Illini Basketball 2026-2027

[PepeSilvia]

Would caveat by saying all offenses do not perform as well vs longer more athletic defenses. Thats not a thing that’s somehow just limited to Illinois’ elite offense.

The offense wasn’t as good as usual vs Houston either (better defense than UConn) but was good enough to win the game fairly comfortably.

I buy this the first tournament game against UCONN.

I can’t get too riled up with the looks in the final four game. Just make 3 more layups and we’re playing in a title game. That game was so cheeks - I legitimately think if that was a 7-game series we win in 6 or 5.

Houston had the size and athleticism with us and they got whalloped. We just missed so many bunnies and they hit like 4 or 5 just pure garbage, and WE still were in a 4 point game with a minute (and then Mullins moonwalked that wasn’t called.)

But that's my point with Houston.

They didn't really have the size to match up. 3 6'3 guards and an undersized big in Tugler alongside Cenac.

Also, Houstons defensive style and insistence on trapping actually played into the Illini's hands.

Illinois was big enough and skilled enough to simply pass over the double which then constantly put Houston into rotations and created open looks and good ball movement for Illinois.

UConn just played straight up and basically dared Wagler and company to beat them by making contested 2s.

Iowa actually employed the same game plan and it worked for a lot of that game but in the end they just weren't big or talented enough(that game turned a bit with Tomi scoring a few baskets in the post).

Yes, obviously offenses will perform worse against good defenses, but Illinois could really benefit from adding a few wrinkles that can create some open looks and easy baskets. Off balls movement/screens and some different sets designed to create an open look when you need it(close games, end scoring droughts, etc.)

 

[Rap47]

Is there anything you’re actually optimistic on?

The next optimistic post from him will be the first.

 

[skyIdub]

Vaaks 3 point percentage should also increase with a better shot diet.

Beet juice?

 

[NarrowJ]

But that's my point with Houston.

They didn't really have the size to match up. 3 6'3 guards and an undersized big in Tugler alongside Cenac.

Also, Houstons defensive style and insistence on trapping actually played into the Illini's hands.

Illinois was big enough and skilled enough to simply pass over the double which then constantly put Houston into rotations and created open looks and good ball movement for Illinois.

UConn just played straight up and basically dared Wagler and company to beat them by making contested 2s.

Iowa actually employed the same game plan and it worked for a lot of that game but in the end they just weren't big or talented enough(that game turned a bit with Tomi scoring a few baskets in the post).

Yes, obviously offenses will perform worse against good defenses, but Illinois could really benefit from adding a few wrinkles that can create some open looks and easy baskets. Off balls movement/screens and some different sets designed to create an open look when you need it(close games, end scoring droughts, etc.)

UConn wasn't big / long, range from 6'2" to 6'10"

Give ol' Brad a call and have him install your stuff on offense, man. It's obvious that #2 nationally ranked offense needs a big shot in the arm.

 

[PepeSilvia]

UConn wasn't big / long, range from 6'2" to 6'10"

Give ol' Brad a call and have him install your stuff on offense, man. It's obvious that #2 nationally ranked offense needs a big shot in the arm.

6'3 Ball, 6'5 Demary, 6'6 Mullins, 6'8 Karaban, and 6'10 Reed with 6'7 Ross off the bench playing most of their minutes is certainly more equipped to handle the positional size of Illinois than Houston was playing 3 6'3 guards.

Plus, UConn didn't trap a incredibly large team that arguably had the best passing bigs in the country with the trio of Mirk and the twins. Illinois was basically just taking the trap out and then playing 4 on 3 with the ball in the hands of one of those bigs in the middle of the court.

Lol and it's not my stuff. You just take a page out of what the teams in the NBA are running or crib some stuff from Hurley/Murray or Hoiberg. If you want to legitimately compete for a title then you're going to have to beat the likes of Duke, Florida, or Michigan last year and so on.

You have a veteran team with a bunch of returning guys in the system. Why not add some wrinkles and some occasional sets? But hey if Brad wants to give me a call I'll help in anyway I can. I sure could have set up a better defensive set against UCLA on the last play of the game.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

But that's my point with Houston.

They didn't really have the size to match up. 3 6'3 guards and an undersized big in Tugler alongside Cenac.

Also, Houstons defensive style and insistence on trapping actually played into the Illini's hands.

