KaibabKat wrote:Kaleb Tarczewski: ORtg = 109.3, DRtg = 89.8.
So, in 100 possessions he produces 19.5 more points than he allows.
Dusan Ristic: ORtg = 122.6, DRtg - 90.8.
So, in 100 possesions he produces 31.8 more points than he allows.
Explanations as to why Dusan does not play more than 9.1 mpg seem more than just a little bit Looney.
I can play this game too! Here's another efficiency stat for you.
BPM -- Box Plus/Minus
A box score estimate of the points per 100 possessions a player contributed above a league-average player, translated to an average team. Further broken down into O = Offensive, D = Defensive.
Code: Select all
Rk Player OBPM DBPM BPM
5 Kaleb Tarczewski 1.2 4.3 5.5
12 Dusan Ristic 1.7 0.7 2.4
What this appears to support, is the idea that Tarc is slightly less valuable offensively (I think we all agree on that), but much more valuable defensively (debatable to some, but count me as a yes), and as a result, more valuable on the whole (again, debateable, but I'm OK with how the season has played out on that front).
Then again, there is no one stat, in a vacuum or otherwise absent of further context (such as team role, when the possessions occur, against starters or backups), that definitively proves either player in question should receive more or less PT vis a vis the other.
As such, explanations that rely on one season-long stat on the heels of 1 productive game to argue that Ristic should play an appreciably larger amount on a team that is 24-3 seem to be just a tad Looney.
gronk4heisman wrote:They leap from ristic to Zeus on offense is huge, the step down on defense is small to my untrained eye. The moral of this story is ristic earned more time in the second half and miller's explanation was unsatisfactory at best. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this leads ristic to consider transfer or going pro at the end of the season. When you lose trust that you are getting a fair shot with your coach you are not loyal to that coach.
Well, you said it yourself, your untrained eye. The step down on team defense when Ristic is in the game compared to when Tarc is in the game is much more significant than what you apparently are able see. Also, the OBPM number above, as well as shooting percentages across the board, suggest that the leap offensively isn't as large as you say it is.
Miller's explanation is only unsatisfactory to those who already have pre-set biases on Tarc. The moral of the story, is that UA won, and we as fans all take out of that what we want to take out of that. The rest of your post slides too far down a very slippery slope to respond.
Olsondogg wrote:He did nothing of the sort. Miller is trying to win games, that's it. He's not there to coddle players who think that they aren't getting this or that. Do you think that he sat down with Victor and laid out a plan to get him more minutes, begging him to stay? No.
Look at his answers to questions about how he was using Stanley's minutes earlier in the year, and if/when he starts. "I don't ask him for permission" I believe is what he said.
It's really pretty simple to get minutes in Miller's system. Be good. Be good on both ends of the floor, and then do it consistently.
There is no way he sat down a player and said "Damn, I'm sorry I shoulda played you more cause we only won by double digits and kept the opposition to the lowest point total in the history of the rivalry".
I have no problem with the idea that Ristic might have been frustrated at the lack of 2nd half PT. I'm sure if Ristic went to Miller, Miller would tell him why he didn't pay more minutes. I'd also believe someone informally checked in with Ristic since the game, in line with general player management. But OD is correct, and I truly doubt Miller proactively made a bigger deal out of this or apologized - he certainly didn't in today's presser.
gumby wrote:To trained eyes, Tarc plays much better defense. What other reason would he start? In a game where the opposing team was held way below its average, that's consequential. With a team like UCLA, with a lot of high screen action, with the two best scorers being guards, hedging properly is critical. Must be hard, because a lot of players blow it. Tarc is one of the best.
It's not sexy, but it gets a rise out of Miller ... and for good reason. All coaches would love to have a big who defends like Tarc. He's like a star nose guard. Few tackles, but very effective.
Huge contribution by Ristic with those first-half buckets, but this was a game where the entire starting 5 went AWOL offensively. Unusual. Not a good idea to make big changes based on that. But if it supplies Ristic and York with confidence boosts, fantastic.
I completely agree. Big picture, UA held UCLA to 47 points over 40 minutes, with Tarc on the floor for 29 of them. So pointing out he was on the floor for 36 of 47 points misses the forest for the trees.
gronk4heisman wrote:The fallacy that ristic has played just one good half is crazy. Ristic has consistently outperformed tarc on the offensive end and as shown by the analytics earlier in this thread, is a miniscule drop in the defensive side.
Allow me to clarify.
I never said Ristic has only played 1 good half of basketball for UA.
What I said was, if this was part of his calculus, I don't blame Miller for going with Tarc on the basis of the entirety of the prior 26 games, over Ristic based on one half of basketball against UCLA, which certainly was good. It's an issue of sample size. I can't say that was Miller's thought process, but someone suggested that consideration earlier, the idea that what Tarc had done over the whole season of basketball is more reliable than what Ristic had done in one half of basketball.
I've also shown analytics above that suggest the offensive drop-off from Ristic to Tarc is small but the defensive drop-off from Tarc to Ristic is large (far more than "miniscule").
Again, the rest of your post slides too far down a very slippery slope for me to entertain.
Spaceman Spiff wrote:The glory of being a sports fan is the infallibility of hindsight mixed with certainty that dramatic strategic adjustments would certainly pay off. If Miller had inserted Ristic and pressed falling back into a 2-3 zone, UCLA would never have gone on that 17-0 run.
To KF's point, Ristic doesn't lose much by staying at Arizona. Look at Daniel Orton from Kentucky for evidence that you can get drafted playing a smaller role on a team stacked with talent. Or keep it closer to home and remember Grant Jerrett. If he transfers, it's at least 3 years until he leaves. As a junior here, Zeus is gone and the starting job should be Ristic's to lose.
Back to the original point, there's a reason most coaches do not play wildly varying rotations on a game to game basis. While you certainly can adjust somewhat in an individual game, too much of that is a really poor game management strategy.
All of this. Fans can consider and debate and engage all sorts of curiosities, but coaches can rarely employ them. As Gumby suggests above, coaches can't be reactionaries - I would add those who are, don't perform well. Of course Miller adjusts and tweaks his game plan for each opponent, every coach does that, but wanting or expecting Miller to worry more about what an opponent may do (which is partly out of his control) than what his team will do game-to-game (which is much more within his control), is a tad foolish.
Lute Olson "did what he did" much more than some people here would admit too, and that generated positive results with a few disappointments as well.
I'm still not sure what so many people are so angry about, 3 days after the game. It was an ugly win. I'll take it.
Merkin wrote:UCLA goes on a 13-0 run to start the game.
Miller puts in York and Ristic, and the bleeding stops.
UCLA starts the second half hot and the Cats's starters are unable to score.
Miller puts in York, but leaves Tarc in.
UCLA continues to score, UA is still unable to score, until UCLA goes 17-0.
C'mon Merk, you're better than that. You can't just stop the analysis there. Like Chi said, what happened next? We all know what happened next, I spelled out in my first post what happened next, but I'll put it another way: After that 17-0 run, with Tarc in the game for ~6 of those ~7 minutes (Ristic played 1 minute in the 2nd half and it was during that 17-0 run), UA outscored UCLA 25-12 over the last ~13 minutes, with Tarc on the floor for all of those ~13 minutes, scoring 5 of those 25 points (and all of his points for the game). In other words, despite the varied lineup, the second half ended just as the first half did.
If your Aunt had balls, she'd be your Uncle. I'm guessing that's not the case.
