It's technically doable.

Doable yea, practical no.

If you swap C.J.'s and Crabbe's roles, you either swap their minutes or you end up with some pretty fucked up rotations that result in either players playing some every short stints, which never lets them even get warmed up and into the flow of the game, or some very long stints that have them playing tired.

I've mentioned several times that C.J. is our most efficient first quarter scorer. That alone should be reason to start him. If the 4th quarter is Lillard time, the 1st quarter is McCollum time. If the team gets off to a good start, it is almost guaranteed that C.J. is the one with the hot hand.

So, that begs the question, for the Dame and C.J, cannot coexist/Crabbe must start coalition: if C.J. is the more efficient 1st quarter score, why have I not seen one single post in the entire history of this forum suggesting that we should start C.J. and Crabbe and bring Dame off the bench?

Zip, nada, zero. Yet, I can't seem to go a day without someone insisting we NEED to bring C.J, off the bench, that it's his preordained destiny to be relegated to 6th man status during the prime of his career.

You know why no one has suggested we bring Dame off the bench? Because it's fucking ridiculous that's why. The notion of bringing your best player off the bench during the prime if his career is pure lunacy.

So before anyone suggests, for the billionth time, we should bring C.J. off the bench, please consider this:

Bringing your second best player, who is also your most efficient 1st quarter scorer, off the bench in the prime if his career is every bit as ridiculous as bringing your best player off the bench in the prime of his career.

The ONLY way it makes sense to bring C.J. off the bench is if he's no longer our second best player. Want to bring C.J. off the bench, sure no problem. Just go get someone better to replace his scoring with the first unit. Doesn't even have to be someone plays the same position, just someone to replace the scoring void that would be created at the beginning of games by moving C.J. to the bench.

And, if you think I'm being stubborn and bullheaded about this, please provide one example of another team who brings their second best player off the bench. Better still, provide an example of a GOOD team who brings their second best player off the bench. Apparently, I'm not alone in my stubbornness. I can't think of a single NBA coach, let alone a successful one, who thinks it's a good idea to bring his second best player off the bench.

Can't do it? This isn't a thing, because it doesn't make any practical sense. I've mentioned it about a million times, but none of the great 6th men in recent history came off the bench during the prime of their careers and none of them were in the top 2 best players on their teams at the time they were moved to the bench.

As long as C.J. is our second best player, he absolutely should continue to start.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

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.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

There is no such thing. Jason Terry has never once in his 18-year NBA career averaged 36 MPG off the bench.

He's been coming off the bench for so long, I think people forget Terry was a full time starter for the first 8 years of his NBA career. The only time in his NBA career Jason Terry averaged 36 MPG was when he was in his mid-20s (same age as C.J.) and a full time starter (same as C.J.).

Terry did not become a 6th man/full time back up until after he turned 30. The most minutes Jason Terry ever averaged coming off the bench was 33.1 MPG, at the age of 30, the very first year he became a 6th man. The next year he was at 32.2 MPG and then 30.5 MPG. Those were all in DAL. He has never even averaged 25MPG as a reserve for any team since he left DAL six seasons ago. The myth of Jason Terry being a 36 MPG off the bench guy is just that, a myth. It never happened.

Ditto for Jamal Crawford. He did not move to the bench until the age of 29 (turned 30 later that season) and has never averaged more than 31.1 MPG coming off the bench in his 19 year NBA career. The second, and last time, he even averaged 30 MPG off the bench was the next year, his last in ATL six seasons ago. His career arc was exactly the same as Jason Terry's - starter throughout their mid to late 20s averaging > 36 MPG, moved to the bench the season they turned 30, saw their minutes drop to low 30 MPG range for a couple seasons and then mid to high 20 MPG range after that.

In fact, I can't think of any recent (as in last 25 years) top 6th man type players that played that role in the prime years of their career. All of Manu, Terry, Crawford were starters during their mid to late 20s. Others, like Harden came off the bench early in their career (like C.J.), but became full time starters by the time they reached their mid-20s (like C.J.).

And, keep in mind that all of these players, at the time they were coming off the bench would have been no better than the third option on offense if they'd been in the starting line up (Harden behind Durant and Westbrook; Manu behind Tim/Kawhi and Parker; Crawford behind Blake and CP3, etc.). It makes zero sense to me to move your second best player and most efficient scorer to the bench in the prime of his career.

You WILL reduce his minutes in doing so, and that's why all of the most obvious examples (Terry, Manu, Crawford, etc.), were not moved from full time starters to bench players until later in their careers when the reduced minutes made sense to extend their careers.

The rotation that makes the most sense is to start the game and finish the game with both Dame and C.J. on the court and stagger their rest breaks in between so that there is always at least one on the court at all times (except garbage time in blowouts).

BNM

Lets dissect my post based on 3 minutes...

 

[BonesJones]

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.

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.

 

[Minstrel]

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.

 

[Orion Bailey]

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.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Lets dissect my post based on 3 minutes...

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

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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

 

[BlazerWookee]

It makes sense an Aminu is really effective at hedging and blitzing. The thing is, the scheme fits the rest of our bigs better too, and I've been clamoring for this scheme change for over a year. You can't really say that Aminu being out was the reason we weren't playing this type of defense.

Sure we can. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[blue9]

Sure we can. Makes perfect sense to me.

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

 

[BonesJones]

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.

 

[lawai'a]

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

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.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

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

i accept your surrender

 

[Boob-No-More]

i accept your surrender

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

BNM

 

[riverman]

. So who cares if some of that overlap happens at the start of the first and second halves

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 ..

 

[Boob-No-More]

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

 

[riverman]

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

 

[Minstrel]

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 ..

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.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

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

Deffinitely dont want to starts crabbe. Would prefer trading him

 

[BonesJones]

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

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