Minute Distribution - 3 Guard/Wing Lineup

[5fouls]

One of the major discussion points on this board right now is the belief by many that the 3 Big lineup is a root cause of many of our problems.  While I have seen people throw out a lineup consisting of 3 guards/wings, I have yet to see anyone show how that theory works over the course of an entire 40 minute game.  

So, here is your challenge..  200 minute game.  120 minutes have to go to Guards/Wings.  80 Minutes to Bigs.  You're cheating if you give zero minutes to a scholarship player.  It's easy for us to act all tough about minutes, but when push comes to shove, it's hard to not play a healthy scholarship player any time.  And, before you say you can do it, I'll counter by saying many of you have showed frustration that we have two open scholarships.  Those two form an illogical combination.

Also, it's not fair to point out how other teams use a 3 guard/wing lineup.  They have different rosters than we do.  Arguably, IU's 3 most productive players right now are Bigs.  

So, let's see what you can do with this.

120 minutes to be spread among Rob, Al, Devonte, Armaan, Damezi, and Jerome.

80 minutes to be spread among TJD, Joey, Justin, Race, and Deron

Now, I'm going to throw an example out there, but I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting it.  I personally do not feel we have the roster to play 3 guards/wings the majority of time.  And, I think my example shows that.  Also, I'm going to add an additional twist and include another highly discussed topic and use the bench as a learning tool for Devonte.  

Guards/Wing minutes first:  Rob (30); Al (30); Armaan (30), Devonte (10), Damezi (10), Jerome (10) = 120

Bigs minutes"  TJD (25), Justin (25), Joey (20), Race (5); Deron (5) = 80

So, for me to fulfill the 3 guard/wing challenge the whole game, I'm playing Armaan more than I am TJD, Justin, and Joey, who again are our three best players right now.  

With the Devonte 'benching', I'm also forced into a lot of lineups where I have 2. or even 3, non-scoring threats on the floor.  And, please don't argue that Rob is a scoring threat (he's not right now), or that Jerome will be once the rust wears off (maybe, maybe not, or maybe it's not rust any longer).

So, basically, I've done a poor job trying to make it work.  Can you do better.  Now, you'r only rules are the 120/80 split and that every scholarship player has to play.  If you want to increase Devonte's minutes that's fine, but make sure you didn't post in the last couple of game threads that his rear-end needs to be on the bench.

And, one final thing.  If you're playing Damezi 20+ minutes, convince me he handles the ball better than Justin on the perimeter.  

Show me what you have HSN! 

 

  

 

[CincyHoosier]

Bigs:

TJD 30

Smith 25

Brunk 15

Davis 5

Race 10

Smalls:

Al 35

Rob 35

Armaan 30

Devonte 0

Jerome 10

Smith 5

Anderson 5

I'd limit the 3 big lineup to 5 mins per game or so which is why smith is listed twice.  I'd limit Jerome and Anderson until they figure out how to play basketball again.  

 

 

[5fouls]

10 minutes ago, CincyHoosier said:

Bigs:

TJD 30

Smith 25

Brunk 15

Davis 5

Race 10

Smalls:

Al 35

Rob 35

Armaan 30

Devonte 0

Jerome 10

Smith 5

Anderson 5

I'd limit the 3 big lineup to 5 mins per game or so which is why smith is listed twice.  I'd limit Jerome and Anderson until they figure out how to play basketball again.  

 

 

I'll challenge you on 2 things. 

1) Armaan getting twice the minutes as Joey.  Joey has a Player Efficiency Rating of 17.2 to Armaan's 6.6 (which is actually lower than Jerome's).    Win shares per 40 minutes show Joey with a big edge as well.  What makes it interesting in this challenge is that it's Big vs. small, so in your example you are forced to play the less productive player significantly more than the more productive player.   

2) Rules say you have to give Devonte at least 1 minute. You don't have to redo it.  For the sake of argument, let's say he takes that one minute from Jerome.  There is no significant change in the overall results. 

