At team level, slower pace and shoot significantly better shot efficiency does not really describe any top team. Some middling teams. There are also some avg. pace good teams who are shooting well; but clearly slower and good, only Jazz are above average on shot efficiency.
What works for their most used lineups isn't what they are doing overall, so it isn't what the bench lineups are doing on average either. The best teams seem to on average have bench lineups that can play fast more efficiently than the opponent. That must be a product of some combination of efficient transition play, catch n shoot 3s, at the rim and / or better than average mid-range.
2019-20 lineup analysis
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Wizards continue to have lineup problems. 5 most used bad to horrible.
IF they want to win more now, they need a colossal overhaul of lineup management.
More Wagner and Bertans and way less Bryant and Hachimura.
They deified Beal, didn't deserve that and now he has the next bag of loot and is playing awful.
It may be months away but changes coming in coaching and eventually in management.
IF they want to win more now, they need a colossal overhaul of lineup management.
More Wagner and Bertans and way less Bryant and Hachimura.
They deified Beal, didn't deserve that and now he has the next bag of loot and is playing awful.
It may be months away but changes coming in coaching and eventually in management.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
14 lineups over 100 minutes. Almost 80% cumulatively positive.
About 2/3rds outshooting opponents in general. 2/3rd outshooting from 3, but only about 1/3rd taking more 3ptas. FTA / FT% are providing advantages in just half or less of the cases.
70% playing slower than league average.
Clippers, Celtics, Sixers are top teams lacking a 100 plus minute lineup, though the first two aren't short by much. Sixers most used is under 70 minutes in 14 games. Being that low is hard to justify but is influenced by Embid missed games.
On average teams have used 131 lineups. Still almost 40% positive.
Stevens has used 176. 44% positive. D'Antoni 123 at 49%. I'd be surprised if these success levels are maintained. But very good so far.
Synder's Jazz positive on 25 of 83. More concentrated but way lower success rate (30%). Of course he got his genius extension already, so more of his way.
About 2/3rds outshooting opponents in general. 2/3rd outshooting from 3, but only about 1/3rd taking more 3ptas. FTA / FT% are providing advantages in just half or less of the cases.
70% playing slower than league average.
Clippers, Celtics, Sixers are top teams lacking a 100 plus minute lineup, though the first two aren't short by much. Sixers most used is under 70 minutes in 14 games. Being that low is hard to justify but is influenced by Embid missed games.
On average teams have used 131 lineups. Still almost 40% positive.
Stevens has used 176. 44% positive. D'Antoni 123 at 49%. I'd be surprised if these success levels are maintained. But very good so far.
Synder's Jazz positive on 25 of 83. More concentrated but way lower success rate (30%). Of course he got his genius extension already, so more of his way.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
George - Leonard in first 73 minutes, +0.6 points per 100 possessions. George - Beverley off to a rough start at -6.6. This is the main issue to watch / fix / possibly change from. It is affecting the George - Leonard numbers. Does well with Harkless and very well with Zubac.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Wizards with by far the worst lineup of the 20 most used in league. 3 times worse than the 2nd worst. Their 5 most used lineups are all awful. 6 of 7 most used were negative last season, so it is certainly a lot about talent and coaching but this issue did not get fixed in any way by anyone this season.
12 of the 16 most used Jazz lineups are non-positive. The starters and a few other lineups are very good but the net average is slightly below neutral and well below expectations. The 10 most used player pairs are all positive but somehow Snyder is picking many ineffective 5 man lineups. What bad pairs exist lower down in minutes tend to involve Ingles and Mitchell, together or mostly with bench players. They both can't play with 4 starters a lot and totally avoid each other but you can minimize the time together and try to optimize the time with subs.
Nuggets have the biggest minute lineup (44% bigger than 2nd place) and it is very good. Raptors have 2 of the best performing big minute lineups (with VanVleet and with VV together with Lowry). Together these 2 lineups have about as much use as the Nuggets lineup. Heat and the Rockets are the other contenders with a great biggest minute lineup.
Lakers biggest 2 are both meh. Clippers biggest has only been used 90 minutes. Their biggest with both Leonard and George has been used 80 minutes. It is good but not great, at least yet. Celtics have a pretty good top lineup but only 20th most used. Bucks have a good top lineup but only 21st on minutes. Mavs and Sixers with similar situations at 23rd and 27th. Using the best big minute lineup more isn't always part of the optimal management plan but it usually is up to some point higher than usually found.
12 of the 16 most used Jazz lineups are non-positive. The starters and a few other lineups are very good but the net average is slightly below neutral and well below expectations. The 10 most used player pairs are all positive but somehow Snyder is picking many ineffective 5 man lineups. What bad pairs exist lower down in minutes tend to involve Ingles and Mitchell, together or mostly with bench players. They both can't play with 4 starters a lot and totally avoid each other but you can minimize the time together and try to optimize the time with subs.
Nuggets have the biggest minute lineup (44% bigger than 2nd place) and it is very good. Raptors have 2 of the best performing big minute lineups (with VanVleet and with VV together with Lowry). Together these 2 lineups have about as much use as the Nuggets lineup. Heat and the Rockets are the other contenders with a great biggest minute lineup.
Lakers biggest 2 are both meh. Clippers biggest has only been used 90 minutes. Their biggest with both Leonard and George has been used 80 minutes. It is good but not great, at least yet. Celtics have a pretty good top lineup but only 20th most used. Bucks have a good top lineup but only 21st on minutes. Mavs and Sixers with similar situations at 23rd and 27th. Using the best big minute lineup more isn't always part of the optimal management plan but it usually is up to some point higher than usually found.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Spurs starting lineups and lineups with a lot of starters continue to struggle. It is the bench players and bench heavy lineups that are the main source of team edge, including in today's win.
They are doing better lately but they aren't fully optimized.
They are doing better lately but they aren't fully optimized.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Thomas -9 on the court, -7 on /off. Terrible boxscore metrics. Mildly bad RPM.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Teague Culver Wiggins Covington Towns for big minutes seemed pretty obvious to me . Saunders has used it just 2 minutes (trivia but did fine). Busy with 282 other lineups. No way imo this lineup should have been used less than 100 minutes (unless maybe it sucked after 50).Crow wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:31 am TWolves did not play any lineup for 4 minutes per game for season last year.
I'd probably play Teague Culver Wiggins Covington Towns 20 minutes per game. Maybe remove Wiggins but try him to insulate him in this group. Probably best place for him if you have him (by foolish huge extension).
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Now, one lineup modestly more than 5 minutes per game and good and good for more minutes.
Nothing else tested over 3 minutes per game for season. At this rate will go into playoffs
"knowing" one lineup, maybe liking the guess on a few others. Everything else? Unproven, not even enough to have much of a decent guess about them.
That's the way you coach and direct a contender? Not to me.
Injuries to Hayward are an excuse for not testing big lineups with him as much as they probably wanted / should but not for other lineups all tested under 6 minutes per game.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
George - Leonard great now (+13 pts / 100 p). George - Beverley now "ok" at plus 3.Crow wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:52 am George - Leonard in first 73 minutes, +0.6 points per 100 possessions. George - Beverley off to a rough start at -6.6. This is the main issue to watch / fix / possibly change from. It is affecting the George - Leonard numbers. Does well with Harkless and very well with Zubac.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Spurs have used 87 lineups in last 8 games. 4 of 6 most used very bad to horrendous.
The advocated style of Gay | P. Mills | J. Pöltl | L. Walker | D. White is +60 pts / 100p... but in only 26 total minutes.
Too much scattershot. Nothing used much over 5 minutes per game.
The advocated style of Gay | P. Mills | J. Pöltl | L. Walker | D. White is +60 pts / 100p... but in only 26 total minutes.
Too much scattershot. Nothing used much over 5 minutes per game.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
TWolves, 10 losses in a row. "Most used" lineups at 2.5 minutes per game for season. Several of bigger minute lineups look good in tiny testing but need far, far more trial. But no... let's use 326 lineups. Clown chaos coaching.
Losing slightly with Towns on the floor. Not good design around him. Not near enough shooting. Underwhelming defense. Awful without him.
Based on pair data, I'd test R. Covington | J. Culver | J. Okogie | J. Teague | K. Towns if I was trying to win. Terrible so far. But 20 minutes of terrible is not an adequate test. There is a handful of other lineups getting 1-2 minutes per game that probably should be getting 5 plus minutes. You could run 6-10 lineups and test decent or at least half-decent if you cut out most of the dink lineups.
Losing slightly with Towns on the floor. Not good design around him. Not near enough shooting. Underwhelming defense. Awful without him.
Based on pair data, I'd test R. Covington | J. Culver | J. Okogie | J. Teague | K. Towns if I was trying to win. Terrible so far. But 20 minutes of terrible is not an adequate test. There is a handful of other lineups getting 1-2 minutes per game that probably should be getting 5 plus minutes. You could run 6-10 lineups and test decent or at least half-decent if you cut out most of the dink lineups.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Lineups with D Fox are averaging -6 pts per 100 possessions. What works well is Fox Barnes Bjelica Hield Holmes. Started for a week in early November then for one game, game before last. I'd play that a lot. If you to experiment, try more Fox with C Joseph. That has been great on average in limited use.