For Kings, only 6 lineups used tested over 80 minutes. Theoretical max would be about 50. No lineups tested 200 minutes, 1 close. Theoretical max, 20. Hypothetically could have tested 5 for 200 and 25 more for 80 and still have had 1000 minutes left for dinking around or to pour it into doubling the test of the top 5 lineups. Would you know a bit more useful info this way? I'd think so. Could alter the time of the big and medium minute lineups, especially for a more established team. Say 3 for 400, 6 for 200, 10 for 100 and 600 for dink. Just about anything above the chaos they went with.
To not test with discipline either you don't believe in the meaning or power of lineups above individual players, or you have little to no discipline or you think the test has to be real big to mean anything and just give up on going there.
A test of 200 minutes is better than less. 400 is reachable. More for the very best candidates. A single test of 80 minutes is probably better than 10 dink lineups for 8 minutes each. Kinda knowing 20-30 lineups is better than kinda knowing 6 and 3 tons of dinks that are so small sample you can't really even begin to make informed guesses about them. The hyper love of micro-managing lineups prevents half-decent testing. Few teams have or are close to half-decent testing, imo.
For the Kings, the 4 lineups they tested the most were all worse than their average net pts performance, as were 11 of the top 20. Not only was this not adequate testing, it doesn't appear to be very good test lineup selection either.