The 2 Wear lineup has been one of the major sources of playing time criticism for Steve Alford. While making brief appearances in the first 6 games following Travis Wear's return from surgery, the lineup started seeing considerable time when Alford began using it to open both the 1st and 2nd half. The question is this: Is this starting lineup hurting UCLA?
The following stats have been compiled from the 7 games since the Wears have both been a part of the starting lineup:
|Total||2 Wear||Not 2 Wear|
PF: Points For
PA: Points Against
Diff: Point Differential
PF/40: Points For scaled to 40 minutes of playing time
The other /40 metrics are done similarly.
The results were surprising to say the least. The 2 Wear lineup has had a better point differential in 3 games (Prairie View A&M, Weber St, U$C), a worse point differential in 1 game (ASU) and a very similar point differential in 3 games ( Duke, Alabama, and Arizona). The seven game totals show a slight edge to the 2 Wear lineup.
It is hard to say if these numbers are due to the contributions of the Wears themselves, or if they are due to the players that they are playing with or against. The downside to plus/minus data is that it does not take into account the teammates and opponents that the players are facing. Are the trio of starting guards carrying the Wears or is the defense better with them in the post vs Parker? Does the team rebound better with 2 bigs boxing out their men for Anderson and Adams to grab rebounds or is Anderson or are the guards able to score more easily in the paint without a traditional post player clogging up the lane? These are the questions that this type of analysis won't be able to answer.
Looking at the data, I don't think that we can say the that the 2 Wear lineup is significantly better or worse than the rest of the lineups combined. This isn't to say that there are not better lineups that could be played, but the team is not bleeding points whenever the Wear brothers are on the floor together.