"Can you make it better without overplaying your better players?"
Yep.
"Should you keep your "best" lineups on the floor when the game is well in hand?"
Probably not, so go to low tier 1 or tier 2 lineups not rando, almost never repeated or meaningful dinks.
"Coach of the Year has the best team of all time and should do better?"
Yep, imo. I mean why comment or pay attention unless you think you see ways to get better and actually accomplish the goal in playoffs against 4 opponents, at least 3 who are strong? Win a title, I probably comment less. But might still, if I see something that might be relevant / helpful.
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
This seems odd to me. Their 2 Allstars do not seem to complement one another so well.
On the floor together, J Williams and Shai have their team at +12.7 pts/100, which is about the overall team MOV.
One without the other, however, is not close.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/te ... 5/lineups/
OKC with JDub and not Shai are +2.7
Shai without JDub, they are +27.9
Here are Jordan and Pippen for the '97 and '98 seasons combined:While the team was better with both on the floor, either guy could carry the team quite well alone.
Note: Pippen looks 'better' than MJ because he missed a bunch of games to start the '98 season. Jordan had to play without Pip, but not vise versa.
On the floor together, J Williams and Shai have their team at +12.7 pts/100, which is about the overall team MOV.
One without the other, however, is not close.
Code: Select all
JDub min On poss pts+
total 1726 9.4 3596 338
with 1157 12.7 2410 306
w.o. 569 2.7 1185 32
Shai min On poss pts+
total 1874 18.5 3904 722
with 1157 12.7 2410 306
w.o. 717 27.9 1494 416
OKC with JDub and not Shai are +2.7
Shai without JDub, they are +27.9
Here are Jordan and Pippen for the '97 and '98 seasons combined:
Code: Select all
Jordan min On poss pts+
total 6287 10.8 11657 1261
with 3937 12.1 7300 885
w.o. 2350 8.6 4357 376
Pippen min On poss pts+
total 4747 11.9 8802 1045
with 3937 12.1 7300 885
w.o. 810 10.6 1502 160
Note: Pippen looks 'better' than MJ because he missed a bunch of games to start the '98 season. Jordan had to play without Pip, but not vise versa.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder projected to have fairly even chances of facing Clippers, Kings,,Warriors or Mavs in 1st round. Probably would prefer Kings. Clippers with Kawhi are a step or two above what they were without. Losing records against Mavs and Warriors even before their major changes..
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Different sample sizes (and opponent qualities) make surface comparisons less than simple; but at the moment I am finding the net margin of SGA - Caruso and that pair with Wiggins and trio with Hartenstein about the highest. It matters who is excluded or also included but these are about the best.
Including Holmgren or JDub in a such lineup can still be good but are not best performing.
SGA - Holmgren and none of these others is just slight positive.
SGA and all 4 of these remains at zero minutes. Worth testing.
Would Coach Daigneault accurately report on degree of success of these combinations off top of head? Does this detail figure into his lineup management plan? How deeply detailed is the lineup plan and how closely followed?
These combos could be tested more rigorously but aren't.
It is nice to have many things that work adequately or well and some great. It could be better to shift more minutes toward great and leave even less in just adequate or bad.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Chet Holmgren, Isaiah Hartenstein, Luguentz Dort is +7 in 58 minutes. Good but not great. Not even to team average. Does it stay as starting choice rest of way? Is it even a discussion? What will it look like in 2-4-6 weeks? Time to test an alternative if willing to put it out there up front? Time is running out.
Best SGA - Dort results came / come without Holmgren.
Adjusted lineup ratings would be helpful of course. Do they have and use them?
57 games in and Coach D has tested just one lineup over 70 minutes. Lots you can say about overall results but I am still calling this lineup use distribution a total crock and waste of greater testing opportunity.
Playoffs will likely be decided by 5 most used lineups but will the 5 be the best 5 and for the "right" or more right amounts? Good chance the actual choices will be sub-optimal. The regular season data is. Most of what happens beyond the first 5 will be decided by the next 10.
Last playoffs, they used 79 lineups. The 5 most used did good on average. Overall the problem came in lineups 6-15. Coach D won the true dinks big but lost the near dinks.
In fact they lost with top 5 against Mavs. Broke even on 6-15 and even on the rest.
So failed on tier 2 in round 1, failed on tier 1 in round 2. Won dinks in round 1 but not round 1. Not good enough. Lose one lineup tier or even a key single lineup and one can lose.
Against Mavs this season, the negative margin loss is coming from the 5 most used lineups again. Against Warriors this season, the negative margin loss is also coming from the 5 most used lineups. The worst of the 5 appear to have included Jaylin Williams, something that could be avoided in playoffs if healthy. The 2 possible playoff matchups they beat in regular season to date (Clippers and Kings), the big 5 did well.