Illinois was big enough and skilled enough to simply pass over the double which then constantly put Houston into rotations and created open looks and good ball movement for Illinois.

UConn just played straight up and basically dared Wagler and company to beat them by making contested 2s.

UConn wasn't big / long, range from 6'2" to 6'10"

Give ol' Brad a call and have him install your stuff on offense, man. It's obvious that #2 nationally ranked offense needs a big shot in the arm.

Not a dog in this fight, but here’s the stats for the UCONN / Houston comparison.

Illinois offense against Houston’s defense: 1.121 points per possession
Illinois offense against UCONN’s defense: 0.986 points per possession
UCONN offense against Illinois’s defense: 1.108 points per possession

1.121 points per possession is not outstanding (perhaps against Houston it might be) — but if we replicated that same output against UConn, we probably would’ve won, since UConn only scored 1.108 against our defense.

….

Here’s how our offense faired against each defense:

TO rate vs Houston: 15.5%
TO rate vs UCONN: 12.7%

Percentage of shots taken at the rim against Houston: 33.3%
Percentage of shots taken at the rim against UConn: 23.2%

Free throw rate against Houston: 41.2%
Free throw rate against UConn: 41.2%

OREB rate against Houston: 34.2%
OREB rate against UCONN: 30.8%

Percentage of Free Throws made against Houston: 12-21 (57%)
Percentage of Free Throws made against UConn: 18-23 (78%)

Percentage of layups made against Houston: 9-17 (53%)
Percentage of layups made against UConn: 6-13 (46%)

Percentage of threes made against Houston: 9-23 (39%)
Percentage of threes made against UConn: 6-26 (23%)

…..

For me it’s about that 3pt percentage.

Other than that:

Some things we did better against UConn than against Houston — free throws, turnovers.

Some things we did better against Houston than against UConn — rim, OREBs.

You just can’t shoot threes that poorly and expect to win a F4 game.

Maybe you’d say we should’ve gotten more OREBs, but you also have to realize UConn (93) is better defensive rebounding team than Houston (172) or Iowa (119) or VCU (159) or PENN (216).

At the end of the day, you just have to shoot it better than that.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

But that's my point with Houston.

They didn't really have the size to match up. 3 6'3 guards and an undersized big in Tugler alongside Cenac.

Also, Houstons defensive style and insistence on trapping actually played into the Illini's hands.

Illinois was big enough and skilled enough to simply pass over the double which then constantly put Houston into rotations and created open looks and good ball movement for Illinois.

UConn just played straight up and basically dared Wagler and company to beat them by making contested 2s.

Iowa actually employed the same game plan and it worked for a lot of that game but in the end they just weren't big or talented enough(that game turned a bit with Tomi scoring a few baskets in the post).

Yes, obviously offenses will perform worse against good defenses, but Illinois could really benefit from adding a few wrinkles that can create some open looks and easy baskets. Off balls movement/screens and some different sets designed to create an open look when you need it(close games, end scoring droughts, etc.)

You’re right, Houston wasn’t big and I definitely think the over the top halfcourt showed there, as well as the rebounding ofcourse. But even then, that was still the 4th ranked defense.

I don’t mean to diminish the UConn point, and they do have length and a good defense. And sure we didn’t get easy ones off a double team, but I really thought they were good looks.

Like I get the argument you want some easy buckets, but did we not have some easy buckets we just smoked somehow?

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Like I get the argument you want some easy buckets, but did we not have some easy buckets we just smoked somehow?

https://twitter.com/x/status/2040601983770296513

 

[NarrowJ]

6'3 Ball, 6'5 Demary, 6'6 Mullins, 6'8 Karaban, and 6'10 Reed with 6'7 Ross off the bench playing most of their minutes is certainly more equipped to handle the positional size of Illinois than Houston was playing 3 6'3 guards.

Plus, UConn didn't trap a incredibly large team that arguably had the best passing bigs in the country with the trio of Mirk and the twins. Illinois was basically just taking the trap out and then playing 4 on 3 with the ball in the hands of one of those bigs in the middle of the court.

Lol and it's not my stuff. You just take a page out of what the teams in the NBA are running or crib some stuff from Hurley/Murray or Hoiberg. If you want to legitimately compete for a title then you're going to have to beat the likes of Duke, Florida, or Michigan last year and so on.

