Contender X won't win the title unless they change this...
Contender X won't win the title unless they change this...
Anybody want to mention what a top 10 contender "must" (or most likely must) change to win the next title? I'll probably throw one or more out later but, in the name of encouraging other input, I leave it open for others to comment first.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
The Miami Heat might have won this year, if they'd had a lineup.
Haslem and Miller, presumed starters, only got into the fray late in the playoffs, and were exceedingly spotty.
Ilgauskas, James Jones, Bibby, and eventually Joel Anthony were excised from the lineup during the course of the playoffs. Not from injury, but from ineffectiveness.
Chalmers proved to be the only reliable player outside the Big 3.
Such lineup instability generally settles out earlier than the last 3 weeks of the postseason.
Haslem and Miller, presumed starters, only got into the fray late in the playoffs, and were exceedingly spotty.
Ilgauskas, James Jones, Bibby, and eventually Joel Anthony were excised from the lineup during the course of the playoffs. Not from injury, but from ineffectiveness.
Chalmers proved to be the only reliable player outside the Big 3.
Such lineup instability generally settles out earlier than the last 3 weeks of the postseason.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
I agree that Miami needed better lineup management. Ian Levy's regular season data showed Spoelstra improving dramatically year to year but it didn't carryover into this playoffs.
If you were to give traditional APM / RAPM some weight, traditional APM in the regular season favored Chalmers over Bibby by a moderate margin while RAPM gave Chalmers a very slight edge. In the playoffs, both raw +/- and APM indicated Chalmers had a huge advantage over Bibby. They acted on it very late, too late.
Bibby had only exceeded his regular season PER in 2 of 9 playoff tries and his TS% in 4 of 9 tries so it is not as if he had a really great record of being playoff clutch. It is true he had better TS% in the most recent 2 playoffs but his PER was below and well below career average those times. They may have given too much weight to the recent data because of recency. If they went by recent playoff performance Chalmers shot very well in the 2010 playoffs. Bibby had a modest edge on PER. I would have been quicker to turn more heavily to Chalmers or turned to Wade at PG more heavily. I probably would have tried to bring in somebody else besides Bibby.
3 of Chalmers top 5 lineups were quite positive on APM and 2 were quite negative. The standard errors were quite large but maybe they could have chosen to follow that rough guidance more strongly.
Miller's top 5 minute playoff lineups were positive on raw +/- and 4 of the 5 extremely so despite Miller weak individual stats. 4 of the 5 were extremely positive on APM. Jones' top dozen lineups only had 2-3 questionable ones. So it appears the wings off the bench were managed fine though maybe they could have played small more.
They only played James at PF about 8 minutes per playoff game. According to 82games estimates that was only up a bit from regular season. They were +10.5 on raw +/- with James at PF in the playoffs, barely above neutral with him at SF (... and when he was off the court, they won by a huge margin though in only 4 minutes per game). This top 5 playoff lineups at PF had not a single minute at PF against Dallas. They only played him at PF in his top 5 regular season lineups at PF against Dirk 1 minute and it was a 3 pts to 6 "disaster". I would have experimented with it more in the regular season at least and in the playoffs too (at least some to collect data and decide whether to proceed) given the far better team performance with him at PF. Instead it appears they largely or entirely left that option unexplored.
Anthony's top 4 playoff lineups were pretty good. Ilgauskas minutes were terrible but were curtailed.
Next time they probably should roll more with Miller, Haslem and Jones and play smaller more. I would hope they go in a different direction than Bibby by next playoffs. If they can replace or at least demote Anthony that would probably help. They already know they have to replace Z and it shouldn't be with Dampier or Magliore. Pittman seems an unlikely bet.
If you were to give traditional APM / RAPM some weight, traditional APM in the regular season favored Chalmers over Bibby by a moderate margin while RAPM gave Chalmers a very slight edge. In the playoffs, both raw +/- and APM indicated Chalmers had a huge advantage over Bibby. They acted on it very late, too late.
