Of lineups used over 50 minutes so far, Wizards' starting unit is most used and best. Minny, GSW and LAC also have leaders. Denver, Detroit, SAC and IND have the worst performing ones. Less than half the teams have a unit over 50 minutes.
Wizards have consistently strong trios with their guys. Probably best case for fit / synergy. GSW is a main contender, as are the Clips (with all top37 most used trios being positive).
Westbrook, George, Adams? Meh.
Rick Carlisle and the Mavs with the by far worst big minute trio of Ferrell, Matthews, Barnes. R.Gobert, J.Ingles, R.Rubio is really the only competition. H.Barnes, W.Matthews is the most used pair in league and sucking at -16 net rating. Ferrell Barnes even worse but somewhat less used. Break up that trio... unless you are tanking.
Shift to 4 man units and DET has the only negative quad over 100 minutes.
Minny starters with J Butler plus 22, without -17. Several top Minny trios are among most used but all meh.
Holiday - Cousins doing well.
Philly hurt a bit without Simmons, more without Embid and mega hurt without Redick on court.
Favors, R.Gobert, J.Ingles, R.Rubio as a quad and as a 5 man unit with Hood or Mitchell, doing badly. Sub Thabo and Joe J for Hood & Ingles and they did well. So far. Rubio Gobert Ingles Or Hood are atrocious trios. Only 3 of the most used 25 trios are positive and they all have Joe J, Thabo or both. Almost all the other trios are terrible. There are no decent minute good quads. Time to rethink the whole design? Maybe.
At pair level the raw data good ones used over 50 minutes are: Favors - Mitchell, Thabo - Mitchell, Thabo - Udoh, Johnson - Mitchell. Most used lineup with 4 of these 5 guys in it? 18 minutes and did very well. J.Johnson, D.Mitchell, T.Sefolosha, E.Udoh. That is the only quad involving 4 of these guys over 10 minutes. Only 4 other such quads over 4 minutes but all did well. Maybe try more in this vein Quinn?
Rozier with other Boston starters (besides Baynes), great. With Smart, meh. With Baynes, meh but good without Tatum. With Rozier but no Horford, bad. But all this is of little significance because Stevens hasn't used any lineup over 25 minutes. 73 lineups used in 5 games.
TWolves, Clips, Nuggets, Wizards and Bulls have used under 40 lineups. Hawks 97. Few exceed 70. But even 50 is a lot imo for just a few games.
2017-18 lineup analysis
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
All but one team has played 6 games. Teams are averaging 1.7 lineups used over 25 minutes or a bit more than 4 minutes per game. They have used an average of 12.5 total lineups for more than 1 minute per game for season. They have used an average of 80more lineups for less than 1 minute per game. Average of 92 lineups used. If you used 2 PGs, 3 SGs, 3 SFs, 3 PFs and 2 Cs in every combination you'd use 108 lineups. After 6-7 games the average lineup distribution is close to that and some are over it. Leaguewide only 29% of lineups have positive cumulative results. The dink lineups used less than 1 minute per game are performing slightly worse at 26% positive. Both of these are very low. Lots of exploration, reasonable or not. On average teams have 27 lineups that have a net rating of +5 or better, 7 that are in between plus 5 to minus 5 and 58 that are pulling worse than -5 so far. Start trimming the losers at some point. How fast? Even the off to a good start Wizards have 70% of their lineups in non-positive territory. Warriors with a bit more respectable but still too high 64% non-positive. Coaches... coaching their way. The horrendous Hawks somehow lucked their way to winning 26% of lineups. The Wizards being not much higher is disappointing.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Mavs: top 4 most used lineups all horrendous on plus minus and 6 of top 8. Starters with Mejri worked in short test. Use it more or less? Trying or tanking?
Kings: 7 of top 8 weak to horrendous. Only good one without Hield. Bog, Fox, Skal, Koufos, Temple.
Jazz: top 2 by far biggest minute lineups, bad to terrible. Then nothing else tested much over 1 minute per game. The next 7 positive, mostly very positive. Seems whack to me to not try one or more of these more. By now or later. Top 7 pairs negative. The only big minute positive pairs have Thabo or Mitchell and not Rubio.