Edit:  Also just noticed that you snuck Smith in as a small for 5 minutes.  The prevailing belief out ther by many on the board is he can't play there.  

 

 

[Reacher]

Glad you created a thread for this. I'm with you in that as much as I'd like to see Justin playing more at the 4, the construction of this roster and those who are producing really limit that option. It is exacerbated if Green spends more time on the bench as many (myself included) want. The NW game would have been the ideal time to try 3 guards as we had a mostly healthy roster for the first time this year. Damezi and Jerome just aren't producing much at the 3 and if you put a guard there, you leave 1 guard to back up 3 positions. In addition, Brunk gets moved to the bench when, as you have indicated, he is one of our better players. II can see where CAM is reluctantly forced to play Justin on the wing in an effort to get our best players on the floor. I just don't see it changing much this year. Next year, assuming Justin, Joey and TJD all return, we will likely be having the same discussion. 

[Muckraker]

They told me there would be no math involved... 😢😕

[5fouls]

Just now, Muckraker said:

They told me there would be no math involved... 😢😕

That's the problem.  It's really easy for someone to say 'We need to play 3 guards/wings'.  It's another thing to make it work mathematically.  Kudos for @CincyHoosierfor taking a stab at it.  But, I expect a lot of those calling for that lineup will shy away from this thread because they know it's not feasible with our current roster.  

[3Ballin]

Kinda broke it down by linups.

 

[Reacher]

You think Green deserves 25 minutes? 

[NCHoosier32]

Brunk needs to play waaaaaaaay more than 15 minutes

[3Ballin]

23 minutes ago, Reacher said:

You think Green deserves 25 minutes? 

Depends which one shows up. 🤷‍♂️  NW Green gets about 10 maybe.  FSU Green gets 35.

That breakdown isnt exactly what I would do, but playing by the "rules" given, thats how id break it down.

[CTrojan88]

This is a great exercise...mine would be something like this:

rob 35

franklin 30

brunk 30

trayce 35

race 25

Jerome 25

anderson 8

justin 5

al 5

Green 2

The last 4 would split the 20 minutes based on need, engagement and attitude...

 

 

[BGleas]

The problem with your post 5fouls are the rules you’re putting around it. You’re trying to force people into corners. I’ve been very vocal about not liking the 3-Big lineup and wanting 3 guards/wings, but that doesn’t mean I think we should never play 3 bigs. Yes, I think Smithvis bad at the 3, but again that doesn’t mean he’ll never play there. 

Of course Smith is going to have to play some 3/wing, three of our best players are TJD, Brunk and Smith, they need to play, but if I was coaching I’d limit how much they play all 3 together as much as I could, knowing I can’t elminate it all together. 

Also, why does every scholarship player have to play? Aren’t you one that usually champions smaller rotations and not needing to use all the scholarships?

 

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

The problem with your post 5fouls are the rules you’re putting around it. You’re trying to force people into corners. I’ve been very vocal about not liking the 3-Big lineup and wanting 3 guards/wings, but that doesn’t mean I think we should never play 3 bigs. Yes, I think Smithvis bad at the 3, but again that doesn’t mean he’ll never play there. 

Of course Smith is going to have to play some 3/wing, three of our best players are TJD, Brunk and Smith, they need to play, but if I was coaching I’d limit how much they play all 3 together as much as I could, knowing I can’t elminate it all together. 

Also, why does every scholarship player have to play? Aren’t you one that usually champions smaller rotations and not needing to use all the scholarships?

 

It’s an old way of arguing, just frame it the way you want it. 
 

just isn’t what anyone who had been concerned about the 3-big lineup is saying. This isn’t math, it’s basketball.
 