You have a veteran team with a bunch of returning guys in the system. Why not add some wrinkles and some occasional sets? But hey if Brad wants to give me a call I'll help in anyway I can. I sure could have set up a better defensive set against UCLA on the last play of the game.

Wasn't necessarily comparing them to Houston. UConn is probably middle of the pack as far as size & length, though. Frontcourt being 6'8 and 6'10 seems a bit undersized, though the guards have decent size. The POA there, they're very athletic and get into you. But we didn't really have issues with that having only 8 turnovers, we just shot 23% on 26 attempts from 3 and that was kind of the ball game (read further below).

And I know it's not your stuff, its just that...

Random person on internet: "We really need to improve this elite offense we're running, because it doesn't perform as well against good defenses. I'm basing this off a sample size of one game vs a top 5-10 defense. Also, I can handle late game defensive plays much better than this staff as well".

Sorry if its hard for me to take that too seriously.

Not a dog in this fight, but here’s the stats for the UCONN / Houston comparison.

Illinois offense against Houston’s defense: 1.121 points per possession
Illinois offense against UCONN’s defense: 0.986 points per possession
UCONN offense against Illinois’s defense: 1.108 points per possession

1.121 points per possession is not outstanding (perhaps against Houston it might be) — but if we replicated that same output against UConn, we probably would’ve won, since UConn only scored 1.108 against our defense.

….

Here’s how our offense faired against each defense:

TO rate vs Houston: 15.5%
TO rate vs UCONN: 12.7%

Percentage of shots taken at the rim against Houston: 33.3%
Percentage of shots taken at the rim against UConn: 23.2%

Free throw rate against Houston: 41.2%
Free throw rate against UConn: 41.2%

OREB rate against Houston: 34.2%
OREB rate against UCONN: 30.8%

Percentage of Free Throws made against Houston: 12-21 (57%)
Percentage of Free Throws made against UConn: 18-23 (78%)

Percentage of layups made against Houston: 9-17 (53%)
Percentage of layups made against UConn: 6-13 (46%)

Percentage of threes made against Houston: 9-23 (39%)
Percentage of threes made against UConn: 6-26 (23%)

…..

For me it’s about that 3pt percentage.

Other than that:

Some things we did better against UConn than against Houston — free throws, turnovers.

Some things we did better against Houston than against UConn — rim, OREBs.

You just can’t shoot threes that poorly and expect to win a F4 game.

Maybe you’d say we should’ve gotten more OREBs, but you also have to realize UConn (93) is better defensive rebounding team than Houston (172) or Iowa (119) or VCU (159) or PENN (216).

At the end of the day, you just have to shoot it better than that.

Very good summary / rundown here, topped off with the largest discrepancy there was between the two games (three point shooting)

Like I get the argument you want some easy buckets, but did we not have some easy buckets we just smoked somehow?

Absolutely. And we only turned it over 8 times and UConn recorded only 1 block, so it seems like their athletic defenders didn't really do us in and it was more that we bricked a whole bunch of 3s and bonked a few layups / easy 2s.

 

[HoopsterMan]

You’re right, Houston wasn’t big and I definitely think the over the top halfcourt showed there, as well as the rebounding ofcourse. But even then, that was still the 4th ranked defense.

I don’t mean to diminish the UConn point, and they do have length and a good defense. And sure we didn’t get easy ones off a double team, but I really thought they were good looks.

Like I get the argument you want some easy buckets, but did we not have some easy buckets we just smoked somehow?

UConn had the 8th best 3 pt FG% defense in the country last year at around 30%. They were at the top of the sport in their 3 recent runs, between 29-31%. They were the best high D1 program, Michigan next at 18th. It's not only about length, it's about rotations, close outs, extension, discipline, etc.

Houston has been ridiculously good in this stat in past years, but had a drop off this past year. They were at 26% in 23. Their system is a lot of high hedging with long mobile guys like Tugler and Roberts, who could disrupt the perimeter and then quickly rotate back to defend the paint. The drop off was mainly due to Cenac not being all that great at this aspect of Sampson's system.