Rockets, great starters then up n down in next lineups despite all 20 most used player pairs being positive overall. Probably should be more selective about lineups.
Magic: big minute lineups with Mack not working.
Nuggets: most of the pair data is good but none of it is great. The 5 man data is up n down. Appears to need better sorting.
TWolves: Dieng working with 4 starters and nothing else.
Warriors: mostly working except for some pairs with Iggy, Thompson or both.
Bucks: big minute pairs with Maker and Delly are bad.
Kings: 7 of top 8 weak to horrendous. Only good one without Hield. Bog, Fox, Skal, Koufos, Temple.
Jazz: top 2 by far biggest minute lineups, bad to terrible. Then nothing else tested much over 1 minute per game. The next 7 positive, mostly very positive. Seems whack to me to not try one or more of these more. By now or later. Top 7 pairs negative. The only big minute positive pairs have Thabo or Mitchell and not Rubio.
Rockets, great starters then up n down in next lineups despite all 20 most used player pairs being positive overall. Probably should be more selective about lineups.
Magic: big minute lineups with Mack not working.
Nuggets: most of the pair data is good but none of it is great. The 5 man data is up n down. Appears to need better sorting.
TWolves: Dieng working with 4 starters and nothing else.
Warriors: mostly working except for some pairs with Iggy, Thompson or both.
Bucks: big minute pairs with Maker and Delly are bad.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Looking at the best half of the top 30 most used lineups, they are net winners at efg%, 3pt fg% and ftas. The FTA advantage is the biggest, followed by 3 pt advantage, then 2 pt advantage. With only a few exceptions these lineups win all 3. Their pace on average is below league average, though a Clippers lineup makes half of the total difference. Only 4 play at over 100 pace though. About half include what might be called a stretch 4. I think 2 had 3 guys 6-5 and under. So fairly normal on size. On average these lineups have played around 10 minutes per game and given their teams a bit less than a 3 pt bump. A couple teams have 2 of the lineups. Only 10 teams have a MOV over 3 and only 4 over 6pts. So in most cases these lineups are providing half to all to more than all of their MOV. It appears that about 2/3rds of the guys are over 25, 1/3rd younger. On average about 1.5 guys per lineup have been All-Stars at some point.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Pistons with worst performing lineup in top 20 most used in league at almost -12 per 100 possessions.. Other negatives: Jazz, Pacers, Lakers (twice) and Raptors.
Barnes-Matthews is worst performing player pair in 150 most used. Only one close is Matthews-Smith. To get to worst than these you go a little further to Nowitiski-Matthews.
"Theory: to beat Warriors it would be great for a team to be elite on shot / scoring efficiency AND either limiting opponent 3pt attempts and / or opp. 3 pt. fg%. It there a team that does both?" Portland, Orlando and Golden State are now almost doing all 3. Detroit 2. Wizards and Raptors almost 2. Houston and San Antonio down to just one. Pacers just one but almost all 3. On this list AND a top 7 SRS? Warriors, Blazers, Pistons, Raptors, Rockets. So almost the same list but no for Spurs and Wizards. Celtics and Spurs make SRS top 7 but not the other. So you could have 5-9 contenders depending on if you have to make both lists or just one.
Barnes-Matthews is worst performing player pair in 150 most used. Only one close is Matthews-Smith. To get to worst than these you go a little further to Nowitiski-Matthews.
"Theory: to beat Warriors it would be great for a team to be elite on shot / scoring efficiency AND either limiting opponent 3pt attempts and / or opp. 3 pt. fg%. It there a team that does both?" Portland, Orlando and Golden State are now almost doing all 3. Detroit 2. Wizards and Raptors almost 2. Houston and San Antonio down to just one. Pacers just one but almost all 3. On this list AND a top 7 SRS? Warriors, Blazers, Pistons, Raptors, Rockets. So almost the same list but no for Spurs and Wizards. Celtics and Spurs make SRS top 7 but not the other. So you could have 5-9 contenders depending on if you have to make both lists or just one.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Clippers intended starting lineup has been solid. Add 1-2 bench guys and the next 5 most used lineups are negative. Half of the top 20 most used are negative. Doc needs to weed his rotation or figure out specific fixes. Overall 32% of their lineups are positive. Meh.
