GW Hoops

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



1/13/2022 12:52 am  #1


GW’s most effective lineups.

I meant to post this last week, but forgot.  This is from shot quality and does NOT include the Dayton or VCU debacles.  No idea how those games would change this. 


I am not sure why, but I can’t figure out how to paste an image here from my phone, so the link is here: https://twitter.com/a10stats/status/1476605849380560898?s=21

The upshot is that to my surprise, our best lineups have been each used been used very little and surprise me:

1) Freeman, Adams, Bishop, Lindo, Qwanzi - small sample size.  Net rating +67

2) Freeman, Adams, Bam, Lindo, Noel - small sample size. NR +64

3) Amir, Brendan, Bishop, Bam, Brown - small sample size .

All the good lineups are small sample sizes and all driven by great defensive numbers. NR +46


Our worst lineups have been:

1)  Freman, Adams, Bishop, Bam Lindo.  NR -52. 
Many of us have called for this lineup because it seems to be our 5 best players, but if I understand this chart, this lineup has played 19 minutes - and been outscored 52 -67.  Hard to believe they could give up 67 points in 19 minutes, but I’m guessing the goal with this lineup is to push the pace and it’s failed miserable because opponents have an effective FG% of 76.8 (!) against this line and this line is giving up 168 points per 100 possessions (for context, the worst defense in the nation on KenPom, North Dakota, gives up 120 points per 100 possessions).  Yikes.

2) Freeman, Adams, Dean, Bishop, Lindo. NR -51.
Putting Dean in for Bam has made no difference. In 20 minutes, this line has been outscore 25-47.  Defense better, but offense bad.

3) Harris, Adams, Bishop, Bam, Lindo.  NR -51.  Small sample size. 


Our most common units are:

1) Adams, Bishop, Bam, Brown, Lindo - the usual starters.  NR -22. 
In 80 minutes, they’ve been outscored 108-134.

2) same line with Dean instead of Brown. NR -8.

A little better with Dean instead of Brown; but in 36 minutes, we’d been outscored 55-62.   Still not good enough.

3) Adams, Bishop, Bam, Lindo, Qwanzi.  NR +19.
This has been our 3rd most common lineup and it’s good - out scoring opponents 59-46 in 33 minutes.  Maybe it’s just a small sample, but with Qwanzi on the court, our Defense is MUCH better than with Brown or Dean or neither. 

Best offensive unit:

1) Freman, Bishop, Bam, Brown, Lindo. Offensive rating 132.

Only played 16 min together. Defense subpar, but Outscored opponents 33-28.

2) tie between Harris, Adams, Bishop, Bam, Lindo
And freeman, Adams, Bishop, Qwanzi, Lindo. 

Offensive rating 128 points per 100 possessions and both have good defenses.  Surprising, but also small sample sizes.

Best defensive units:

1) Freman, Adams, Bam, Brown, Lindo.  Defensive rating 47 points per 100 possessions.
Incredible number, but it’s only 11 minutes (outscore: opponent 20-9)

2) Freeman, Adams, Bishop, Lindo, Qwanzi.  Defensive rating  69.
Also only 10 minutes, but outscored opponent 28-15.

3) Adams, Bishop, Bam, Lindo, Qwanzi.  DR 74.

This unit has played 33 minutes together and outscore opponents 59-46.  Of our 6 most frequent lineups, it’s BY FAR been the best one. 


Again, none of this includes Dayton or VCU games, so no idea what lineups did what against them. 


But some conclusions I draw:

1) Qwanzi may look like a liability on offense, but our defense is much better with him and some of our best lineups have him. Maybe it’s small sample fluke or has to do with him playing not against opponents best players, but keep an eye on his playing time and how we do. 

2). The lineup with our 5 best players on the floor together has been a total disaster on disaster on defense. Could be the way we try to play with them, but it’s been as bad a defensive unit as you’ve ever seen.  This was a surprise to me (I think Jonn Feinstein even suggested these 5 play together more, but so far it hasn’t worked).