There’s a fairly painfully obvious reason why teams generally do not play 3 bigs — none of whom are stretch bigs / stretch 4’s or actual wings - as a primary lineup, it clogs the lane, teams will sag off, and then they can’t score, and unless they’re rangy athletic bigs, they will be unable to stay in front of or move with quicker wings on D. 

take that for data!

[Fundamentals]

Fouls, fun thread, thanks. 
 

TJD: 35

Brunk: 28

Race: 25

Rob: (let him get his mojo back by playing through it): 35

Franklin: 25

Al: 20

Hunter: 6

Damezi: 6

Combined walk-on minutes: 20

Bob Knight doghouse: DeRon Davis, Devonte Green, Justin Smith

I really believe deliberately limiting the minutes of this last group may have short term loss but long term gain, both this year and next  

 

 

 

 

[NCHoosier32]

i am a big fan of not worrying about the positions, but putting your best 5 on the floor for as many minutes as possible.  in addition to that, this team might as well start thinking about the future because this is going to be an ugly season.  those are things i'd base my starting lineup and minutes around.  

[5fouls]

11 hours ago, 3Ballin said:

Kinda broke it down by linups.

 

I like how you broke it down by lineup.  good job.

 

[5fouls]

6 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

It’s an old way of arguing, just frame it the way you want it. 
 

just isn’t what anyone who had been concerned about the 3-big lineup is saying. This isn’t math, it’s basketball.
 

There’s a fairly painfully obvious reason why teams generally do not play 3 bigs — none of whom are stretch bigs / stretch 4’s or actual wings - as a primary lineup, it clogs the lane, teams will sag off, and then they can’t score, and unless they’re rangy athletic bigs, they will be unable to stay in front of or move with quicker wings on D. 

take that for data!

An older way of arguing is speaking in absolutes without providing supporting information to back your position.

 

[5fouls]

9 hours ago, BGleas said:

The problem with your post 5fouls are the rules you’re putting around it. You’re trying to force people into corners. I’ve been very vocal about not liking the 3-Big lineup and wanting 3 guards/wings, but that doesn’t mean I think we should never play 3 bigs. Yes, I think Smithvis bad at the 3, but again that doesn’t mean he’ll never play there. 

Of course Smith is going to have to play some 3/wing, three of our best players are TJD, Brunk and Smith, they need to play, but if I was coaching I’d limit how much they play all 3 together as much as I could, knowing I can’t elminate it all together. 

Also, why does every scholarship player have to play? Aren’t you one that usually champions smaller rotations and not needing to use all the scholarships?

 

@BGleas  I respect your opinion.  Let me explain my rules.  Forcing the 120/80 breakdown was a way of showing how difficult it is to do.  Simply saying I'll play Rob. Al, Armaan, Smith, and TJD with Brunk the first guy off the bench is easy to do.  Making the work for the full 40 minutes is difficult.  As you've said, we have to go big some, which is my main point.  I'm in now way advocating we play 3 bigs all the time eaither.

I think @3ballin did a pretty good job in the spirit of what I'm trying to show.  But, even his example only has TJD on the court for 25 minutes, and we need him more than that.

As far as the rule that every scholarship player has to play, that was simply a way to avoid getting dozens of lineups with Devonte having zero minutes.  Realistically, that is not going to happen if he's healthy.  And, Archie does seem to be inclined to play people in every game this season if they are healthy.

[rico]

The minutes delegation is easy to come up with, however the minutes with line-ups is pretty tricky.  Most want Justin to play the "4", but in doing so it relegates Joey to the bench.  In doing that then Brunk's minutes comes from spelling TJD at the "5" or Justin's at the "4".  The same could be said that most want Rob playing the "1", then who spells Phinisee?  Al?  Devonte?  Yes sir, substitutions and the minutes involved are not an easy thing to juggle at all.  But rest assured @5fouls, I am working on it...might take me the rest of the year but I am working on it.   LOL

[5fouls]

I want to follow up with something I touched on in the original post.  In our Big/Wing comparisons, we tend to classify Justin as a Big and Damezi as a Wing.

