Would you do it 4-30...

[AHF]

14 hours ago, sturt said:

I keep hearing this. But had taken it as just hypercritical anti-JC talk or anti-CC talk, or both. I suppose it took you saying it and you saying it this explicitly for me to decide to look into it.

The numbers reflect what I thought they'd reflect, though... and accordingly, the theory needs to be modified to account for the numbers.

They have been the 6th most productive (as measured by net points) pair we ever put on the floor. And for two years running.

That's not as good as being the 1st most productive, but it's not chopped liver either.

If that pairing bothers a fan, s/he probably should be targeting almost every player on the current roster as disposable.

2022-23

2021-22

2020-21

They aren't terrible by any means but by the eye test I'm seeing a pairing where CC gets fully utilized and JC is underutilized.  I'm also seeing diminishing returns.  In 2020-21, CC appears in the top 4 lineups.  The next year in 2021-22, OO shows up higher on the list but CC is there at #3, #5, and #6.  This past season, OO is dominating both of them showing up 3 times before either of them make an appearance.  I think there is a need to explore better fits that might get the best out of our full slate of bigs. 

When you look at the same metric for 5 man lineups, the top 5 all have OO in them.  8 of the top 10 have OO.  JJ appears in 5 of the top 10.  JC appears in 4 of the top 10.  CC appears in only 1 of the top 10.  So there is some opportunity for addition by subtraction here as well with OO getting more minutes.

With the growth I expect to see from OO and JJ, I feel like now is the best window if you are going to move one or both of JC and CC.

[JeffS17]

I really disagree with the notion of looking at pair lineups like this at all.  OO is surging because he's a starter caliber player getting minutes against bench players.  And our bench has been very good while our sdtarters have struggled this year, so most of those pairs are just bench player pairings or trae + bench player.  Other than Trae/Hunter, Capela/JC is the top pairing for any pairs of starters.  If people do buy in to this data (I don't), it's tough not to conclude JC/Capela works.  

I think the pairing is fine as well, even if I wouldn't use that data set to support it.  The narrative around JC has been utterly wild.  He's shooting near 40% in the past 20 games (read: since Quin arrived) from 3.  What more do people want from him?  He's expensive but he's historically good from three and he is versatile.  He plays good defense.  He's a solid player and outplayed the rest of the roster except Trae for the last two games of the post season, yet here we are again discussing why we need to ship him off.

Here's my take on JC, his fit with Capela, and his fit with the team.  I think people's opinion of him (eye test) has been heavily influenced by Nate McMillans poor offensive principles and usage of JC.  I suspect that Quin will look at JC and see so much opportunity that he will not feel the same as people on this board.  No one was questioning how well JC fit with Capela when we made a run to the ECF under Lloyd Pierce's offense.  The questioning began when Nate installed his draconian offense.  Now we are about to get to see a Quin Snyder offense that will likely include more movement, more threes, and more spacing.  I firmly believe JC can be a big part of that, even with Capela on the floor.  So the question is not how well did they fit under Nate's offense, but how well will they fit under Snyder's offense?  If we believe JC shooting near 40% was a fluke under Snyder, I see the point -- otherwise, he's a plus defender, great rebounder, very good in PnR, and a good 3P shooter.  Why are people so eager to move off of one or both of these guys?

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JeffS17 said:

I really disagree with the notion of looking at pair lineups like this at all.  OO is surging because he's a starter caliber player getting minutes against bench players.  And our bench has been very good while our sdtarters have struggled this year, so most of those pairs are just bench player pairings or trae + bench player.  Other than Trae/Hunter, Capela/JC is the top pairing for any pairs of starters.  If people do buy in to this data (I don't), it's tough not to conclude JC/Capela works.  

I think the pairing is fine as well, even if I wouldn't use that data set to support it.  The narrative around JC has been utterly wild.  He's shooting near 40% in the past 20 games (read: since Quin arrived) from 3.  What more do people want from him?  He's expensive but he's historically good from three and he is versatile.  He plays good defense.  He's a solid player and outplayed the rest of the roster except Trae for the last two games of the post season, yet here we are again discussing why we need to ship him off.

Here's my take on JC, his fit with Capela, and his fit with the team.  I think people's opinion of him (eye test) has been heavily influenced by Nate McMillans poor offensive principles and usage of JC.  I suspect that Quin will look at JC and see so much opportunity that he will not feel the same as people on this board.  No one was questioning how well JC fit with Capela when we made a run to the ECF under Lloyd Pierce's offense.  The questioning began when Nate installed his draconian offense.  Now we are about to get to see a Quin Snyder offense that will likely include more movement, more threes, and more spacing.  I firmly believe JC can be a big part of that, even with Capela on the floor.  So the question is not how well did they fit under Nate's offense, but how well will they fit under Snyder's offense?  If we believe JC shooting near 40% was a fluke under Snyder, I see the point -- otherwise, he's a plus defender, great rebounder, very good in PnR, and a good 3P shooter.  Why are people so eager to move off of one or both of these guys?

Not a big pushback but a couple of comments.

First, our starters had amazing numbers and our bench was pretty awful for the first half of the year.  That flipped over the course of the season but this wasn't a full season of great bench and terrible starters.  

