Thunder as team were near average on pick n roll ball handler possessions in regular season and 2nd best on pts per possession; but in playoff they fell to quite low frequency and efficiency, on shots and by getting to the line.
Either they fix that or change the strategy.
Did the player moves fix that by removing Giddey, the sag off and the insufficient 3 pt option? Will Hartenstein impact frequency of this playtype or its efficiency?
Celtics were low frequency on this in playoffs but high on efficiency.
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Looking back at first wave Thunder, they were too young of course. But some other details jump out at me.
In 2012 Finals against Heatles, they lost because Miami shot a little better and took 17 more free throws and made 20 more.
Both Westbrook and Harden had below average shooting / scoring efficiency. They got to FT line good and ok but not like Heat stars and that could have been expected given very different experience levels and the way refereeing politics worked with marquee title contenders. Also worth noting, Westbrook called his own number for 24 FGAs per game, Durant 20 while Harden was left with just 9.6 (Was better covered or hid or couldnt get ball. Heat letting Westbrook take shots?). I call the failure to manage Westbrook or run a diverse attack a main issue.
In 2024 series with Mavs, SGA similarly took 24 shots per game. He did well though. JDub took 15 and did not do well, Holmgren was more efficient overall but only took 12 and was bad from 3. Again too young and probably not well enough coached.
Thunder in both cases either needed 2 or 3 of big 3 clicking better or a system built broader than a big 3. You are not going to get a system notably broader than a big 3 in playoffs without strong coaching or front office direction or player identification / leadership / "sacrifice". I assume SGA / JDub / Holmgren will try to make the big 3 a success and there won't be any pressure from front office or coach to purposely go broader. Either that works or it doesn't. It didn't before.
SGA fga / game in regular season went down slightly last season to under 20 as JDub rose to 14. What numbers do they have next season? Given by Presti, Coach D or pretty much self determined? How would it work out if they went to 18 and 12 respectively? Compared to 22 and 16-18? How many shots will Holmgren get, want, deserve, handle?
Last 3 playoffs with Westbrook had fgas / gm over 22 including a ridiculous 30 and all were 1st round exits. Only went over 22 twice in regular season. Westbrook - Oladipo, Westbrook - George - Anthony and Westbrook - George playoffs all failed because their shooting sucked but also maybe because 3rd guy and beyond didn't shoot enough and / or well enough. Shooting is the fundamental element of the game.
'23-24 Celtics had 5 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 4 in playoffs. None over 20 either period. 3rd guy at 13 in playoffs.
Thunder had 4 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 3 in playoffs. 3rd guy at 12 in playoffs.
Mavs shot distribution more like Thunder but even more top heavy. 3rd guy under 11 and not shooting well.
Celtics 3rd guy shot well and so did 4 thru 11. Depth of shooting quality matters.
TWolves had just 3 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 2 in playoffs. 3rd guy at under 10 in playoffs. Depth of shooting quality looked good in regular season but fell off significantly in playoffs. A shot distribution has to get great results to get great outcome.
In 2012 Finals against Heatles, they lost because Miami shot a little better and took 17 more free throws and made 20 more.
Both Westbrook and Harden had below average shooting / scoring efficiency. They got to FT line good and ok but not like Heat stars and that could have been expected given very different experience levels and the way refereeing politics worked with marquee title contenders. Also worth noting, Westbrook called his own number for 24 FGAs per game, Durant 20 while Harden was left with just 9.6 (Was better covered or hid or couldnt get ball. Heat letting Westbrook take shots?). I call the failure to manage Westbrook or run a diverse attack a main issue.
In 2024 series with Mavs, SGA similarly took 24 shots per game. He did well though. JDub took 15 and did not do well, Holmgren was more efficient overall but only took 12 and was bad from 3. Again too young and probably not well enough coached.
Thunder in both cases either needed 2 or 3 of big 3 clicking better or a system built broader than a big 3. You are not going to get a system notably broader than a big 3 in playoffs without strong coaching or front office direction or player identification / leadership / "sacrifice". I assume SGA / JDub / Holmgren will try to make the big 3 a success and there won't be any pressure from front office or coach to purposely go broader. Either that works or it doesn't. It didn't before.
SGA fga / game in regular season went down slightly last season to under 20 as JDub rose to 14. What numbers do they have next season? Given by Presti, Coach D or pretty much self determined? How would it work out if they went to 18 and 12 respectively? Compared to 22 and 16-18? How many shots will Holmgren get, want, deserve, handle?
Last 3 playoffs with Westbrook had fgas / gm over 22 including a ridiculous 30 and all were 1st round exits. Only went over 22 twice in regular season. Westbrook - Oladipo, Westbrook - George - Anthony and Westbrook - George playoffs all failed because their shooting sucked but also maybe because 3rd guy and beyond didn't shoot enough and / or well enough. Shooting is the fundamental element of the game.