76ers starting lineup is plus 61 and everything else is cumulatively -61. Work to do on rotation. 35% of the lineups are positive. Not bad.
Bucks now have a nice top 3 most used.The bad lineups still tend to be with Maker and another bench player.
The main big minute exception to Celtics' success? Starters with Morris.
Top 3 most used for Jazz are bad to terrible. Overall 31% of lineups are positive. Not enough.
Lakers starters negative but only mildly.
Nuggets top 4 most used are now positive. All the bad big minute pairs have Mudiay and / or Barton. Mostly Mudiay.
Rockets starters with Paul are so far bad.
7 of 9 of the most used Cavs lineups are negative for season. In last 9 games (with better outcomes) it is still 5 of top 7 negative. Probably need more change.
Spurs, just 2 lineups used much over 1 minute per game. Both those being mild positives and 37% of all lineups positive is doing alright.
76ers starting lineup is plus 61 and everything else is cumulatively -61. Work to do on rotation. 35% of the lineups are positive. Not bad.
Bucks now have a nice top 3 most used.The bad lineups still tend to be with Maker and another bench player.
The main big minute exception to Celtics' success? Starters with Morris.
Top 3 most used for Jazz are bad to terrible. Overall 31% of lineups are positive. Not enough.
Lakers starters negative but only mildly.
Nuggets top 4 most used are now positive. All the bad big minute pairs have Mudiay and / or Barton. Mostly Mudiay.
Rockets starters with Paul are so far bad.
7 of 9 of the most used Cavs lineups are negative for season. In last 9 games (with better outcomes) it is still 5 of top 7 negative. Probably need more change.
Spurs, just 2 lineups used much over 1 minute per game. Both those being mild positives and 37% of all lineups positive is doing alright.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Pistons with a good record. But 6 of their 9 most used lineups are negative, moderate to extreme. May be doing well with dink lineups, legitimately or randomly. If you changed the starting unit, the change might be Galloway for Johnson. It is by the data. But Stan has tried that alternative less than 1 minute per game. Will he try a change, any change? When? Are they too happy with what they are doing / seeing in overall results?
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Coaches play with lineups like a little kid in charge of a cookie factory. Reconfigure the production line in almost every way. Maybe see a few they like and eat. Most of the hundreds of cookies just end up on the floor and forgotten. Cuz they can always make more... and do.
The neighbor kid is sticking his hand in trying to ruin things and they copy cat and try to outdo each other. Most of it becomes not great and down toward a mess.
A few of the smarter kids will make more of the good cookies. On their own or with the help of a guardian (or analytics department). But they'll still waste a lot of product playing.
The neighbor kid is sticking his hand in trying to ruin things and they copy cat and try to outdo each other. Most of it becomes not great and down toward a mess.
A few of the smarter kids will make more of the good cookies. On their own or with the help of a guardian (or analytics department). But they'll still waste a lot of product playing.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Griz: 8 of top 11 most used lineups and 12 of top 20 were negative including the most used badly.
Conley / Gasol mildly negative when available. Gasol's top 6 most used are meh to bad. Only good pair with Parsons. Gasol barely positive on RPM. Something is not good, his play, team rotation / schemes or both.
Parsons very good with most but not Conley or Green (though only slightly negative with them so far).
Conley / Gasol mildly negative when available. Gasol's top 6 most used are meh to bad. Only good pair with Parsons. Gasol barely positive on RPM. Something is not good, his play, team rotation / schemes or both.
Parsons very good with most but not Conley or Green (though only slightly negative with them so far).
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
At least 1/4th of season in books for all teams. Just half of teams have a lineup used over 150 minutes or over about 7 minutes per game. Almost 80% of these lineups are positive. Pistons still with the worst performing, though it is substantially better than before.