Let's compare the two when looking at some of the skills necessary to play an effective wing.

Does Damezi do 'blank' better than Justin.

- Handle the ball (no)

- Shoot a better percentage from 3 point line (no)

- Guard the perimeter (no)

- Score on the break ( a big fat NO)

So, if you are penciling in Damezi at the 3 for 10 minutes, are we really a better team with him on the wing than Justin?

Food for thought when wondering why Archie plays Justin at the 3 as much as he does.

[Shooter]

40 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I want to follow up with something I touched on in the original post.  In our Big/Wing comparisons, we tend to classify Justin as a Big and Damezi as a Wing.

Let's compare the two when looking at some of the skills necessary to play an effective wing.

Does Damezi do 'blank' better than Justin.

- Handle the ball (no)

- Shoot a better percentage from 3 point line (no)

- Guard the perimeter (no)

- Score on the break ( a big fat NO)

So, if you are penciling in Damezi at the 3 for 10 minutes, are we really a better team with him on the wing than Justin?

Food for thought when wondering why Archie plays Justin at the 3 as much as he does.

Damezi is obviously a better shooter than Justin, you are being disingenuous. I don't care what their small sample size percentages are. It takes about 2 minutes of watching IU to figure this out. The defense guards Damezi when he is on the perimeter. They sag 5-10 feet off of Smith.

[Shooter]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

@BGleas  I respect your opinion.  Let me explain my rules.  Forcing the 120/80 breakdown was a way of showing how difficult it is to do.  Simply saying I'll play Rob. Al, Armaan, Smith, and TJD with Brunk the first guy off the bench is easy to do.  Making the work for the full 40 minutes is difficult.  As you've said, we have to go big some, which is my main point.  I'm in now way advocating we play 3 bigs all the time eaither.

I think @3ballin did a pretty good job in the spirit of what I'm trying to show.  But, even his example only has TJD on the court for 25 minutes, and we need him more than that.

As far as the rule that every scholarship player has to play, that was simply a way to avoid getting dozens of lineups with Devonte having zero minutes.  Realistically, that is not going to happen if he's healthy.  And, Archie does seem to be inclined to play people in every game this season if they are healthy.

We don't HAVE to go big. 80 post minutes - 30 for TJD, 25 for Smith, 25 for Brunk. Brunk is a 5, Smith is a 4, TJD can play in either slot depending on his partner. Done. 

Going away from the big lineup essentially means increasing minutes off the bench for Hunter and Anderson at the expense of Thompson and Davis.

[HoosierDom]

15 hours ago, Reacher said:

Glad you created a thread for this. I'm with you in that as much as I'd like to see Justin playing more at the 4, the construction of this roster and those who are producing really limit that option. It is exacerbated if Green spends more time on the bench as many (myself included) want. The NW game would have been the ideal time to try 3 guards as we had a mostly healthy roster for the first time this year. Damezi and Jerome just aren't producing much at the 3 and if you put a guard there, you leave 1 guard to back up 3 positions. In addition, Brunk gets moved to the bench when, as you have indicated, he is one of our better players. II can see where CAM is reluctantly forced to play Justin on the wing in an effort to get our best players on the floor. I just don't see it changing much this year. Next year, assuming Justin, Joey and TJD all return, we will likely be having the same discussion. 

Next year, assuming those 3 return (which I think they very, very likely will), we will have 3 freshmen wings and an extra year of development/health for Damezei and Hunter - hopefully one of those five will step up and be deserving of starter's minutes. At that point we have a conundrum and I suspect Joey will lose a few minutes and Justin probably will too (they'll still play a lot, but not as much).  

[ATX_sig]

I'd probably go this route. 