'23-24 Celtics had 5 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 4 in playoffs. None over 20 either period. 3rd guy at 13 in playoffs.
Thunder had 4 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 3 in playoffs. 3rd guy at 12 in playoffs.
Mavs shot distribution more like Thunder but even more top heavy. 3rd guy under 11 and not shooting well.
Celtics 3rd guy shot well and so did 4 thru 11. Depth of shooting quality matters.
TWolves had just 3 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 2 in playoffs. 3rd guy at under 10 in playoffs. Depth of shooting quality looked good in regular season but fell off significantly in playoffs. A shot distribution has to get great results to get great outcome.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
In '22-23 Nuggets had 4 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 3 in playoffs. 3rd guy at 12 in playoffs. None over 16 in regular season, 2 short of 21 in playoffs.
In '21-22 Warriors had 4 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 4 in playoffs. 3rd guy at 14 in playoffs. None over 20.
There is some variation but there is pattern too.
On average it appears that the top 3 on recent champions take just short of 2/3rds the playoff fgas. The Warriors had the most active 4th shooter.
In '21-22 Warriors had 4 over 10 fgas / gm in regular season and 4 in playoffs. 3rd guy at 14 in playoffs. None over 20.
There is some variation but there is pattern too.
On average it appears that the top 3 on recent champions take just short of 2/3rds the playoff fgas. The Warriors had the most active 4th shooter.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thread on rebounding, Holmgren, Hartenstein and together:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1816545318307344492
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1816545318307344492
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Even with Hartenstein, Wiggins and Joe deals, Thunder currently have 6th lowest team payroll for upcoming season. $25 million below average before expected taxes are applied.
That will change in 2 years.
Could spend almost $10 million more before triggering luxury tax. If there was a case for improvement. IF they look around for possibilities.
That will change in 2 years.
Could spend almost $10 million more before triggering luxury tax. If there was a case for improvement. IF they look around for possibilities.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
By 82games win-loss profile, the best way to beat the Thunder is strong shooting(top 10s for these), high overall offensive efficiency and fast pace. (Still barely more than 40% chances of doing so.)
The only team in west in top 10 in league on all 3 last season was... the Mavs. The only others in 2 were Lakers and Suns. 4 others achieved on 1 criteria.
1 shouldn't be enough to beat Thunder, though still possible all things considered. Meeting 2 or 3 criteria is probably a legit challenge.
Everything small sample is subject to randomness and possible misinterpretation. Only the Lakers gave Thunder a losing regular season matchup mark. But probably better see a potential issue and examine it.
Adding 2 defense first players fits with this concern even if playoffs showed more issue with offense.
On average for playoffs series, Mavs only maintained performance on 1 of these 3 criteria. But in their 2 close wins they maintained on 2 and 3 of the criteria respectively. Both bigger wins also met 2 criteria. That was enough. Pace was the least satisfied criteria but least important directly. In the 2 Thunder wins, the Mavs achieved none of these criteria.
Not that surprising and shouldn't expect totally rigid adherence but noticed / mentioned fwiw.
And... ALL the regular season losses to these specific opponents saw the winner meeting the 2 offensive criteria. It doesn't appear likely to beat the Thunder in a defensive battle or with a meh offensive performance.
The only team in west in top 10 in league on all 3 last season was... the Mavs. The only others in 2 were Lakers and Suns. 4 others achieved on 1 criteria.
1 shouldn't be enough to beat Thunder, though still possible all things considered. Meeting 2 or 3 criteria is probably a legit challenge.
Everything small sample is subject to randomness and possible misinterpretation. Only the Lakers gave Thunder a losing regular season matchup mark. But probably better see a potential issue and examine it.
Adding 2 defense first players fits with this concern even if playoffs showed more issue with offense.
On average for playoffs series, Mavs only maintained performance on 1 of these 3 criteria. But in their 2 close wins they maintained on 2 and 3 of the criteria respectively. Both bigger wins also met 2 criteria. That was enough. Pace was the least satisfied criteria but least important directly. In the 2 Thunder wins, the Mavs achieved none of these criteria.
Not that surprising and shouldn't expect totally rigid adherence but noticed / mentioned fwiw.
And... ALL the regular season losses to these specific opponents saw the winner meeting the 2 offensive criteria. It doesn't appear likely to beat the Thunder in a defensive battle or with a meh offensive performance.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
11 players got minutes last season but are now gone. 9 of the 11 were bottom 11 on raw team +/- on court and on / off.
The returning player with the worst raw team +/- on court and on / off was Dieng, followed by Wallace, Jaylin Williams and Wiggins. All have good enough raw +/- on court. The first two had bad on / off while the latter 2 were less than -1.
By this perspective, the future of these 4- or at least the first one or two- would seem potentially dependent on improved on / off. Thru better play and / or better lineup selection for their time.
