According to this Vegas book
https://www.si.com/betting/2023/06/23/u ... fter-draft
the 4 top contenders are Nuggets, Suns, Bucks and Celtics, then a pack of 8 with modest chances.
Kings placed 13th and with far lower chance at title.
A number of the teams listed at 66-1 or 100-1 generally can't be pleased... and generally shouldn't stand pat.
2023-24 Title contenders
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
By this book, Thunder tied for 19th to 24th for betting odds on title chances. In line with how last season ended but no progression made from that.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Most likely for bottom 4:
Hornets, Wizards, Pistons and Spurs.
Hornets, Wizards, Pistons and Spurs.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
To beat Nuggets, more important to be great home team, road or best combo of both?
If home, then Heat and Suns probably weren't quite good enough there and Lakers nowhere near.
If road, definitely wasn't Suns or Heat. Bucks, Celtics and Sixers were tops here. They all were tops on combo too.
No top western contender with even a decent road record.
Nuggets against one of the best in east is the most likely finals matchup and probably the biggest challenge.
Warriors and Griz might have chance if home excellence is enough.
Home court advantage could be pivotal in Finals and possibly conference finals.
If home, then Heat and Suns probably weren't quite good enough there and Lakers nowhere near.
If road, definitely wasn't Suns or Heat. Bucks, Celtics and Sixers were tops here. They all were tops on combo too.
No top western contender with even a decent road record.
Nuggets against one of the best in east is the most likely finals matchup and probably the biggest challenge.
Warriors and Griz might have chance if home excellence is enough.
Home court advantage could be pivotal in Finals and possibly conference finals.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Jokic, least strong career individual numbers against Warriors. Strong against the big 3 of the East.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Lakers and Mavs may be the most over-rated in top group.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Title odds (according to betting services) for Bucks have slipped moderately in past month. Suns up a bit. But top 4 remains the same.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
After 4 years where the title winners had 1 guy over $30 million in salary, it rose to 3 for last 2 champs.
Suns, as currently configured, will try to be first to win with 4 over $30 mil and 2 of those over $40 mil. Their experience, whatever it will be, probably will have some influence on future contender salary strategy.
There may be some general rule on how concentrated spending can be at the top and still produce a team that wins a title. (Percent of cap would be a better way to study it but I am not going to do that at this point. Maybe in future.)
Suns, as currently configured, will try to be first to win with 4 over $30 mil and 2 of those over $40 mil. Their experience, whatever it will be, probably will have some influence on future contender salary strategy.
There may be some general rule on how concentrated spending can be at the top and still produce a team that wins a title. (Percent of cap would be a better way to study it but I am not going to do that at this point. Maybe in future.)
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
I am not that charmed by any particular team among the top 10 contenders. Someone has to win it but I don't have a strong favorite.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Sizers had the worst playoff lineup (-11pts / 100p) in the top 10 minute lineups by a whopping 13.5pts. All the rest were positive.
Morey's starter design failed in this playoffs.
Change might be a better idea than run it back.
Nuggets had a very good big playoff lineup but it was only 5th best in 10 most used. They did however use it 50% more than 2nd most used and 400% as much as 10th most used. Somebody paid more attention to lineup concentration than anybody else.
Heat had 3 of biggest 10 by minutes which added up to more than the top one for Nuggets. But the biggest of the 3 was the least positive of them by far.
Celtics 2nd biggest minute lineup was 3 times as good as the 1st.
Lakers biggest lineup was positive but tied for 3rd least good in 10 most used.
Try to refine those choices next time, Coaches / GMs / analytics departments.
Weren't good enough this time.
Nuggets with 11 of the 12 best player pairs in the 20 most used. Smashing dominance at this level over the other designs / utilizations.
Lineups matter. Lineup design, data and analysis matters.
Were the Nuggets lucky with their playoff pairs? Not imo. Top 13 pairs were tested over 1000 minutes each, all +9 to +16 / 100p in regular season. Used regular season well and little adverse surprise.
Heat tested player pairs about as much but got moderate, mild positives and some negatives in top pairs. No great pairs. Nowhere anywhere near the strength of the Nuggets data.
Celtics, very good but not that close to Nuggets. Lakers top regular season pairs not as good as Celtics but clearly better than Heat.
Morey's starter design failed in this playoffs.
Change might be a better idea than run it back.
Nuggets had a very good big playoff lineup but it was only 5th best in 10 most used. They did however use it 50% more than 2nd most used and 400% as much as 10th most used. Somebody paid more attention to lineup concentration than anybody else.
Heat had 3 of biggest 10 by minutes which added up to more than the top one for Nuggets. But the biggest of the 3 was the least positive of them by far.
Celtics 2nd biggest minute lineup was 3 times as good as the 1st.
Lakers biggest lineup was positive but tied for 3rd least good in 10 most used.
Try to refine those choices next time, Coaches / GMs / analytics departments.
Weren't good enough this time.
Nuggets with 11 of the 12 best player pairs in the 20 most used. Smashing dominance at this level over the other designs / utilizations.
Lineups matter. Lineup design, data and analysis matters.
Were the Nuggets lucky with their playoff pairs? Not imo. Top 13 pairs were tested over 1000 minutes each, all +9 to +16 / 100p in regular season. Used regular season well and little adverse surprise.
Heat tested player pairs about as much but got moderate, mild positives and some negatives in top pairs. No great pairs. Nowhere anywhere near the strength of the Nuggets data.
Celtics, very good but not that close to Nuggets. Lakers top regular season pairs not as good as Celtics but clearly better than Heat.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
It is still unlikely, but there is probably a greater chance than normal that the upcoming title winner might win less than 50 regular season games.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Will the NBA Cup winner come from top 4 or beyond?
How different will the betting odds-makers make things from the title odds? Better odds for team continuity / experience or flatter for heightened variance to get to finals and win a take all game? Probably application of both principles to some extent (along with distortions for where the bets are coming from and not).
How different will the betting odds-makers make things from the title odds? Better odds for team continuity / experience or flatter for heightened variance to get to finals and win a take all game? Probably application of both principles to some extent (along with distortions for where the bets are coming from and not).
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Since 2016, every titlewinner offense has been lead in playoffs by 4 players with 2 over 19 points per game and 2 more over 13 pts / gm with tiny exceptions on the scoring of the 4th guy (and a small fractional shortfall 1 other place). Before 2016 the exceptions are bigger, more places (especially lacking a qualifying 4th guy) and represent a different era.
Who among current top contenders, had that last season or appears to have it now? The final 4 all completely met these criteria as did Sixers and Suns but not Knicks (because of 4th guy) or Warriors (because of 3rd and 4th guy). Bucks met criteria, Cavs did not (because of 3rd and 4th guy). All the other first round losers failed to comply in 1 or 2 places with exception of Hawks. Clippers might have made it if George was around. Of those above short of full compliance, Cavs probably fixed design but less clear or likely for others.
I didn't look at most lottery teams. Thunder in regular season missed on scoring level of second guy. That might change. Mavs met criteria.
Teams that already know these things can see this post as confirmation. Teams that don't know or don't follow this design probably need it. Maybe they don't believe it is essential to share usage this way. but the last 8 titlewinners and last spring's top 6 suggests to me that it probably is important.
Will any not in compliance see this and change intentions? Will any acknowledge this post as valuable? The caution against being too top heavy in the playoffs is not new. But publicly specifying the criteria and history is, to my knowledge.
It is likely that the lack of a qualifying 4th scorer (and maybe a 3rd) is most felt in lineups when less than 3 are on the court together. I might look at that later.
One way to meet the criteria is for some of the top 4 to score more efficiently. Another is to get higher usage. Which is more necessary and the more important strategy going forward needs to be looked at by player.
Who among current top contenders, had that last season or appears to have it now? The final 4 all completely met these criteria as did Sixers and Suns but not Knicks (because of 4th guy) or Warriors (because of 3rd and 4th guy). Bucks met criteria, Cavs did not (because of 3rd and 4th guy). All the other first round losers failed to comply in 1 or 2 places with exception of Hawks. Clippers might have made it if George was around. Of those above short of full compliance, Cavs probably fixed design but less clear or likely for others.