When you get to the F4, you can expect the defensive quality to go up, hence you need to be able to make adjustments and show different looks. Brad kept looking to pound Clingan in 24, and how did that turn out? Being a one trick pony and sticking to your system stubbornly isn't a great counter when you are going up against top coaches, even if mashing the math seems like the odds would work out 6/7 games. When you go into the half, if what you're doing isn't working, having a counter is key.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Jake Tomi Andrej David are not PG/SG/Combo G so that's about as good of a comparison as you using Morez Johnson who played PF/C

Using only Illinois' (which was a F4, mind you) players doesn't convince me he's merely including starter-level players, sorry not close... there was barely 200 players in all of CBB with a PRPG! above 3... these are mostly elite players, as I said (which tracks, given Illinois starters being above 3: again, elite players) and we honestly don't even need to litigate this as his post very clearly and explicitly states that he narrowed the data set to include only guards who had a PRPG! of 3, which moves the numbers a great deal as I had already said.

Maybe this will help everyone more than completely ignoring the fact that his freshman FT rate was higher than both freshman and sophomore Ayo's was:

Vaaks non-rim 2s rate tells me there was a lot of midrange stuff that is going to get cleaned up at Illinois. If he improves shot diet, and we see him go to the basket more and use his body/size... what do we think will happen to his FT rate?

(this discussion has somehow become a contest in pedantics, so I'm good to move on if you guys are)

so in an effort to show that it wasn’t limiting to mostly elite players, you chose elite players from an elite team to back that? hmm

Let's say we don't use 3 PRPG as the limiting factor then (if you think that's such a big deal and it's ruining the data).

On Torvik -- Vaaks is listed as a combo guard, with a PRPG of 3.7, and a usage of 23.4.

Here's the same graph with the only constraints being:

- combo guard (Vaaks's positon)
- at least 20 games played
- at least 2 PRPG (down from the previous example of 3)
- at least 20 usage (usually very attainable for a starting guard who has the ball in his hands)

 

[HoopsterMan]

I buy this the first tournament game against UCONN.

I can’t get too riled up with the looks in the final four game. Just make 3 more layups and we’re playing in a title game. That game was so cheeks - I legitimately think if that was a 7-game series we win in 6 or 5.

Houston had the size and athleticism with us and they got whalloped. We just missed so many bunnies and they hit like 4 or 5 just pure garbage, and WE still were in a 4 point game with a minute (and then Mullins moonwalked that wasn’t called.)

That's pretty confident when we lost to them earlier in the same year on a neutral floor and they held us to the two lowest offensive outputs for the year. Reed and Mullins were also banged up in the first one. They were also up 14 under 10 in the F4 game, we were playing catchup the entire time. Brad could use a new wrinkles or two on offense. Need to learn from these experiences.

 

[PepeSilvia]

Very good summary / rundown here, topped off with the largest discrepancy there was between the two games (three point shooting)

That's kind of my point though. 3pt shooting doesn't happen in a vacuum. The quality of the attempts has a ton to do with how well teams shoot it from 3, which is why you see guys/teams often shooting it really well against low major competition.

It's not surprising that they shot better in the Houston game when you go back and watch the offensive possessions. The ball movement was fantastic and they constantly had Houston scrambling to close out on open shooters(which also opens up the glass). Then you watch UConn and the offense is a lot more stagnant and the ball sticks more even running late into the shot clock without really pressuring the defense. Though some of the final four shooting can also likely be explained by the weird shooting background from playing in a football stadium.

Illinois is a tremendously talented team and they are going to have a ton of offensive success regardless of what they run. However, I think McCollum kind of laid the blueprint for how to defend against them last year in the elite 8. Hurley then basically defended the same way but with a better team than Mccollum.

If you watch Hurley or Hoiberg, they put a ton of pressure on defenses by forcing them to defend the entire floor and chase through screens. That wears defenses out and creates some easy open looks.

Now I don't expect Illinois to all of sudden start running those offenses but I defenses will adjust and I think they can pretty easily add some wrinkles to the offense that will give defenses different looks and create some easy opportunities which can be the difference in a close game.

I think Brad even knows this when you look at his comments about wanting to play faster. I don't think he wants to see the ball stick as much at the start of possessions.

 

[NarrowJ]

That's kind of my point though. 3pt shooting doesn't happen in a vacuum. The quality of the attempts has a ton to do with how well teams shoot it from 3, which is why you see guys/teams often shooting it really well against low major competition.

