- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 22,691
- Reaction Score
- 8,908
O.K., having done the work, this discussion is absolutely critical to understand who our team is, and may be the most important discussion I've started on this board. Yes, pluses and minuses can be extremely unfair over a game or two, but as I was saying on another thread over the course of a season it is the only stat that matters. If my team is always better with player X on the court, I don't care if I think he's one of my "best" five players or even if I understand why he makes the team better -- I want him on the court. As for methodology: (i) I didn't look at Roscoe, because as the season wore on he played more and more as a 3 and less as a 4; (ii) I only looked at Big East games (regular season and BET), and I fully acknowledge the numbers might be different, because Tyler was much more effective before January; and (iii) when I compile bests and worsts of the Bigs, I am referring to whether they had the best plus/minus of the three or the worst of them for that game, and when two tied I gave them each half a point.
Over the course of the season, UConn went 10-11 with an aggregate plus 18. How did our bigs stack up? AO was a plus 80, Drummond was a plus 34 and Tyler was a minus 41. AO was the "best" big 10.5 times and the worst 5 times, Drummond was the best 8.5 times and the worst 4 times, and Tyler was the best twice and the worst 12 times. That would, in and of itself, appear to tell a clear story but it doesn't tell half of it.
I then broke the Big East season in half, and looked at numbers from the first half of the Big East season (9 games) and the second half, including the BET (12 games). Now, the numbers stop being merely statistically significant and become startling. Over the first half of the Big East season, we went 4-5 and were even in points scored and allowed. During that period, Andre was a plus 18 and was our best big 6.5 times and our worst once. AO was a minus 7, was the best 1.5 times and the worst 5 times, and Tyler was a minus 5, was the best once and the worst 3 times. Meaning the team was a little better with AD on the floor and a little worse than average when Tyler or AO was on the floor. And that AO was struggling big time and was contributing no more than Tyler was.
But look at what happened the second half of the season (and I think it is consistent with at least what I thought I was observing). UConn went 6-6, and was a plus 18 points over those games. But look at how the relevant numbers for the bigs changed. AO was a plus 87 over those twelve games, was our best big in 9 of 12 and never our worst. AD was a plus 16, our best big twice and our worst 3 times. And Tyler was a minus 36, our best big once (in the first game of the second half) and our worst in nine. AO's plus/minus was 5 points a game better than Drummond's since the midway point, and was over 10 points a game better than TO's. And because UConn only outscored opponents by 1.5 points a game over this stretch, being on the bench for more minutes only explained a very small part of this.
So, given what AO's scoring and rebounding numbers are (not good), what does this show? It shows that even if AO isn't rebounding, he's boxing out. That even if he's not scoring, the D is working better with him in. And that, time after time after time, he is not on the court when we're giving up the huge runs against that have made us mediocre. On the other hand, when Tyler is on the floor this team does not function well. Does that mean it's Tyler's fault? No, it implies that, but there are other possible explanations. But there is no denying that we're a much, much better team when AO is on the court and when Tyler isn't.
So you can argue all you want, but I could care less what posters think -- I hope to god our coaches understand this, because too often AO didn't come back in quickly when a run against us started. And I hope AO can keep himself out of foul trouble. Because the bottom line, folks, is that our chances of winning a championship are 0 unless AO is on the friggin floor most of the game.
Over the course of the season, UConn went 10-11 with an aggregate plus 18. How did our bigs stack up? AO was a plus 80, Drummond was a plus 34 and Tyler was a minus 41. AO was the "best" big 10.5 times and the worst 5 times, Drummond was the best 8.5 times and the worst 4 times, and Tyler was the best twice and the worst 12 times. That would, in and of itself, appear to tell a clear story but it doesn't tell half of it.
I then broke the Big East season in half, and looked at numbers from the first half of the Big East season (9 games) and the second half, including the BET (12 games). Now, the numbers stop being merely statistically significant and become startling. Over the first half of the Big East season, we went 4-5 and were even in points scored and allowed. During that period, Andre was a plus 18 and was our best big 6.5 times and our worst once. AO was a minus 7, was the best 1.5 times and the worst 5 times, and Tyler was a minus 5, was the best once and the worst 3 times. Meaning the team was a little better with AD on the floor and a little worse than average when Tyler or AO was on the floor. And that AO was struggling big time and was contributing no more than Tyler was.
But look at what happened the second half of the season (and I think it is consistent with at least what I thought I was observing). UConn went 6-6, and was a plus 18 points over those games. But look at how the relevant numbers for the bigs changed. AO was a plus 87 over those twelve games, was our best big in 9 of 12 and never our worst. AD was a plus 16, our best big twice and our worst 3 times. And Tyler was a minus 36, our best big once (in the first game of the second half) and our worst in nine. AO's plus/minus was 5 points a game better than Drummond's since the midway point, and was over 10 points a game better than TO's. And because UConn only outscored opponents by 1.5 points a game over this stretch, being on the bench for more minutes only explained a very small part of this.
So, given what AO's scoring and rebounding numbers are (not good), what does this show? It shows that even if AO isn't rebounding, he's boxing out. That even if he's not scoring, the D is working better with him in. And that, time after time after time, he is not on the court when we're giving up the huge runs against that have made us mediocre. On the other hand, when Tyler is on the floor this team does not function well. Does that mean it's Tyler's fault? No, it implies that, but there are other possible explanations. But there is no denying that we're a much, much better team when AO is on the court and when Tyler isn't.
So you can argue all you want, but I could care less what posters think -- I hope to god our coaches understand this, because too often AO didn't come back in quickly when a run against us started. And I hope AO can keep himself out of foul trouble. Because the bottom line, folks, is that our chances of winning a championship are 0 unless AO is on the friggin floor most of the game.