I didn't look at most lottery teams. Thunder in regular season missed on scoring level of second guy. That might change. Mavs met criteria.
Teams that already know these things can see this post as confirmation. Teams that don't know or don't follow this design probably need it. Maybe they don't believe it is essential to share usage this way. but the last 8 titlewinners and last spring's top 6 suggests to me that it probably is important.
Will any not in compliance see this and change intentions? Will any acknowledge this post as valuable? The caution against being too top heavy in the playoffs is not new. But publicly specifying the criteria and history is, to my knowledge.
It is likely that the lack of a qualifying 4th scorer (and maybe a 3rd) is most felt in lineups when less than 3 are on the court together. I might look at that later.
One way to meet the criteria is for some of the top 4 to score more efficiently. Another is to get higher usage. Which is more necessary and the more important strategy going forward needs to be looked at by player.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Nuggets have had best lineup over 500 minutes in last 2 years. In 2020-21 they didn't because of injury and newly incorporating A Gordon late, but we're still pretty good in this regard. 4 years ago, they had 2nd best lineup over 500 minutes. Seems like part of their successful strategy.
Last season, their biggest minute lineup in regular season was 70% bigger than the Celtics' and 20% better.
2019 titlewinner, best regular season lineup over 500 minutes 2020, 3rd best with almost 400 minutes. 2021, 2nd best over 500. 2022, Kerr and Warriors with just 7th best at about 350+. 2023, as stated above, best over 500 minutes. There is a trend there. Not absolute but pretty strong. Do it like most champs... or not, if you want / don't have the discipline & care enough to follow.
Warriors had by far best lineup over 300 minutes last regular season but used it just 331. Nuggets used theirs 210% as much and got #1 seed. Warriors only lightly used best and got 6th seed.
Looking at playoff minutes:
2019, Raptors with best lineup over 200 minutes and about 50% more minutes than 2nd biggest.
2020, Lakers by far best over 100 minutes but only barely over 100 minutes and just 7th biggest.
2021, Bucks were 2nd best over 150 and 2nd biggest at 250.
2022, Kerr kicks in gear with best performer over 150 and 3rd greatest use.
2023, Nuggets with 50% bigger than #2 and best over 101 minutes.
There are a lot of things about lineup performance that are squishy, but using your best lineup a lot is usually pretty solid advice.
In 2019 playoffs, Kerr and runnerups played 2 pretty meh lineups half as much as titlewinner did and mostly ignored 2 super hot smaller used lineups.
In 2020 playoffs, Spoelstra and runnerups played 2 pretty meh lineups pretty hard but mostly ignored 2 super hot smaller used lineups.
In 2021, Williams and runnerups did right thing with biggest lineups but so did Bucks.
In 2022, Udoka and runner-ups went with 2 big lineups that performed ok and badly and were nowhere near the Warriors' best.
In 2023, Spoelstra had decent size on biggest lineup but got mild results, far less than #2 and #3.
There is some decisionmaking to do, and pretty quickly, whether to stay with initial preference biggest minute lineup or switch and make a hot lineup the new biggest. Some inquiry is probably needed but the above suggests sticking with biggest minute lineups that are performing meh or worse often doesn't work. Try biggest / best option first; but, if not successful, then try to figure out when not be stubborn about it. Apparent best, especially if wildly so, may be better than biggest. Compare statistical expectations... and maybe leap regardless if first plan isn't working. Start with science. Resort to artful science if necessary.
How many of the meh or less performances by biggest lineups of runner-ups were visible before the finals. Will have to dig in other cases later but I showed the problem with the Celtics' finals lineup decisionmaking last spring and argued publicly for a specific change that was not made and resulted in more bad minutes for the original priority design. Most cases of meh or worse results documented thru 4 series were likely visible after 3 series. (This applies to the biggest lineups only. Especially ones that are over 100-150-200+ minutes after 3 series.)
Seen the detail in this thread anywhere else, publicly, ever? I haven't.
Last season, their biggest minute lineup in regular season was 70% bigger than the Celtics' and 20% better.