Bibby had only exceeded his regular season PER in 2 of 9 playoff tries and his TS% in 4 of 9 tries so it is not as if he had a really great record of being playoff clutch. It is true he had better TS% in the most recent 2 playoffs but his PER was below and well below career average those times. They may have given too much weight to the recent data because of recency. If they went by recent playoff performance Chalmers shot very well in the 2010 playoffs. Bibby had a modest edge on PER. I would have been quicker to turn more heavily to Chalmers or turned to Wade at PG more heavily. I probably would have tried to bring in somebody else besides Bibby.
3 of Chalmers top 5 lineups were quite positive on APM and 2 were quite negative. The standard errors were quite large but maybe they could have chosen to follow that rough guidance more strongly.
Miller's top 5 minute playoff lineups were positive on raw +/- and 4 of the 5 extremely so despite Miller weak individual stats. 4 of the 5 were extremely positive on APM. Jones' top dozen lineups only had 2-3 questionable ones. So it appears the wings off the bench were managed fine though maybe they could have played small more.
They only played James at PF about 8 minutes per playoff game. According to 82games estimates that was only up a bit from regular season. They were +10.5 on raw +/- with James at PF in the playoffs, barely above neutral with him at SF (... and when he was off the court, they won by a huge margin though in only 4 minutes per game). This top 5 playoff lineups at PF had not a single minute at PF against Dallas. They only played him at PF in his top 5 regular season lineups at PF against Dirk 1 minute and it was a 3 pts to 6 "disaster". I would have experimented with it more in the regular season at least and in the playoffs too (at least some to collect data and decide whether to proceed) given the far better team performance with him at PF. Instead it appears they largely or entirely left that option unexplored.
Anthony's top 4 playoff lineups were pretty good. Ilgauskas minutes were terrible but were curtailed.
Next time they probably should roll more with Miller, Haslem and Jones and play smaller more. I would hope they go in a different direction than Bibby by next playoffs. If they can replace or at least demote Anthony that would probably help. They already know they have to replace Z and it shouldn't be with Dampier or Magliore. Pittman seems an unlikely bet.
Last edited by Crow on Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
OKC could improve its 3-pt game quite a bit. Maybe adding a shooting specialist. Reggie Williams might be available.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
The Thunder probably need strong performances from both Westbrook and Durant to get to the Finals and almost certainly to win it. In 2010 playoffs Westbrook did very well on individual stats, though only estimated modestly above neutral on APM. Durant was sub-par individually but traditional APM somehow estimated him the second best player in the playoffs to LeBron. (Again, would be nice to some day see playoff only RAPM.) In 2011 playoffs Durant did well on both measures while Westbrook had the 6th worst APM estimate of any starter. he shot and scored very inefficently, far below average. His PER was mainly propped up by the 3rd highest usage in the playoffs.
The Thunder do appear to need a stronger 3 point attack. I've felt that for several years but they went almost totally with the strategy of drives for fouls, which is the best efficient shot location but also raises their mid-range attempts beyond what one would ideally prefer. Mid range is the worst shot and their efficiency from mid-range was below average. (Evan, I look forward to seeing your Shot Adjusted Marginal Offense breakouts which will provide a precise accounting of points added or lost from shot location strengths and weaknesses.)
They shot 3 pointers better in 2011 playoffs than in the 2010 playoffs but they shot them less often and still below playoff average on both attempts and FG%. Durant, Cook and Maynor were the only 3pt shooters around average efficiency. Harden and Westbrook lagged some and Thabo lost the slightest credibility for his 3 pt shot even more than in the previous playoffs.
They could use somebody to shoot the 3 as well as Reggie Williams did this season. Maybe two. But hard to say if he will stay at that accuracy (Just 2 seasons in the books, one average, one great. The great one was this season but recency may not be as stronger guide than the previous season. Watching his tape and form might help with the judgment call forecast.). More likely they stay with Cook and / or give minutes to Jackson or more shots to Harden or possibly Maynor. They have been strongly committed to their guys, their already established lineups & patterns and seem unlikely to sign any wing or other free agent.
They will need at least one of Westbrook or Maynor to play better next time. Both had terrible APM this time.
The top 2 Perkins lineups were weak and Perkins was quite weak on individual stats but the team did well in his top 2 lineups with Collison but the usage of those lineups only went from 2 minutes of trial in the regular season (not enough to inspire a lot of confidence or rethinking apparently, probably by design to avoid the question) to about 6 minutes in the early rounds. Despite doing quite well it only increased to 7 minutes against Dallas, despite being +17 in about 30 minutes against Dallas and despite Perkins without Collison being disastrous thru the playoffs.
By traditional APM Durant was only helped by Collison and Cook. Harden and Ibaka were estimated slightly below neutral and mildly negative respectively. They both improved over their 2010 playoff APM estimates but need to take at least one more step forward.
The Thunder do appear to need a stronger 3 point attack. I've felt that for several years but they went almost totally with the strategy of drives for fouls, which is the best efficient shot location but also raises their mid-range attempts beyond what one would ideally prefer. Mid range is the worst shot and their efficiency from mid-range was below average. (Evan, I look forward to seeing your Shot Adjusted Marginal Offense breakouts which will provide a precise accounting of points added or lost from shot location strengths and weaknesses.)
They shot 3 pointers better in 2011 playoffs than in the 2010 playoffs but they shot them less often and still below playoff average on both attempts and FG%. Durant, Cook and Maynor were the only 3pt shooters around average efficiency. Harden and Westbrook lagged some and Thabo lost the slightest credibility for his 3 pt shot even more than in the previous playoffs.
They could use somebody to shoot the 3 as well as Reggie Williams did this season. Maybe two. But hard to say if he will stay at that accuracy (Just 2 seasons in the books, one average, one great. The great one was this season but recency may not be as stronger guide than the previous season. Watching his tape and form might help with the judgment call forecast.). More likely they stay with Cook and / or give minutes to Jackson or more shots to Harden or possibly Maynor. They have been strongly committed to their guys, their already established lineups & patterns and seem unlikely to sign any wing or other free agent.
They will need at least one of Westbrook or Maynor to play better next time. Both had terrible APM this time.
The top 2 Perkins lineups were weak and Perkins was quite weak on individual stats but the team did well in his top 2 lineups with Collison but the usage of those lineups only went from 2 minutes of trial in the regular season (not enough to inspire a lot of confidence or rethinking apparently, probably by design to avoid the question) to about 6 minutes in the early rounds. Despite doing quite well it only increased to 7 minutes against Dallas, despite being +17 in about 30 minutes against Dallas and despite Perkins without Collison being disastrous thru the playoffs.
By traditional APM Durant was only helped by Collison and Cook. Harden and Ibaka were estimated slightly below neutral and mildly negative respectively. They both improved over their 2010 playoff APM estimates but need to take at least one more step forward.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
The Lakers either need to pound the ball inside more or raise their 3 point attack considerably or preferably both. They aren't going to get back to the Finals or a title without an offensive boost.
The basic play should be look inside, if it is not viable kick it to the 3 point attack, then use their elite offensive rebounding and follow it with a putback or another three.
Cleveland's use of the 3 point shot crept up in the last 2 years of Brown's run there to 7th highest % of shots taken from there so he might increase the Lakers ranking from 16th last season. Top 10 would be nice, though I'd try for top 5.
To help that attack I might try to get high volume 3 pointer shooter and RFA Aaron Brooks despite his defensive limitations. Not sure how much it would take to get him away from Phoenix. Sign 'n trade if that is still available might be worth discussing.
If they can't get him. I'd review 12-20 free agent PGs and bring in 6-8 for a closer look. I'd prefer to move on from Blake and possibly Shanon Brown too.
I'd probably experiment a bit with Kobe at PG in safe games early in the season just to see what happens and see if it might be an option / partial solution in the playoffs.
Other free agents I would look at would include but not be limited to Mike Dunleavy, Josh McRoberts, Reggie Williams, Jeff Foster, Chuck Hayes, maybe Barea, James Jones, etc.
I doubt they will trade a core player but I'd at least check offers for most.
The basic play should be look inside, if it is not viable kick it to the 3 point attack, then use their elite offensive rebounding and follow it with a putback or another three.
Cleveland's use of the 3 point shot crept up in the last 2 years of Brown's run there to 7th highest % of shots taken from there so he might increase the Lakers ranking from 16th last season. Top 10 would be nice, though I'd try for top 5.
To help that attack I might try to get high volume 3 pointer shooter and RFA Aaron Brooks despite his defensive limitations. Not sure how much it would take to get him away from Phoenix. Sign 'n trade if that is still available might be worth discussing.
If they can't get him. I'd review 12-20 free agent PGs and bring in 6-8 for a closer look. I'd prefer to move on from Blake and possibly Shanon Brown too.
I'd probably experiment a bit with Kobe at PG in safe games early in the season just to see what happens and see if it might be an option / partial solution in the playoffs.
Other free agents I would look at would include but not be limited to Mike Dunleavy, Josh McRoberts, Reggie Williams, Jeff Foster, Chuck Hayes, maybe Barea, James Jones, etc.
I doubt they will trade a core player but I'd at least check offers for most.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
Phil Jackson on the Bulls:
"I think they overachieved last year... Jackson said Thursday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "They still have to have some steady shooters from the outside to complement the penetration they have, and then [Carlos Boozer has to have that post-up game that he was brought there to give them.
"They just can't be one-dimensional in that regard. They have to have those complementary pieces to assist Rose in his game."
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/ ... rrick-rose
I agree. And the same was basically true with the Lakers, Phil. Needed to be less one-dimensional (less reliant on Kobe), needed more quality shooters from 3 point land and more from the inside players.
"I think they overachieved last year... Jackson said Thursday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "They still have to have some steady shooters from the outside to complement the penetration they have, and then [Carlos Boozer has to have that post-up game that he was brought there to give them.
"They just can't be one-dimensional in that regard. They have to have those complementary pieces to assist Rose in his game."
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/story/_/ ... rrick-rose
I agree. And the same was basically true with the Lakers, Phil. Needed to be less one-dimensional (less reliant on Kobe), needed more quality shooters from 3 point land and more from the inside players.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
11 teams had 3 or more top 8 rankings on the 4 Offensive and Defensive Factors, including 3 of the conference finalists (the Thunder only had 1 top 8 ranking- scoring from the FT line). Miami, Lakers, Orlando, Boston and New Orleans led with 4. Miami, Lakers and Boston almost had 5. Houston, Chicago and NY almost had 4.
Portland was in the group at 3. If Oden gets back, they probably return to top 8 on defensive rebounding and might have 4, if switching from Miller to Felton and backups doesn't hurt previous strengths. They are within striking distance of having 5 if they fouled a little less. It would also help some if they got above average on efficiency impact from 3 point range and / or inside from their clearly below average rankings. Moving from Miller to Felton is likely to have some impact on their previous top 8 strength from the FT line but maybe a hopefully healthier Roy and Oden will offset that loss.
Orlando needs to cut turnovers significantly, or force more or get more guys crashing the offensive boards effectively.
To win a title again, I'd think the Spurs need a better big alongside and / or subbing for Duncan. Pretty much anybody but Duncan and Ginobili should be under consideration to get it IMO if free agency doesn't yield it. Either Splitter becomes nearly all of Duncan's backup and is more effective or you bring in somebody for that. I'd also be curious to see more of Splitter-Duncan together. Looks like they tried that about 30 minutes in the regular season and it worked and about 20 minutes in the playoffs and it didn't. The value of research vs regular season wins and playoff seed is a pretty big question but there are some opportunities where lineup research would probably not really affect winning a particular game much.
Portland was in the group at 3. If Oden gets back, they probably return to top 8 on defensive rebounding and might have 4, if switching from Miller to Felton and backups doesn't hurt previous strengths. They are within striking distance of having 5 if they fouled a little less. It would also help some if they got above average on efficiency impact from 3 point range and / or inside from their clearly below average rankings. Moving from Miller to Felton is likely to have some impact on their previous top 8 strength from the FT line but maybe a hopefully healthier Roy and Oden will offset that loss.
Orlando needs to cut turnovers significantly, or force more or get more guys crashing the offensive boards effectively.
To win a title again, I'd think the Spurs need a better big alongside and / or subbing for Duncan. Pretty much anybody but Duncan and Ginobili should be under consideration to get it IMO if free agency doesn't yield it. Either Splitter becomes nearly all of Duncan's backup and is more effective or you bring in somebody for that. I'd also be curious to see more of Splitter-Duncan together. Looks like they tried that about 30 minutes in the regular season and it worked and about 20 minutes in the playoffs and it didn't. The value of research vs regular season wins and playoff seed is a pretty big question but there are some opportunities where lineup research would probably not really affect winning a particular game much.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
For Boston, keeping Davis or letting him go is a pretty big question. The individual and lineup data on the surface appears somewhat conflicted but maybe less so the more time you spent looking at it. Overall bench strength didn't seem to hold them back that much the last few years but getting something extra would obviously be desirable in the face of Miami and Chicago, especially if either of them improve. More scoring at the free throw line or from 3 point range would improve balance / might help. More offensive rebounding or less turnovers would be good objectives to be addressed thru coaching strategy or possibly minute allocation or player moves. Who plays center? How much J. O'Neal and who else? Would it be worth playing Garnett there some significant amount?
6 of the 8 most used lineups (over 100 minutes) are no longer possible. If Davis stays they would still have the biggest minute lineup but if Davis moves on then 1 would remain, a 127 minute involving J. O'Neal. It was the only lineup with him tried over 25 minutes; so besides that lightly tested lineup, they'd pretty much be starting from scratch in setting lineups with him or others. But they figured things out while Perkins was out.
6 of the 8 most used lineups (over 100 minutes) are no longer possible. If Davis stays they would still have the biggest minute lineup but if Davis moves on then 1 would remain, a 127 minute involving J. O'Neal. It was the only lineup with him tried over 25 minutes; so besides that lightly tested lineup, they'd pretty much be starting from scratch in setting lineups with him or others. But they figured things out while Perkins was out.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
As stated elsewhere, the Mavs could be hurt if they lose Chandler or stay too much with Marion, Kidd and Stevenson or in moving from them don't find effective 5 man lineups and use the right ones more often than the weak ones. A stronger performing defensive team could hurt them, including a strong defensive rebounding team. They were weak at mid-range shot defense but were fortunate to face 2 near average teams on mid-range scoring and 1 bad one before reaching the finals. The Heat were really strong on mid-range scoring in the regular season. Would want to check their performance on that in the Finals. Probably not as good. They faced 2 good mid-range defenses, 1 mild weak, 1 quite weak. But the two good ones were only 6th and 8th best. Next time one would think they would likely face somebody better at the Mavs' very dominant scoring strength location.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
I'm wondering what anyone might have said a year ago about what the Mavs needed to do to win a title. They'd gone with Dirk all these years, thru Nash and Harris, and now Kidd is past his expiration date. Terry is getting gray, Marion and Butler past their prime...
In retrospect, it's easy enough to say Chandler was the tipping point. But their season mark wasn't even one of their better records (nor SRS) of the last decade. Even with 2 of last year's starters out with injury, they got hottest at the most right times.
Suddenly the coach, the GM, and the owner are all geniuses. The same players who'd been perennially "soft" were now a cohesive unit, tenacious ... "tough", even.
In playoffs, LeBron sat just 4 mpg, after round 1. They can't function without him, or the step down is just too steep? If anyone isn't playing well, he's often helped by just being sat down for a few.
Could anyone have coached this team better? Without foreknowledge of the future, that is. You don't dump a player after one bad game, but after 2 straight? Or 3, or 4? Who knows why Z went bad, and Jones, and Bibby?
From series to series, they don't even look like the same players.
Maybe you can't design a team to win a title. Maybe the theoretical limit is to design for 50 wins, or 55, and then you still have to get lucky and/or hot in the playoffs.
In retrospect, it's easy enough to say Chandler was the tipping point. But their season mark wasn't even one of their better records (nor SRS) of the last decade. Even with 2 of last year's starters out with injury, they got hottest at the most right times.
Suddenly the coach, the GM, and the owner are all geniuses. The same players who'd been perennially "soft" were now a cohesive unit, tenacious ... "tough", even.
I was thinking they just need some reliable players, after 123.I agree that Miami needed better lineup management...
In playoffs, LeBron sat just 4 mpg, after round 1. They can't function without him, or the step down is just too steep? If anyone isn't playing well, he's often helped by just being sat down for a few.
Could anyone have coached this team better? Without foreknowledge of the future, that is. You don't dump a player after one bad game, but after 2 straight? Or 3, or 4? Who knows why Z went bad, and Jones, and Bibby?
From series to series, they don't even look like the same players.
Maybe you can't design a team to win a title. Maybe the theoretical limit is to design for 50 wins, or 55, and then you still have to get lucky and/or hot in the playoffs.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
Based on 2009-10 regular season stats the Mavs only had 2 top 10 Factors- own turnovers and not fouling. They were 10th on offensive efficiency and 12th on defense. That is not that elite. I would not have expected them to get to or past the conference finals.
They faced San Antonio in the first round who was slightly better with 3 top 10 Factors and 10th on offensive efficiency and 12th on defense. The Spurs defense was at or near the best at limiting inside shots and 3 points. They funneled teams to the mid-range shot and apparently did that with Dallas and won at least partially with that strategy. I don't have summarized shot location data from their series but Dallas definitely did not excel from 3 point range then whereas they were on fire as a team hitting 39.4% of their 3s in 2011.
Dallas had 4 top 10 Factors in 2010-11 including the two biggest / most important own eFG% and eFG% allowed. Chandler contributed to both. Moving up from 15th on defensive rebounding to 7th helped. Chandler was a part of that too, performing better at defensive rebounding than Dampier and Haywood did the previous year for both the regular season and playoffs. They moved up to 7th best on offensive efficiency and 8th best on defensive efficiency. Only 2 teams had better efficiency rankings and Dallas managed to play better than both when they faced each other. Dallas was truly elite coming into the 2011 playoffs and got fairly favorable playoff match ups and got hot from 3 point range.
In the 2010 playoffs 3 of their 4 most used lineups were horrendous (all -25 per 100 possessions or worse). The most used playoff lineup Kidd - Butler- Marion- Nowitzki- Dampier) was tested less than 50 minutes in the regular season and was negative. Doesn't look like that was a good choice. Perhaps too much treating players as independent stable ingredients rather than emphasizing unit performance? Another of the top 5 most used lineups was very lightly used in the regular season, was bad and yet was given a relatively prominent role. A third of the top 5 playoff lineups only had 7 minutes of testing. Meanwhile his biggest minute and great performing regular season lineup slipped to 10th place in playoff minutes (at less than 2 minutes per game). It broke even on the scoreboard but for some reason was ignored in favor of lineups that weren't working. The second most used regular season lineup was still the second most used in the playoffs but it was near neutral in both time periods and so had no major claim for more favorable treatment. The third most used in the regular season slipped to 20th for use in the playoffs. Carlisle gambled changing his top lineups greatly and lost.
In 2011 he got positive results from 4 of his 5 most used lineups including really strong performance from 2. His most used playoff lineup was another reach for a lightly used lineup (16th place in the regular season) but it was wildly successful and looked like a reasonable candidate to promote. But... it didn't actually work. 3 of the 4 that did work in the playoffs worked in the regular season though 2 were elevated based on light testing. Carlisle gambled a bit less, on a stronger basis and have better results. I'd still be concerned with the gambling pattern though. Might be more than I'd preferred but would have to review all the tape and do more analysis to fairly consider and decide.
Miami may have thought they couldn't function without James or didn't want to (based on the regular season) ... but they were -36 with him against Dallas, +24 without him in those 4 minutes per game. If they could have extended the performance without him from 4 minutes to 8 they probably would have won the series.