C Wallace with JDub performed alright overall but below team average. It starts out as the most tenured returning option for non-SGA time. Will it stay the same, get better or worse without SGA? What will be better than that?
Wiggins can fit with starters but generally better performance with bench players. Is he a long term keeper? The new contract suggests they want him to be but we'll see what it looks like in a year or two.
What standards will be uses to decide if Dieng and / or JWill stay? How quick will those decisions be made / should be made?
How much test will Flagler and the new guys get / should get?
The returning player with the worst raw team +/- on court and on / off was Dieng, followed by Wallace, Jaylin Williams and Wiggins. All have good enough raw +/- on court. The first two had bad on / off while the latter 2 were less than -1.
By this perspective, the future of these 4- or at least the first one or two- would seem potentially dependent on improved on / off. Thru better play and / or better lineup selection for their time.
C Wallace with JDub performed alright overall but below team average. It starts out as the most tenured returning option for non-SGA time. Will it stay the same, get better or worse without SGA? What will be better than that?
Wiggins can fit with starters but generally better performance with bench players. Is he a long term keeper? The new contract suggests they want him to be but we'll see what it looks like in a year or two.
What standards will be uses to decide if Dieng and / or JWill stay? How quick will those decisions be made / should be made?
How much test will Flagler and the new guys get / should get?
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Game 6 against Mavs was only lost by 1 point but lost massively on 4 factors- offensive and defensive rebounding, getting to FT line and shot defense.
Arguably the off-season saw attention to 3 of the 4 weaknesses. Getting to FT line? Improvement remains to be seen. Will it come from Dillon Jones? Has to play, has to get usage, has to take that focus.
Arguably the off-season saw attention to 3 of the 4 weaknesses. Getting to FT line? Improvement remains to be seen. Will it come from Dillon Jones? Has to play, has to get usage, has to take that focus.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Still can be final roster moves. Add, change.
The priorities are backup PG who can lead non-SGA minutes, rebounding PF and anyone with an above or well above average FT rate.
Maybe they have those pieces already, maybe not.
The priorities are backup PG who can lead non-SGA minutes, rebounding PF and anyone with an above or well above average FT rate.
Maybe they have those pieces already, maybe not.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
In spring 2023, 5 of the bottom 9 on raw team +/- on court and on / off were finished. 2 survived another year, 2 didn't.
It appears to be a significant criteria for Presti.
Often discredited as a measure of individuals but scoreboard movement is how the game is decided.
It appears to be a significant criteria for Presti.
Often discredited as a measure of individuals but scoreboard movement is how the game is decided.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder - Lakers dynamic, if it might matter:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1820239263004528945
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1820239263004528945
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder lost to Mavs because the Mavs 4th thru 6th best players did a lot more (at least by gamescore).
Of Dort, Joe and Wiggins, 1 shot well, one ok, one bad. One was ok as a defensive rebounder. None added assists above very weak level.
All now have been paid. All are of suspect adequacy on a contender.
For regular season, all were at career best BPM.
Just a bad series? We'll find out more next time.
Wiggins had the best playoffs of the 3 and the only good one ever to date of the 3. The role wasn't that big.
After the big 3 the remaining work is mainly defense, rebounding and assists. They are near neutral on D but 2 of 3 are weak on defensive rebounding and all weak on assist making. Caruso is an improvement on defense and assist making. Hartenstein might help rebounding but mainly if they play bigger at 4 and / or improve wing rebounding by playing Dort and Joe less and perhaps use Dillon Jones or a new player right away to do so.
Of Dort, Joe and Wiggins, 1 shot well, one ok, one bad. One was ok as a defensive rebounder. None added assists above very weak level.
All now have been paid. All are of suspect adequacy on a contender.
For regular season, all were at career best BPM.
Just a bad series? We'll find out more next time.
Wiggins had the best playoffs of the 3 and the only good one ever to date of the 3. The role wasn't that big.
After the big 3 the remaining work is mainly defense, rebounding and assists. They are near neutral on D but 2 of 3 are weak on defensive rebounding and all weak on assist making. Caruso is an improvement on defense and assist making. Hartenstein might help rebounding but mainly if they play bigger at 4 and / or improve wing rebounding by playing Dort and Joe less and perhaps use Dillon Jones or a new player right away to do so.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Should Jalen Williams move from PF? Probably. Will he? We'll see.
The glut of players they want to give minutes at SG and SF may limit the willingness to try change.
It is dependent on how willing they are to shift Holmgren to PF.
Dieng as a non-factor to me until he plays much better.
The glut of players they want to give minutes at SG and SF may limit the willingness to try change.
It is dependent on how willing they are to shift Holmgren to PF.
Dieng as a non-factor to me until he plays much better.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
I'd be looking very hard for a consolidation trade. 3 for 1, 4 for 2.