What will be the 5 most used. In playoffs? What "should" it be? In general and against specific opponents? How much time compared to tier 2 and dink lineups?
By actual data, the 5 most used look all good.All have Dort and JDub. Cuz why? Rigid design? SGA without Dort and JDub is nearly 3 times as positive as with.
4 have Hartenstein, 2 Holmgren, one of which is together. Only 1 lineup with Wiggins, 1 Joe, 2 Wallace. With Wiggins or Joe, best results, with Wallace middling and worst in group.
Caruso does not appear in 5 most used despite the leading overall performance with SGA. Caruso excluded from big 5 for a reason or just rigid lineup habits?
2 Wallace with Joe lineups are way better than Wallace without Joe. So why are 2 Wallace without Joe lineups given far, far more minutes? Has the question been answered? Has the question been asked?
There is probably more to asked and said but that is alot already.
There are 20-30 lineups I'd call preferred. 4.5-7% of the total used. Use them to virtual exclusion of anything else outside of garbage time or rest / major injury imo. Exact splits would be another day's task to start and would be refined based on greater testing.
Including Holmgren or JDub in a such lineup can still be good but are not best performing.
SGA - Holmgren and none of these others is just slight positive.
SGA and all 4 of these remains at zero minutes. Worth testing.
Would Coach Daigneault accurately report on degree of success of these combinations off top of head? Does this detail figure into his lineup management plan? How deeply detailed is the lineup plan and how closely followed?
These combos could be tested more rigorously but aren't.
It is nice to have many things that work adequately or well and some great. It could be better to shift more minutes toward great and leave even less in just adequate or bad.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Chet Holmgren, Isaiah Hartenstein, Luguentz Dort is +7 in 58 minutes. Good but not great. Not even to team average. Does it stay as starting choice rest of way? Is it even a discussion? What will it look like in 2-4-6 weeks? Time to test an alternative if willing to put it out there up front? Time is running out.
Best SGA - Dort results came / come without Holmgren.
Adjusted lineup ratings would be helpful of course. Do they have and use them?
57 games in and Coach D has tested just one lineup over 70 minutes. Lots you can say about overall results but I am still calling this lineup use distribution a total crock and waste of greater testing opportunity.
Playoffs will likely be decided by 5 most used lineups but will the 5 be the best 5 and for the "right" or more right amounts? Good chance the actual choices will be sub-optimal. The regular season data is. Most of what happens beyond the first 5 will be decided by the next 10.
Last playoffs, they used 79 lineups. The 5 most used did good on average. Overall the problem came in lineups 6-15. Coach D won the true dinks big but lost the near dinks.
In fact they lost with top 5 against Mavs. Broke even on 6-15 and even on the rest.
So failed on tier 2 in round 1, failed on tier 1 in round 2. Won dinks in round 1 but not round 1. Not good enough. Lose one lineup tier or even a key single lineup and one can lose.
Against Mavs this season, the negative margin loss is coming from the 5 most used lineups again. Against Warriors this season, the negative margin loss is also coming from the 5 most used lineups. The worst of the 5 appear to have included Jaylin Williams, something that could be avoided in playoffs if healthy. The 2 possible playoff matchups they beat in regular season to date (Clippers and Kings), the big 5 did well.
What will be the 5 most used. In playoffs? What "should" it be? In general and against specific opponents? How much time compared to tier 2 and dink lineups?
By actual data, the 5 most used look all good.All have Dort and JDub. Cuz why? Rigid design? SGA without Dort and JDub is nearly 3 times as positive as with.
4 have Hartenstein, 2 Holmgren, one of which is together. Only 1 lineup with Wiggins, 1 Joe, 2 Wallace. With Wiggins or Joe, best results, with Wallace middling and worst in group.
Caruso does not appear in 5 most used despite the leading overall performance with SGA. Caruso excluded from big 5 for a reason or just rigid lineup habits?
2 Wallace with Joe lineups are way better than Wallace without Joe. So why are 2 Wallace without Joe lineups given far, far more minutes? Has the question been answered? Has the question been asked?
There is probably more to asked and said but that is alot already.
There are 20-30 lineups I'd call preferred. 4.5-7% of the total used. Use them to virtual exclusion of anything else outside of garbage time or rest / major injury imo. Exact splits would be another day's task to start and would be refined based on greater testing.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Last playoffs, Thunder mainly played 9. 6 were at least alright in rough terms. Wallace, Dort and Giddey were not.
Wallace and Dort look like the bottom of a 9 man rotation again, if they go with 9.
Will they go with 9? Or 10 or 11?
Wallace and Dort look like the bottom of a 9 man rotation again, if they go with 9.
Will they go with 9? Or 10 or 11?
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder have moved to tied for 4th or 6th youngest on minutes weighted age depending on how precise the BRef calculation.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder 5th on net margin over last 10 games, behind Cavs, Celtics, Warriors and Pistons. Cavs and Warrior remain ahead over just last 5 but the other two drop behind. Celtics drop to flat neutral, fwiw.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
SGA only 48th on 6 factor RAPM at RAPM.com. super low defensive rating.