3). Only one unit without Biship had played more than 10 minutes together, and it’s our 2nd best unit.  I’m a bishop believer, but this was noticeable to me. 

4) Very little has worked well this year, though everything here mostly feels like statistical noise because few lineups  have much time together on the court, and almost none have succeeded Over more than a handful of minutes - though I guess when you are ranked 277th in efficiency, this is what it looks like.

Last edited by Free Quebec (1/13/2022 10:16 am)

 

1/13/2022 1:41 pm  #2


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Thanks for the massive effort FQ!

The sample sizes are tough, but in general, Brown's presence seems to give us a little more of the inside-outside game.  It's clear that's what JC was thinking at some point because we started so many games on  offense trying to get the ball inside to Brown.  However, after a couple of efforts inside and missed cupcakes, we typically abandon that approach for the remainder of the game.  In the last two games--we've abandoned it altogether.  I still think there is an upside.  If Javi could score 17 points in one game--so can Brown!

I also think Brown helps on defense as well.  While not a classic rim protector, he is athletic and mobile underneath.  Where we seemed to get burned with him on defense is when he comes out to pressure the three and plays 25 feet from the rim.  That makes it easier for good passing opponents  to draw him outside and facilitate their drives to the basket.      

Just before the season started, I asked Eric Atkins what he foresaw as identity of this team-, or more specifically, what we could expect on offense and defense.  He really didn't give any answer or even express a hope for what he'd like to see, other than that they'd be athletic and hard working.  So basically, that early season search for answers or simply a conceptual plan that can be executed still doesn't seem to exist.

 

Last edited by Merrick (1/13/2022 1:43 pm)

 

1/14/2022 7:59 am  #3


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

I’ve noticed that the team does play somewhat better when Samuel’s is in but didn’t have the data to back that up so never posted about it. At this stage, is there really a downside to experimenting with playing him consistently at the 5?

 

1/14/2022 11:01 am  #4


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Lets keep things grounded here, okay?  In 135 minutes played this season, Samuels has committed more fouls than points and has more turnovers than assists.   I am hardly clamoring for him to get more playing time.  

 

1/14/2022 12:44 pm  #5


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Brown hasn't developed, as he should, given his size and build and some flashes of talent. Dean is not as advertised. Qanzi, hard to tell--sometimes energizing, sometimes disappearing, but don't know if he is able to function as the main big guy in the current way our offense and defense is played. (Was going to say "structured" instead of play, but that would be a big assumption.)
Do we have a big man coach, or just odd offensive and defensive coordinators? No one on coaching staff, sizewise, seems to have played more than guard, though that may not be a significant factor.

 

1/14/2022 3:54 pm  #6


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

Lets keep things grounded here, okay?  In 135 minutes played this season, Samuels has committed more fouls than points and has more turnovers than assists.   I am hardly clamoring for him to get more playing time.  

That’s why I was so surprised to see these results.  Maybe it’s just a small sample size fluke or Samuels has just been playing against opposing bench units, but our defense and net efficiency does seem to be much better with him on the floor than Brown, Dean, or neither.

     Thread Starter
 

Yesterday 5:25 pm  #7


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Disappointed this subject can’t get more conversation going, at least compared to the old scores and petty disputes people are arguing about.  But oh well, I guess when you are flirting with being ranked even worse in D1 than the 1-27 team, it’s understandable that no one really cares.

Last edited by Free Quebec (Yesterday 5:26 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

Yesterday 9:11 pm  #8


Re: GW’s most effective lineups.

Free Quebec wrote:

Disappointed this subject can’t get more conversation going, at least compared to the old scores and petty disputes people are arguing about. But oh well, I guess when you are flirting with being ranked even worse in D1 than the 1-27 team, it’s understandable that no one really cares.

I agree and wish I had something insightful to say about the subject. Using the 'eye test' Samuels seems to be a solid defensive player, although he's pretty shaky on offense. He would be a nice piece off the bench if either Dean or Brown were better than they have been as starters.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum