Timberwolves lineups and player pairs with Covington generally weak. Either play some of his 5 best bigger minute lineups that look positive more (and cut random dink lineups) or give up and trade him. No Covington lineup used even 3 minutes per game for season.
Haven't succeeded with him, in part because haven't tried any disciplined selectivity with him.
2019-20 lineup analysis
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
What is working for Magic is 4-5 starters or 0, 1 and 2 at most starters. I'd try to eliminate a lot of the in between dink lineups and test some of the best starter heavy and bench heavy lineups far more. The biggest minute lineup is working. Could increase its minutes by 50-100%.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Current starting lineup for Hornets has played 34 minutes so far for season. Getting to it late. Mildly negative. The version with Monk over Bridges is vastly better in similarly small sample. I'd try both a lot more. Neither player is good on individual stats but Monk way better on raw plus minus on court and on-off. Monk has never started an NBA game. If you are not willing to try that... why? What Borrego has been doing generally hasn't worked well, so try more of the untried but in a vigorous way. Test and test right. Use what works more til it doesn't.
I've seen some 2 (and 3) PG lineups around league do well. May need to study that more.
I've seen some 2 (and 3) PG lineups around league do well. May need to study that more.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
No Hawks lineup tested even 4 minutes per game.
No meaningful test of Young with another PG (Turner or Goodwin). I'd try some with both and / or go out and get another one to try, with and without Young. The Trae Show isn't working with hardly any player pair. Fernando. That's it. Try something a lot more or different and a lot more. The chaos of dink lineups is the worst of both.
No meaningful test of Young with another PG (Turner or Goodwin). I'd try some with both and / or go out and get another one to try, with and without Young. The Trae Show isn't working with hardly any player pair. Fernando. That's it. Try something a lot more or different and a lot more. The chaos of dink lineups is the worst of both.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Nuggets with first lineup used over 500 minutes for season. One other team with a lineup close to 400, nobody else over 300 minutes before tonight. It has been fabulous. That is what you want: a lineup that works very well used a lot.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Blazers with 9 of 11 most used lineups positive but they still have a negative net points average. Cuz they are not using what works enough (nothing over 5 minutes per game) and using too many meh to bad lineups. 184 lineups used. More than 100 are negative for season. You don't need that many lineups. You can't reasonably test more than a few handfuls. And yet they try it. As the norm. Use a few dozen if you insist on stretching past a reasonable definition of reasonable. Hundreds of lineups to a great extent shows you don't know what is best.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Starting lineup for Thunder is performing poorly. Of the handful of lineups tested over 1- just 1- minute per game, the only strong ones have Paul, Schroder and SGA together. They have been fabulous together. In short testing. 169 minutes of test. An average result of plus 14.5 points per 100 possessions. If I wanted to win, I'd take that 5.5 minutes per game testing up to 15-20 minutes per game.
SGA without Schroder is bad. Moving to a future without Schroder and perhaps without Paul either appears the weakest in terms of current performance. I would not travel that path. Or at least not without trying to replicate what is working now with other guards that can generate success with him.
SGA without Schroder is bad. Moving to a future without Schroder and perhaps without Paul either appears the weakest in terms of current performance. I would not travel that path. Or at least not without trying to replicate what is working now with other guards that can generate success with him.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
LaVine, Satoransky, Dunn together plus 9pts / 100p in 313 minutes of testing. Test it more.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Augustin - Fultz. Plus 8 in 125 minutes. Give it far far more testing.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Payton - Ntilikina? 4 minutes of testing for season. Come on. Try it. They try so many other things but not this? A mistake not to test it.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Lillard, McCollum, Simons tested 98 minutes. Plus 5 / 100p. Test it more.
Bad results in last 6 games in somewhat elevated testing. Test more? Depends. Probably. Check the video and all the information available. Less important / likely to be significant stuff still getting plenty of time.
Do Coaches ever ask players about lineups they like / don't, think will be good or not? I dunno. I'd guess light (too light) or maybe not except for rare cases.
Bad results in last 6 games in somewhat elevated testing. Test more? Depends. Probably. Check the video and all the information available. Less important / likely to be significant stuff still getting plenty of time.
Do Coaches ever ask players about lineups they like / don't, think will be good or not? I dunno. I'd guess light (too light) or maybe not except for rare cases.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Lowry - VanVleet modestly negative. Too small (shows some on rebounding) and not enough 3 point shooting around them? Those were my fast takes.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Brunson - Wright, good. Brunson - Doncic, neutral. Could be other things but can Doncic share? He can with Wright in modest minutes. Why the big difference? Find out.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Mills - White and Mills - Murray are both essentially neutral. I am not seeing any testing of all 3 together. I'd at least try it some to check whether to test further. Probably with 2 of Gay, Aldridge and Poltl but possibly with other interior combos.
Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis
Previous comment: "Monk - Rozier generally sucks. Monk - Graham is moderately good."
Monk - Rozier tested more recently and sucks even worse.
Monk - Graham tested at about same rate and moderately worse. But still neutral and vastly better than Monk - Rozier.
Monk - Rozier tested more recently and sucks even worse.
Monk - Graham tested at about same rate and moderately worse. But still neutral and vastly better than Monk - Rozier.