Finals game 1 lineups:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1930844052528001205
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
How much time is "enough" for lineup planning and analysis? By Coach and others?
2 hours before and after every game?
A staffer fully dedicated to it?
3-5?
There could be too much. But don't know until you decide you did go past that point of no further benefit after pushing for every ounce of benefit.
3-5 MORE analytic staff is pretty much a drop in the bucket of an NBA team.
Especially for top contenders seeking a title surely worth hundreds of millions in franchise value and psychic income.
And more: https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1933991200417300700
2 hours before and after every game?
A staffer fully dedicated to it?
3-5?
There could be too much. But don't know until you decide you did go past that point of no further benefit after pushing for every ounce of benefit.
3-5 MORE analytic staff is pretty much a drop in the bucket of an NBA team.
Especially for top contenders seeking a title surely worth hundreds of millions in franchise value and psychic income.
And more: https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1933991200417300700
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Looked at Coach D / Thunder lineup data by game outcome, location and quarter for Finals and all playoffs.
Finals
More lineups used in wins vs. losses. More used in 2nd and 3rd quarters. Best lineup success rates in wins and 1st quarters. Worst in losses and 2nd and 4th quarters.
All playoffs
More lineups used in wins vs. losses. More used in 2nd and 3rd quarters. Best lineup success rates in wins and 1st & 3rd quarters but success rate in wins falls from 54% for all playoffs to just 38% in Finals. Home success rate improves, road rate falls. Least success again in 2nd and 4th quarters.
5 most used lineups do best in wins, home games, 1st and 4th quarters.
This information could help recognize strengths and weaknesses, patterns for both, areas to maintain and perhaps especially to change.
Finals
More lineups used in wins vs. losses. More used in 2nd and 3rd quarters. Best lineup success rates in wins and 1st quarters. Worst in losses and 2nd and 4th quarters.
All playoffs
More lineups used in wins vs. losses. More used in 2nd and 3rd quarters. Best lineup success rates in wins and 1st & 3rd quarters but success rate in wins falls from 54% for all playoffs to just 38% in Finals. Home success rate improves, road rate falls. Least success again in 2nd and 4th quarters.
5 most used lineups do best in wins, home games, 1st and 4th quarters.
This information could help recognize strengths and weaknesses, patterns for both, areas to maintain and perhaps especially to change.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Starters with Caruso were horrible, then 8 other of 9 most used were great... then 10 of the 12 smallest lineups were horrible to absurdly bad.
Would different lineup management have saved this game? Probably not. But plenty could have been done differently.
7 brand new lineups for the series tonight.
Playoff total up to 149. That is almost every possible combination of 2 players at one position (probably PG) and 3 players tried at every other position.
Would different lineup management have saved this game? Probably not. But plenty could have been done differently.
7 brand new lineups for the series tonight.
Playoff total up to 149. That is almost every possible combination of 2 players at one position (probably PG) and 3 players tried at every other position.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Big 3 0 for 8 from 3pt range last night. All right around 30% for entire playoffs and all lower in the finals. SGA and JDub by a moderate amount, Chet shooting under 12%.
Team playoff 3pt fg% at about 34%, 13th of 16.
Major issue.
C Wallace, positive raw team +/- in 1 of 6 games. Minutes cut by more than half. 2nd worst ts% of main rotation at 49%.
Holmgren at 44.5% ts%, under 37% efg%. Had 5 straight positive +/-s but game 6 was bad.
Pacers turnovers have been key at times, but overall to% rate net margin is only 2.3 %pts.
Team playoff 3pt fg% at about 34%, 13th of 16.
Major issue.
C Wallace, positive raw team +/- in 1 of 6 games. Minutes cut by more than half. 2nd worst ts% of main rotation at 49%.
Holmgren at 44.5% ts%, under 37% efg%. Had 5 straight positive +/-s but game 6 was bad.
Pacers turnovers have been key at times, but overall to% rate net margin is only 2.3 %pts.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
The Thunder core is SGA, JDub, Holmgren, Caruso, Hartenstein and Dort for now.
Jaylin Wlliams and I. Joe are borderline. C. Wallace is also often considered core but I have doubts he gets a next contract in OKC.
The first 4 are likely to be retained for at least several years. Anybody else can be evaluated for cost and available options. Significant change unlikely next season but some will eventually come, largely from building cap pressure. Change at the bottom of the roster is the easiest and most likely to occur and sooner.
Jaylin Wlliams and I. Joe are borderline. C. Wallace is also often considered core but I have doubts he gets a next contract in OKC.
The first 4 are likely to be retained for at least several years. Anybody else can be evaluated for cost and available options. Significant change unlikely next season but some will eventually come, largely from building cap pressure. Change at the bottom of the roster is the easiest and most likely to occur and sooner.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder finished playoffs with 155 lineups used. Of 10 most used, 6 cumulatively positive, 4 negative (with 9th and 10th being quite bad and terrible per 100p). 6 lineups got over the 1 minute per game dink barrier, 149 did not. 4 broke the 2 min / gm mark, 2 of them over 4 min / gm with the double big starting unit getting an average of 8+ minutes, 10 when actually used. But... nearly 50% of all lineups were positive, which was above average.