I think Al and Devonte are much better when they just concentrate on creating and scoring for themselves. So I give the Franklin the role of backing up Rob at PG.  You may have to use DG or Al at PG in some game situations (injuries, fouls, ejections, whatever).  Hunter is struggling but the other options haven't been much better.   I actually give Hunter a bigger role to see if can get going to fill the SF role.  I think he has more upside.  I give Hunter at least a game or 2 in a consistent role before trying something else if he isn't progressing.  

RP (30),  AF (10)

DG(25), Al (15)

Hunter (20), Al (10)

Bigs

TJD(30), Smith (30), Brunk (30) -  I bring Brunk off the bench and will also have Smith at SF for 10 minutes.  I prefer  the agility and speed over the size.  I may also let TJD  take some mid range shots 

That is an 8 man rotation.  Race and DA and DeRon are waiting in the wings to replace Hunter or AF if they are struggling.  Not that AF is struggling but he does look like a Frosh out there. 

 

[BGleas]

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

@BGleas  I respect your opinion.  Let me explain my rules.  Forcing the 120/80 breakdown was a way of showing how difficult it is to do.  Simply saying I'll play Rob. Al, Armaan, Smith, and TJD with Brunk the first guy off the bench is easy to do.  Making the work for the full 40 minutes is difficult.  As you've said, we have to go big some, which is my main point.  I'm in now way advocating we play 3 bigs all the time eaither.

I think @3ballin did a pretty good job in the spirit of what I'm trying to show.  But, even his example only has TJD on the court for 25 minutes, and we need him more than that.

As far as the rule that every scholarship player has to play, that was simply a way to avoid getting dozens of lineups with Devonte having zero minutes.  Realistically, that is not going to happen if he's healthy.  And, Archie does seem to be inclined to play people in every game this season if they are healthy.

I respect your opinions as well, goes without saying, we go way back on these forums .

But, I think you're creating a narrative or a point that isn't really there. Of course it's difficult to create a 40-minute exclusive 3-guard/wing lineup, we don't have a lot of guards, and our three best, or at least most consistent, players have been TJD, Brunk and Smith. But, I don't believe anyone said that was what they were advocating for? 

I'm not going to break out the minutes because 1) that's not my job and 2) things flow and change throughout a game. There are moments where 3 bigs are warranted, there are things such as foul trouble, injuries, etc. 

Here's my thing. I would go small as much as I could and I would shorten the rotation as much as I could. People always talk about depth and how deep we are going to be in the offseason, there was even a thread about it in the late summer/early Fall, and my point in that thread was questioning whether we were actually deep or was it just that nobody had separated themselves? I think it's clearly the latter. 

This team has a lot of issues, but one of the big issues is that between Anderson and Hunter neither has separated themselves. Between Thompson and Davis, neither has separated themselves (you can argue Thompson has been better, but it's mainly more due to how bad Davis has been). Outside of the Butler game, Franklin hasn't really separated himself, and between Phinisee, Durham and Green, none have really separated themselves. 

I believe IU should tighten the rotation and go smaller as much as possible, while understanding we can't play 40 minutes of small ball. We need TJD, Brunk and Smith on the floor, I'd just limit how often it happens all 3 together as much as I could, while still giving them the minutes they need.

I'm also giving as many minutes as possible in the backcourt/wing to Phinisee, Durham and Franklin, and hoping that lights a fire under Green. IU can win some without Green, but IU can't reach its full potential without a fully engaged, under control, and onboard Green. Unfortunately, it appears he's going to have be shamed into doing it though. 

For the scrap minutes, I'm choosing between Anderson/Hunter (not sure who to pick here) and Thompson/Davis (I'd choose Thompson) and at least for a few games the loser in those decisions probably isn't getting any time. IU needs one of the guys in each of those groupings to get into a rhythm. By playing both Anderson and Hunter each 5 minutes, instead of one of them 10 minutes you're hindering both of their abilities to get into the flow and feel comfortable. You have to choose one and ride him (same with Thompson/Davis, but again I think Race is the clear choice).