James had 10 positive quarters, 14 negative against Dallas. He and his teammates on the court broke even or slightly better in the 1st and 3rd quarters but averaged -4 in the 2nd quarter and -2.3 in the 4th. The 2nd and 4th quarters had a lot of mishmash lineups, far different than the generally orderly 1st and 3rd quarters. Might want to consider changing the 1st and 3rd quarters some so there is enough starters left to make the 2nd and 4th quarters look more like them. More lineups with 4 starters even at the cost of less with all 5 to avoid having to go with 2-3 starter lineups in the 2nd and especially 4th quarters. They had plenty of regular season candidates. But in the playoffs Spoelstra's top 10 lineups were all 5 starters, 3 versions with 4 starters and 6 with 3 starters or less. The lineups with 4 starters were all positive for the playoffs as a whole (none with Bibby) and all by far far more than with all 5 (including Bibby). 4 of the 6 with 3 starters or less were negative on Adjusted +/- estimates and in 3 cases badly. More time with 4 starters (and without Bibby) could have helped considerably it appears compared to what they did and what they got from it.
Seems like a lot of room for improvement of lineup management against Dallas and not just little nitpicks but rather on overall lineup strategy.
They faced San Antonio in the first round who was slightly better with 3 top 10 Factors and 10th on offensive efficiency and 12th on defense. The Spurs defense was at or near the best at limiting inside shots and 3 points. They funneled teams to the mid-range shot and apparently did that with Dallas and won at least partially with that strategy. I don't have summarized shot location data from their series but Dallas definitely did not excel from 3 point range then whereas they were on fire as a team hitting 39.4% of their 3s in 2011.
Dallas had 4 top 10 Factors in 2010-11 including the two biggest / most important own eFG% and eFG% allowed. Chandler contributed to both. Moving up from 15th on defensive rebounding to 7th helped. Chandler was a part of that too, performing better at defensive rebounding than Dampier and Haywood did the previous year for both the regular season and playoffs. They moved up to 7th best on offensive efficiency and 8th best on defensive efficiency. Only 2 teams had better efficiency rankings and Dallas managed to play better than both when they faced each other. Dallas was truly elite coming into the 2011 playoffs and got fairly favorable playoff match ups and got hot from 3 point range.
In the 2010 playoffs 3 of their 4 most used lineups were horrendous (all -25 per 100 possessions or worse). The most used playoff lineup Kidd - Butler- Marion- Nowitzki- Dampier) was tested less than 50 minutes in the regular season and was negative. Doesn't look like that was a good choice. Perhaps too much treating players as independent stable ingredients rather than emphasizing unit performance? Another of the top 5 most used lineups was very lightly used in the regular season, was bad and yet was given a relatively prominent role. A third of the top 5 playoff lineups only had 7 minutes of testing. Meanwhile his biggest minute and great performing regular season lineup slipped to 10th place in playoff minutes (at less than 2 minutes per game). It broke even on the scoreboard but for some reason was ignored in favor of lineups that weren't working. The second most used regular season lineup was still the second most used in the playoffs but it was near neutral in both time periods and so had no major claim for more favorable treatment. The third most used in the regular season slipped to 20th for use in the playoffs. Carlisle gambled changing his top lineups greatly and lost.
In 2011 he got positive results from 4 of his 5 most used lineups including really strong performance from 2. His most used playoff lineup was another reach for a lightly used lineup (16th place in the regular season) but it was wildly successful and looked like a reasonable candidate to promote. But... it didn't actually work. 3 of the 4 that did work in the playoffs worked in the regular season though 2 were elevated based on light testing. Carlisle gambled a bit less, on a stronger basis and have better results. I'd still be concerned with the gambling pattern though. Might be more than I'd preferred but would have to review all the tape and do more analysis to fairly consider and decide.
Miami may have thought they couldn't function without James or didn't want to (based on the regular season) ... but they were -36 with him against Dallas, +24 without him in those 4 minutes per game. If they could have extended the performance without him from 4 minutes to 8 they probably would have won the series.