Second, I do think people were questioning JC some when we made our ECF run.  He struggled some in some of those matchups going -22 +/- in the second two series and getting worked in some of those matchups (Randle 11.6 rpg vs 6.0 rpg for JC, for example).  His 13.9 points per game with 55% FG%, 29% 3pt% wasn't impressive but still much better than this year where he scored less than 10 points in 3 of 6 games.  For people who questioned whether he could score effectively in a playoffs setting the numbers have gotten worse the last two years.  He averaged 11 per game on unimpressive shooting for the series despite his really strong numbers in the final.

Third, under Quin in the regular season JC has averaged 13 points on 50.4% FG% and 35.5% 3pt% along with a measly 4.8 rebounds, 1 assist, 0.4 steals, and 0.6 blocks per game.  Granted 25 games is a smallish sample size and I'd even moreso qualify that by noting that Snyder couldn't dramatically change things when he came on board midseason.  But JC hasn't shot great under Quin or done anything else great under him.  He was a net -66 in his minutes under Quin fwiw.  Significant improvement will need to come next year.

[Final_quest]

Let's say we move on from Capela and keep JC.  I'd be open to see how we look with most of the roster in tact without Capela, assuming we get a significant upgrade in our scheme. 

My hunch is we still need more firepower, and that internal improvements won't be enough.    

[JeffS17]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

He struggled some in some of those matchups going -22 +/- in the second two series and getting worked in some of those matchups (Randle 11.6 rpg vs 6.0 rpg for JC, for example)

Very fair

1 hour ago, AHF said:

I'd even moreso qualify that by noting that Snyder couldn't dramatically change things when he came on board midseason.

Quin hasn't implemented his coaching staff, offense, or anything -- my point was that JC has shot well over the past 20 games moreso than it was that is attributed to Quin.

[AHF]

46 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Very fair

Quin hasn't implemented his coaching staff, offense, or anything -- my point was that JC has shot well over the past 20 games moreso than it was that is attributed to Quin.

It is a nicer stretch.  Not near his peak but him shooting sub-30% on 3's makes a JC/CC pairing unworkable so good to see any stretch where he is doing better after the last year.

[sturt]

On 5/1/2023 at 11:33 AM, AHF said:

When you look at the same metric for 5 man lineups, the top 5 all have OO in them.  8 of the top 10 have OO. 

Why wouldn't that be a commentary, rather, on the superiority of our 2nd C over other teams' 2nd C?

 

Circling back to the core point made, CC and JC have a lot of success together compared to other duos on the team, yet we almost always get this constant refrain, "We really need to get rid of one of the two."

 

I'll grant this much.

If you could find a C whose skill set is like Clint's but is an even more impressive rim protector, rim runner, and rebounder... you'd probably have a better partner for John.

If you could find a PF whose skill set is like John's but is an even more impressive shooter from the arc, shooter from mid-range, rebounder and defensive presence... you'd probably have a better partner for Clint.

 

Cue the Dixie Chicks... here's your trouble.

Getting that is going to cost you. How you gonna pay for it? And at what opportunity cost to improve in other areas... most significantly to me, perimeter defense... ? And at what cost to chemistry you've already gotten through sunk cost of them playing together all this time? And at what cost to maturity of the team overall, both of those guys being especially positive elements? And at what cost to the spreadsheet/payroll?

 

Stop this myth that these two cannot play well together, when the numbers make clear that do... and worse, they consistently have all this time. Please.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Why wouldn't that be a commentary, rather, on the superiority of our 2nd C over other teams' 2nd C?

 

Circling back to the core point made, CC and JC have a lot of success together compared to other duos on the team, yet we almost always get this constant refrain, "We really need to get rid of one of the two."

 

I'll grant this much.

If you could find a C whose skill set is like Clint's but is an even more impressive rim protector, rim runner, and rebounder... you'd probably have a better partner for John.

If you could find a PF whose skill set is like John's but is an even more impressive shooter from the arc, shooter from mid-range, rebounder and defensive presence... you'd probably have a better partner for Clint.

 

Cue the Dixie Chicks... here's your trouble.

Getting that is going to cost you. How you gonna pay for it? And at what opportunity cost to improve in other areas... most significantly to me, perimeter defense... ? And at what cost to chemistry you've already gotten through sunk cost of them playing together all this time? And at what cost to maturity of the team overall, both of those guys being especially positive elements? And at what cost to the spreadsheet/payroll?

 

Stop this myth that these two cannot play well together, when the numbers make clear that do... and worse, they consistently have all this time. Please.

I haven't seen them play together particularly well in the playoffs for several years.  

This year CC put up 8.3 points and 8.3 rebounds per game.  JC put up 11.3 points and 4.3 rebounds per game.  For advanced metrics, CC was 4th on the team and JC was 8th on the team in WS and that includes the bump that comes from pulling them off the floor when there are unfavorable matchups like small ball lineups.  BPM they were 6th and 9th.  VORP they were 5th and 10th.  

I really think that if we want to contend something has to change here.  (I don't focus on it as much but last year CC averaged 2 points and 7.5 rebounds over his 2 games and JC averaged 9.4 points and 4.6 rebounds).  

That just doesn't cut it so you are either banking on dramatically difference performance from them in next year's playoffs or you are accepting you aren't going to contend unless our young players develop so much that they become very highly compensated bench players.  That doesn't mean that you have to do a "change for change's sake" move.  You only move them if it makes sense.  But I think we should be exploring moves that Landry and Quin believe make sense and see if we can't make it happen.