It's not surprising that they shot better in the Houston game when you go back and watch the offensive possessions. The ball movement was fantastic and they constantly had Houston scrambling to close out on open shooters(which also opens up the glass). Then you watch UConn and the offense is a lot more stagnant and the ball sticks more even running late into the shot clock without really pressuring the defense. Though some of the final four shooting can also likely be explained by the weird shooting background from playing in a football stadium.

Illinois is a tremendously talented team and they are going to have a ton of offensive success regardless of what they run. However, I think McCollum kind of laid the blueprint for how to defend against them last year in the elite 8. Hurley then basically defended the same way but with a better team than Mccollum.

If you watch Hurley or Hoiberg, they put a ton of pressure on defenses by forcing them to defend the entire floor and chase through screens. That wears defenses out and creates some easy open looks.

Now I don't expect Illinois to all of sudden start running those offenses but I defenses will adjust and I think they can pretty easily add some wrinkles to the offense that will give defenses different looks and create some easy opportunities which can be the difference in a close game.

I think Brad even knows this when you look at his comments about wanting to play faster. I don't think he wants to see the ball stick as much at the start of possessions.

It does though. It takes 750 attempts for 3 point shooting to fully normalize (ref: see Darryl Blackport's 2014 study on this). Single game sample is smaller than miniscule. It literally does not matter at all and I couldn't force myself to keep reading after the first sentence, sorry.

 

[NarrowJ]

Let's say we don't use 3 PRPG as the limiting factor then (if you think that's such a big deal and it's ruining the data).

On Torvik -- Vaaks is listed as a combo guard, with a PRPG of 3.7, and a usage of 23.4.

Here's the same graph with the only constraints being:

- combo guard (Vaaks's positon)
- at least 20 games played
- at least 2 PRPG (down from the previous example of 3)
- at least 20 usage (usually very attainable for a starting guard who has the ball in his hands)

View attachment 51196

Looks like exactly what I have been saying: a lot more FTr below 30 than there are above it until the usage rate climbs to 26-28 then you start seeing a lot more with FTr above 30.

 

[chudaman]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2040601983770296513

too soon

 

[EmpoweredIllini]

Let's say we don't use 3 PRPG as the limiting factor then (if you think that's such a big deal and it's ruining the data).

On Torvik -- Vaaks is listed as a combo guard, with a PRPG of 3.7, and a usage of 23.4.

Here's the same graph with the only constraints being:

- combo guard (Vaaks's positon)
- at least 20 games played
- at least 2 PRPG (down from the previous example of 3)
- at least 20 usage (usually very attainable for a starting guard who has the ball in his hands)

View attachment 51196

this is still extremely contextual though, you added 4 filters to your data set

if i want to know a players ability in a certain area i dont compare him solely against above average players because that skews what im looking at

dont know what was originally said at this point but feels like goal posts got moved when filters started being added to data set so it would show what you want it to show

now looking back it appears someone had said .295 was poor and someone else said it wasnt poor and you guys are arguing in favor of the former? .295 isn't poor for his archetype, its not great or elite, but not poor either unless you start increasing the quality of the players you are comparing him to, which is seen in the graph how ft rate increases as usage increases

i remember the other day you were saying how vastly different a player with a usage rate of 23 (vaaks) is to a player with a usage rate of 30, and that very same point applies here too

 

[Cravingschampaign]

Yeah definitely a good point, feel like if we play fast we'll probably have to go 9 deep

https://twitter.com/x/status/2089004126793339005

 

[CoalCity]

That's pretty confident when we lost to them earlier in the same year on a neutral floor and they held us to the two lowest offensive outputs for the year. Reed and Mullins were also banged up in the first one. They were also up 14 under 10 in the F4 game, we were playing catchup the entire time. Brad could use a new wrinkles or two on offense. Need to learn from these experiences.