James had 10 positive quarters, 14 negative against Dallas. He and his teammates on the court broke even or slightly better in the 1st and 3rd quarters but averaged -4 in the 2nd quarter and -2.3 in the 4th. The 2nd and 4th quarters had a lot of mishmash lineups, far different than the generally orderly 1st and 3rd quarters. Might want to consider changing the 1st and 3rd quarters some so there is enough starters left to make the 2nd and 4th quarters look more like them. More lineups with 4 starters even at the cost of less with all 5 to avoid having to go with 2-3 starter lineups in the 2nd and especially 4th quarters. They had plenty of regular season candidates. But in the playoffs Spoelstra's top 10 lineups were all 5 starters, 3 versions with 4 starters and 6 with 3 starters or less. The lineups with 4 starters were all positive for the playoffs as a whole (none with Bibby) and all by far far more than with all 5 (including Bibby). 4 of the 6 with 3 starters or less were negative on Adjusted +/- estimates and in 3 cases badly. More time with 4 starters (and without Bibby) could have helped considerably it appears compared to what they did and what they got from it.
Seems like a lot of room for improvement of lineup management against Dallas and not just little nitpicks but rather on overall lineup strategy.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
Wade-James was something like +13 per 100 possessions in the regular season but only about +2 per 100 possessions in the playoffs overall. And against Dallas they were -17 overall for the series. Surprising, though a good share of those minutes were with Bibby who had by far the worst raw +/- rate of any Miami rotation regular. They probably won't win a title if Wade-James is only slightly positive or goes negative against the toughest opponents. It is surprising that they got that far this time given these numbers.
To be fair, both Bibby and Chambers with Wade-James were good in the regular season and it was not clearcut which to favor in the playoffs.
Chalmers had modestly positive +/- with both on the court with him in the playoffs but it was about twice as good when he was out there with just one or none. He was about equally good with each of the superstars.
Was the problem directly with Wade-James together? Probably not for the playoffs as a whole. One lineup was big Z was -69 on its own, without that lineup Wade-James was probably fairly strong. They properly stopped using it after the round 2.
The problem in the Dallas series was something different. From the lineup data at BV it appears that Dallas did best against Wade-James when they had a small SG out there against Wade and Marion (or Stevenson) on James and Chandler inside. They seemed to rip the Heat more with their offense than defense though both were generally good for the big minute match-ups.
Even with this quick analysis from the lineup stats it still might be educational if someone reviewed that tape in detail as well and wrote about it. Here or elsewhere. There might have been some talk about this at the time but an careful overall retrospective might find things to add.
To be fair, both Bibby and Chambers with Wade-James were good in the regular season and it was not clearcut which to favor in the playoffs.
Chalmers had modestly positive +/- with both on the court with him in the playoffs but it was about twice as good when he was out there with just one or none. He was about equally good with each of the superstars.
Was the problem directly with Wade-James together? Probably not for the playoffs as a whole. One lineup was big Z was -69 on its own, without that lineup Wade-James was probably fairly strong. They properly stopped using it after the round 2.
The problem in the Dallas series was something different. From the lineup data at BV it appears that Dallas did best against Wade-James when they had a small SG out there against Wade and Marion (or Stevenson) on James and Chandler inside. They seemed to rip the Heat more with their offense than defense though both were generally good for the big minute match-ups.
Even with this quick analysis from the lineup stats it still might be educational if someone reviewed that tape in detail as well and wrote about it. Here or elsewhere. There might have been some talk about this at the time but an careful overall retrospective might find things to add.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
The Wizards won't win the title until they change their roster.
Re: Contender X won't win the title unless they change this.
That's a good one; and it may be necessary, but it wouldn't prove sufficient. Unless you can manage to trade bad players for good players.
So, would a wealthier owner be the single biggest hope for such a franchise? Other than the pure luck of winning the lottery, that is.
So, would a wealthier owner be the single biggest hope for such a franchise? Other than the pure luck of winning the lottery, that is.