Not sure how to react to that but fyi.
Shai -0.6 on 7 yr RAPM against strong opponents. 4.2 differential from rating against weak. Could be major... if "true" or close to true.
JDub and Chet rated moderately better against strong. Hartenstein's estimate cut in half. Wiggins, Wallace worse. Caruso, Dort, Joe better.
Caruso, 8th best in dataset. Chet 18th. Kenrich Williams also quite high but with a slight decline compared to with weak opponents.
Fwiw.
AD 3x of Doncic by this measure.
Jokic higher than anybody.
Not sure how to react to that but fyi.
Shai -0.6 on 7 yr RAPM against strong opponents. 4.2 differential from rating against weak. Could be major... if "true" or close to true.
JDub and Chet rated moderately better against strong. Hartenstein's estimate cut in half. Wiggins, Wallace worse. Caruso, Dort, Joe better.
Caruso, 8th best in dataset. Chet 18th. Kenrich Williams also quite high but with a slight decline compared to with weak opponents.
Fwiw.
AD 3x of Doncic by this measure.
Jokic higher than anybody.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
578 posts here over 2.5 years. Lots of analysis. Lots not seen elsewhere in public.
Some that might help the team that they didn't produce? I'd guess so but it is up to them to read, use, respect or not.
Some that might help the team that they didn't produce? I'd guess so but it is up to them to read, use, respect or not.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nb ... 92,1631096
Chet, no Hartenstein best
Hartenstein, no Holmgren second
Together or neither the same. Great but the same.
Chet, no Hartenstein best
Hartenstein, no Holmgren second
Together or neither the same. Great but the same.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Holmgren - Hartenstein wins team rebounding on both sides of court. But 3pt shooting plummets, more than expected.
Overall team rebounding is still weak. Pair used just 11 games and just 14 minutes per game when used.
I'd waive Flagler and sign a forward.
Currently 6th youngest on average age. Might pust 10th youngest next season. Would be clear youngest champion either way, if it happens.
Overall team rebounding is still weak. Pair used just 11 games and just 14 minutes per game when used.
I'd waive Flagler and sign a forward.
Currently 6th youngest on average age. Might pust 10th youngest next season. Would be clear youngest champion either way, if it happens.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
On factor matchups with western playoff contenders:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1901479368976650599
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1901479368976650599
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
A comparison of Thunder offensive weapons 1 thru 7 or tier 1 thru 3 on various stats & metrics with league average or contender average would be worth doing. Perhaps later.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
566 lineups used. 6 brand new ones last night, cuz...
Just 2 tested notably over 1 minute per game cuz...
All set to go into playoffs with significant testing of 1 lineup. Like most others. Cuz... that's how NBA coaches roll and organizations let them. Cuz why?
There seems to be almost no hope Coaches and organizations will change this pattern. Any chance a star player calls it out and asks for change? Privately or publicly? Next season? If a team fails short in playoffs and lineup management is fairly implicated? (SGA, "you are my only hope")
Celtics, 352 lineups used and 3 notably above 1 minute per game.
Cavs, 459 and 3.
Nuggets, 333 and 6.
Rockets 478 and 5.
Knicks, 270 and 6.
All could use far more concentration but the Thunder are the outlier at the top.
Just 2 tested notably over 1 minute per game cuz...
All set to go into playoffs with significant testing of 1 lineup. Like most others. Cuz... that's how NBA coaches roll and organizations let them. Cuz why?
There seems to be almost no hope Coaches and organizations will change this pattern. Any chance a star player calls it out and asks for change? Privately or publicly? Next season? If a team fails short in playoffs and lineup management is fairly implicated? (SGA, "you are my only hope")
Celtics, 352 lineups used and 3 notably above 1 minute per game.
Cavs, 459 and 3.
Nuggets, 333 and 6.
Rockets 478 and 5.
Knicks, 270 and 6.
All could use far more concentration but the Thunder are the outlier at the top.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
JDub without SGA is slightly better than as noted in February. Up to +3.6 from +2.7. Enough?
JDub - Holmgren (no SGA or Hartenstein) has been tested 1/3rd as much as with Hartenstein but producing 7 times the positive. How will those minutes split in playoffs?
SGA with none of these 3 is almost 50% better than any combination with them in 658 minutes. One highly paid, 2 expecting. Things that make you go huh, or probably should.
JDub - Holmgren (no SGA or Hartenstein) has been tested 1/3rd as much as with Hartenstein but producing 7 times the positive. How will those minutes split in playoffs?
SGA with none of these 3 is almost 50% better than any combination with them in 658 minutes. One highly paid, 2 expecting. Things that make you go huh, or probably should.