Or the players could have made some of the layups and wide open 3's the offense generated. There were a LOT of missed open shots

 

[wc_illini]

this is still extremely contextual though, you added 4 filters to your data set

if i want to know a players ability in a certain area i dont compare him solely against above average players because that skews what im looking at

dont know what was originally said at this point but feels like goal posts got moved when filters started being added to data set so it would show what you want it to show

now looking back it appears someone had said .295 was poor and someone else said it wasnt poor and you guys are arguing in favor of the former? .295 isn't poor for his archetype, its not great or elite, but not poor either unless you start increasing the quality of the players you are comparing him to, which is seen in the graph how ft rate increases as usage increases

i remember the other day you were saying how vastly different a player with a usage rate of 23 (vaaks) is to a player with a usage rate of 30, and that very same point applies here too

The funny thing is that the chart I showed revealed very little correlation between FT rate and PRPG!, so the optimists and pessimists don't need to take their usual sides on this. And I'm not arguing that 29.5 is poor- just not "pretty good", which of course is subjective.

If you want fewer filters, then among all high-major combo guards with decent playing time, the average was.....29.3. Sure, he's slightly ahead of the median, but there's a lot more separation ahead of him than behind him

 

[lstewart53x3]

Let's say we don't use 3 PRPG as the limiting factor then (if you think that's such a big deal and it's ruining the data).

On Torvik -- Vaaks is listed as a combo guard, with a PRPG of 3.7, and a usage of 23.4.

Here's the same graph with the only constraints being:

- combo guard (Vaaks's positon)
- at least 20 games played
- at least 2 PRPG (down from the previous example of 3)
- at least 20 usage (usually very attainable for a starting guard who has the ball in his hands)

View attachment 51196

Here’s the data one more time with the only filter being combo guard:

Here’s the data with the bottom X-Axis showing rim attempts instead of usage:

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

now looking back it appears someone had said .295 was poor and someone else said it wasnt poor and you guys are arguing in favor of the former? .295 isn't poor for his archetype, its not great or elite, but not poor either unless you start increasing the quality of the players you are comparing him to, which is seen in the graph how ft rate increases as usage increases

1. The point raised was that a 29.5 is “really good.”

2. What we’re pointing out is that it’s rather average or below average as opposed to really good (via the graphs, comparisons to other players, etc).

3. Nobody said it was terrible, or that he can’t improve or won’t improve.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

UConn had the 8th best 3 pt FG% defense in the country last year at around 30%. They were at the top of the sport in their 3 recent runs, between 29-31%. They were the best high D1 program, Michigan next at 18th. It's not only about length, it's about rotations, close outs, extension, discipline, etc.

Houston has been ridiculously good in this stat in past years, but had a drop off this past year. They were at 26% in 23. Their system is a lot of high hedging with long mobile guys like Tugler and Roberts, who could disrupt the perimeter and then quickly rotate back to defend the paint. The drop off was mainly due to Cenac not being all that great at this aspect of Sampson's system.

When you get to the F4, you can expect the defensive quality to go up, hence you need to be able to make adjustments and show different looks. Brad kept looking to pound Clingan in 24, and how did that turn out? Being a one trick pony and sticking to your system stubbornly isn't a great counter when you are going up against top coaches, even if mashing the math seems like the odds would work out 6/7 games. When you go into the half, if what you're doing isn't working, having a counter is key.

I’m not talking about 2024 tho (although I have my own beliefs on that game being wildly overblown) - this year we got a ton of easy looks and just missed.

I’m not sure making a counter just for the sake of making a counter - going away from wide open missed 3s and even layups - if anything it seems like a panic.

But admittedly, I’m not someone who thinks every shot or play result is a direct correlation to in game coaching.

 

[EmeraldCityIllini]

That's pretty confident when we lost to them earlier in the same year on a neutral floor and they held us to the two lowest offensive outputs for the year. Reed and Mullins were also banged up in the first one. They were also up 14 under 10 in the F4 game, we were playing catchup the entire time. Brad could use a new wrinkles or two on offense. Need to learn from these experiences.

Yes, I know it’s confident.

My eyes saw what they saw that game. We missed every layup and wide open look, and solo ball was banking in shots off the shot clock and WE STILL should have won.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

The funny thing is that the chart I showed revealed very little correlation between FT rate and PRPG!, so the optimists and pessimists don't need to take their usual sides on this. And I'm not arguing that 29.5 is poor- just not "pretty good", which of course is subjective.

If you want fewer filters, then among all high-major combo guards with decent playing time, the average was.....29.3. Sure, he's slightly ahead of the median, but there's a lot more separation ahead of him than behind him

This one only constraints Combo Guard and 20 games played:

(no PRPG or Usage limit)