2019 titlewinner, best regular season lineup over 500 minutes 2020, 3rd best with almost 400 minutes. 2021, 2nd best over 500. 2022, Kerr and Warriors with just 7th best at about 350+. 2023, as stated above, best over 500 minutes. There is a trend there. Not absolute but pretty strong. Do it like most champs... or not, if you want / don't have the discipline & care enough to follow.
Warriors had by far best lineup over 300 minutes last regular season but used it just 331. Nuggets used theirs 210% as much and got #1 seed. Warriors only lightly used best and got 6th seed.
Looking at playoff minutes:
2019, Raptors with best lineup over 200 minutes and about 50% more minutes than 2nd biggest.
2020, Lakers by far best over 100 minutes but only barely over 100 minutes and just 7th biggest.
2021, Bucks were 2nd best over 150 and 2nd biggest at 250.
2022, Kerr kicks in gear with best performer over 150 and 3rd greatest use.
2023, Nuggets with 50% bigger than #2 and best over 101 minutes.
There are a lot of things about lineup performance that are squishy, but using your best lineup a lot is usually pretty solid advice.
In 2019 playoffs, Kerr and runnerups played 2 pretty meh lineups half as much as titlewinner did and mostly ignored 2 super hot smaller used lineups.
In 2020 playoffs, Spoelstra and runnerups played 2 pretty meh lineups pretty hard but mostly ignored 2 super hot smaller used lineups.
In 2021, Williams and runnerups did right thing with biggest lineups but so did Bucks.
In 2022, Udoka and runner-ups went with 2 big lineups that performed ok and badly and were nowhere near the Warriors' best.
In 2023, Spoelstra had decent size on biggest lineup but got mild results, far less than #2 and #3.
There is some decisionmaking to do, and pretty quickly, whether to stay with initial preference biggest minute lineup or switch and make a hot lineup the new biggest. Some inquiry is probably needed but the above suggests sticking with biggest minute lineups that are performing meh or worse often doesn't work. Try biggest / best option first; but, if not successful, then try to figure out when not be stubborn about it. Apparent best, especially if wildly so, may be better than biggest. Compare statistical expectations... and maybe leap regardless if first plan isn't working. Start with science. Resort to artful science if necessary.
How many of the meh or less performances by biggest lineups of runner-ups were visible before the finals. Will have to dig in other cases later but I showed the problem with the Celtics' finals lineup decisionmaking last spring and argued publicly for a specific change that was not made and resulted in more bad minutes for the original priority design. Most cases of meh or worse results documented thru 4 series were likely visible after 3 series. (This applies to the biggest lineups only. Especially ones that are over 100-150-200+ minutes after 3 series.)
Seen the detail in this thread anywhere else, publicly, ever? I haven't.
Re: 2023-24 Title contenders
Spoelstra chose to make a lineup with Love and Vincent the biggest by far playoff lineup despite only having about 13 minutes of regular test. It was mildly good in both periods but way way less so than a handful of other lineups that were great in regular season and playoffs. One with Lowry and Martin was 6 times more positive in regular season (best lineup results of lineups over 50 minutes) and 4 times better in playoffs but got well less than 1/3rd the playoff minutes.
Positive results but perhaps sub-optimal. They clearly fell short in Finals, so some better lineup distribution was needed.
Play a +19 lineup with 70 RS minutes or a +3 with 13 minutes? Spoelstra went big on the +3 and got a +3. And gave way less time to the far better. Not sure what the thinking was behind that but it came up short. Not the guess I would have made. Oh well, it was only a championship worth hundred of millions in value.
Did that Love lineup win the rebounding battles? Nope. The mild positivity appears mainly based on winning net turnover battle. Love might have helped some 9n that.
Positive results but perhaps sub-optimal. They clearly fell short in Finals, so some better lineup distribution was needed.
Play a +19 lineup with 70 RS minutes or a +3 with 13 minutes? Spoelstra went big on the +3 and got a +3. And gave way less time to the far better. Not sure what the thinking was behind that but it came up short. Not the guess I would have made. Oh well, it was only a championship worth hundred of millions in value.
Did that Love lineup win the rebounding battles? Nope. The mild positivity appears mainly based on winning net turnover battle. Love might have helped some 9n that.