57% of lineups used over 60 minutes are positive. There are on average 2.3 per team. 53% of lineups over 30 minutes are positive, though the marginal rate in the second block is 49%. There are on average 4.8 of them. Still 53% win on lineups used over 20 minutes. 8.1 of them. Still 53% on lineups used over 10 minutes on average. 12.8 of them. However, less than 28% of lineups used less than 5 minutes for are positive for season. The super dink lineups are on average the worst performers. You could still see average gains by shifting from dink lineups to somewhat bigger ones but the main thing, in terms of performance, appears to be to minimize (or avoid) the super dink lineups.
57% of lineups used over 60 minutes are positive. There are on average 2.3 per team. 53% of lineups over 30 minutes are positive, though the marginal rate in the second block is 49%. There are on average 4.8 of them. Still 53% win on lineups used over 20 minutes. 8.1 of them. Still 53% on lineups used over 10 minutes on average. 12.8 of them. However, less than 28% of lineups used less than 5 minutes for are positive for season. The super dink lineups are on average the worst performers. You could still see average gains by shifting from dink lineups to somewhat bigger ones but the main thing, in terms of performance, appears to be to minimize (or avoid) the super dink lineups.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
Tolliver to start over Stanley Johnson. For a game or long term? Lots says it should be long-term test and permanent for season if it works and if winning is most important. But SVG has to date found a grand total of 9 minutes to test it. So many dink lineups to waste time on, he couldn't get to this one much. Maybe for political reasons. Don't test, don't shake up your high draft pick with a threat from a journeyman. Until now maybe.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
3 most used lineups for Jazz are all negative for season with current lineup with Mitchell over Hood by far the worst one. That may change with Mitchell's recent performance. None of these has been tested adequately due to injury and too much time wasted on dink lineups. Several lineups with top guys but without Rubio have been fabulous. Test them more? I would.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
3 most used lineups for Lakers are all negative for season. The 5 of the 10 most used lineups that are positive all have 2-3 current bench players. It is ok to try to win bench lineups or tank but Walton's approach isn't winning a lot of games if that is the current objective. Slightly below expected wins by point differential. Only 32% of his lineups are positive. That is kinda low.
His top 15 most used player lineups are ALL negative. 18 of 20 trios. 14 of 16 quads. There is no pair involving two starters that is positive. Is he tanking or is team talent that low or does he really, really not know the right combinations? Among the few positive player pairs over 50 minutes for season, they almost all involve Randle or Clarkson. Players with a good chance of not being around long.
"Walton says he is much more comfortable... with a "clearer vision of where we are going."
Oh? What is the vision? Is it the right one, a good one? I don't see much evidence of wise vision or it taking them anywhere anytime soon.
His top 15 most used player lineups are ALL negative. 18 of 20 trios. 14 of 16 quads. There is no pair involving two starters that is positive. Is he tanking or is team talent that low or does he really, really not know the right combinations? Among the few positive player pairs over 50 minutes for season, they almost all involve Randle or Clarkson. Players with a good chance of not being around long.
"Walton says he is much more comfortable... with a "clearer vision of where we are going."
Oh? What is the vision? Is it the right one, a good one? I don't see much evidence of wise vision or it taking them anywhere anytime soon.
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
We guessed the Lakers would win somewhere between 23 and 32 wins -- avg 28 -- and they're headed for 33.
These are mostly or entirely based on their players' talent or rates or whatever. Yes, that's what they are: a mediocre team.
Luke has them going for 5 wins more than you thought they'd get, and you say he's doing it wrong?
These are mostly or entirely based on their players' talent or rates or whatever. Yes, that's what they are: a mediocre team.
Luke has them going for 5 wins more than you thought they'd get, and you say he's doing it wrong?
Re: 2017-18 lineup analysis
I am saying the lineup and sub lineup data looks quite bad and that he hasn't got it figured out at all how to be good now or in near future. Is it better than I projected on wins? So far I guess. Before Kuzma played or Clarkson rebounded or Nance got healthy or Randle learned to be a sub. 8th easiest strength of schedule. Long way to finish line.
Is he a great coach, good coach, average coach, less or undetermined? Looking a lot more average or worse to me than better than that. And much, much less good than he did with Warriors or he got treated in a recent article.
Is he a great coach, good coach, average coach, less or undetermined? Looking a lot more average or worse to me than better than that. And much, much less good than he did with Warriors or he got treated in a recent article.