The least strong pair in 10 most used was SGA - Hartenstein but still a slight positive. JDub - Hartenstein 2nd least. The trio was actually slightly negative. Add Dort to make a quad and it returned to barely positive. Thunder held roughly even with that group but it took Holmgren and / or some of the bench to producing winning on average results. That core trio and Caruso was moderately negative and cost about 20 total playoff pts (some games more than others). One of the more notable lineup management flaws.
The strongest results came with SGA - Holmgren, JDub - Holmgren and SGA - Caruso. The 3 biggest minute raw Dort pairs were all modestly to significantly below team average but still positive.
The 2 biggest minute lineups produce +7 edge all playoffs. Lesser used 3rd and 4th won by 62. The best 8 of the the top 60 lineups won by 186. The other 147 lineups were +6 combined. Could they have done better or far better with more concentrated lineup management? Possibly or probably.
3rd best playoff offensive efficiency and best defense got the title, albeit late in game 7. Pacers end up with 4th best offense, 9th on defense.
Cavs had 50% higher net rating than Thunder in their brief run, but not enough in some 2nd round games. Cavs were best offense and 4th best defense.
TWolves 5th on both. Celtics 6th and 2nd.
Knicks 7th and 8th.
3 terrible playoff team performances. 2 did a major trade between them since. The other, the by far worst performing Heat, hasn't yet, not making an attractive enough offer to Suns for Durant. But time for other options for them and everybody.
The least strong pair in 10 most used was SGA - Hartenstein but still a slight positive. JDub - Hartenstein 2nd least. The trio was actually slightly negative. Add Dort to make a quad and it returned to barely positive. Thunder held roughly even with that group but it took Holmgren and / or some of the bench to producing winning on average results. That core trio and Caruso was moderately negative and cost about 20 total playoff pts (some games more than others). One of the more notable lineup management flaws.
The strongest results came with SGA - Holmgren, JDub - Holmgren and SGA - Caruso. The 3 biggest minute raw Dort pairs were all modestly to significantly below team average but still positive.
The 2 biggest minute lineups produce +7 edge all playoffs. Lesser used 3rd and 4th won by 62. The best 8 of the the top 60 lineups won by 186. The other 147 lineups were +6 combined. Could they have done better or far better with more concentrated lineup management? Possibly or probably.
3rd best playoff offensive efficiency and best defense got the title, albeit late in game 7. Pacers end up with 4th best offense, 9th on defense.
Cavs had 50% higher net rating than Thunder in their brief run, but not enough in some 2nd round games. Cavs were best offense and 4th best defense.
TWolves 5th on both. Celtics 6th and 2nd.
Knicks 7th and 8th.
3 terrible playoff team performances. 2 did a major trade between them since. The other, the by far worst performing Heat, hasn't yet, not making an attractive enough offer to Suns for Durant. But time for other options for them and everybody.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Jorge Sierra: "The Thunder won the title with the 24th highest payroll in the NBA – tied for the lowest ranking ever by a champion, alongside the 2004-05 Spurs and the 1994-95 Rockets."
Greater spending and challenge coming after next season.
Greater spending and challenge coming after next season.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Any time I want to total or subtract these things, I have to convert to actual minutes and points-differential. Knowing a lineup totaled +2 in 5 min. is a lot more informative than +20/100p. A made vs missed FT isn't reflective of strategy but changes the per100 by 10.Crow wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:20 pm Thunder finished playoffs with 155 lineups used. Of 10 most used, 6 cumulatively positive, 4 negative (with 9th and 10th being quite bad and terrible per 100p). 6 lineups got over the 1 minute per game dink barrier, 149 did not. 4 broke the 2 min / gm mark, 2 of them over 4 min / gm ..
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Look at raw +/- data if you want. Standardized is helpful for comparisons when minutes are above trivial. I usually track minutes and pts / 100p. The raw +/- sometimes in playoff games though it is easy to deduce from the other two.
There are plenty of trivial dink lineups. I don't focus on judging individual dink lineups beyond the sheer volume and % of total or overall positive / negative. Coaches do that with their freestyle selections and quick pulls.
But a playoff lineup used 20 minutes at -20 or -30 pts / 100p is notable that way or another. 4 to 6 pts lost can be significant in that context, moreso than just 1. It is more than enough to swing a game result and potentially a series with one dink lineup. That was the level of those 9th and 10th lineups, the lowest minute level results I cited or would cite.
There are plenty of trivial dink lineups. I don't focus on judging individual dink lineups beyond the sheer volume and % of total or overall positive / negative. Coaches do that with their freestyle selections and quick pulls.
But a playoff lineup used 20 minutes at -20 or -30 pts / 100p is notable that way or another. 4 to 6 pts lost can be significant in that context, moreso than just 1. It is more than enough to swing a game result and potentially a series with one dink lineup. That was the level of those 9th and 10th lineups, the lowest minute level results I cited or would cite.