2019-20 lineup analysis

Home for all your discussion of basketball statistical analysis.
Post Reply
Crow
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

2019-20 lineup analysis

Post by Crow » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:50 am

My first thought on a starting lineup for Knicks is Payton Ellington Dotson Morris Robinson. Some vets out of the gate. Ball control. Defense. Space & 3 point shooting.

I'd try 1-2 player substitutions into that as well as a second line of Smith Barrett Knox Randle Portis. I'd think they'd want to win as much as possible to get out of the basement and the costs of that.

Unclear what will work.

What didn't work was Fizdale using 856 lineups, with only 29% positive. 10 of the most used 11 lineups were losers. He has to do way better, take instruction or be removed.

Really try 5 to 20 lineups. Beyond that make selective use of another 30-80. 856 is just insane. It is changing every few minutes and rarely trying for more than a few minutes each for the entire season.

The team could be a gritty competitor but they need a design and tough choices on who plays how much.

Trades should be constantly considered. Few of their signings are sure long-term keepers, if any. A consolidating trade for a lead player would help. Robinson is the core guy but they need a lead scorer, preferably scorer / creator.

Crow
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis

Post by Crow » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:24 am

Lakers will be able to play James Green Kuzma Davis Cousins. They are also play many many variations with 3-4 of these... and hundreds of others with less. What happens with team in regular season and playoffs will be heavily dependent on lineup management.

Vogel practiced one big minute lineup early in his career with the Pacers. His best years. Up to 20 minutes per game, which is about as high as you ever see. Then he went away from it. Because of George injuries but even after. It continued in Orlando. His last season there no lineup was used 3 minute per game for season. Was this a conscious decision or unrecognized chaotic behavior? Either way it doesn't look good... cuz it didn't work. He probably should find a big minute lineup. The one I suggested or some modest variation. Dinking around with hundreds and hundreds of lineups sound like a good way to fall short of optimum, of expectations. A good, maybe quick way to get fired. Or to deserve to be fired.

Crow
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis

Post by Crow » Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:58 am

If Wizards want to try to win games, they should have at least 4 of these guys on court as much as possible: Beal, Schofield, Brown, Hachimura, Bertrans and Bryant. Beal as their main PG. By as much as possible, I mean toward 40 minutes, not just 25.

If you want to tank or see no way to do better, then play less than 4 of these guys as much as possible or even never play 4 together. Play hundreds and hundreds of dink lineups and act like you are trying by giving everyone a chance.

Try the best in a very disciplined manner or it will probably be bull or just not work.

Crow
Posts: 6248
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: 2019-20 lineup analysis

Post by Crow » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:53 am

There is plenty to learn from number of starters matchup analysis. But a next stage of learning would be to look at performance of lineups based on quality of player in specific roles. Creators, shooters, interior scorers, etc. Where can you get by or skimp? What skills are the most important? It depends what plays you run, what shots you want / can get. The lineup should determine the plays or vice versa or both depending on stage of game and results to date.

If you have an elite creator, an elite shooter and an elite interior scorer on court with 2 bench guys, ran a play using the elite guys were can or use the other guys were possible or necessary. Maybe substitutions need to focus on roles.


Who shows more focus on roles in lineups? Coaches, lineup analysts, both or neither? It probably should get more recognition / attention. Functional lineups, not just 5 names or plus minus. Though they at important, they probably aren't sufficient. And again it is lineup / playcalling. Playcalling will affect efficiency and efficiency should affect playcalling.

Every play ever written up should probably be annotated for types and level of skills required by each player and then the lineup should match that well or at least pretty well.

No play type or specific play data (run & efficiency) by lineup exists publicly. Team analysts should have it and be working it hard. Are they?

Fix lineups by changing players, roles, plays or combinations.

What "should" work vs. actually works?

On defense, you can't predict plays... unless you try & can. Probability and sequencing. Decide where & how to disrupt or reduce efficiency by coaching instinct and video and analytics.

Post Reply