Castle Vassell Barnes Wembanyama was the least strong Wemby quad in 10 most used. Fox Wemby was negative in brief test.
Put them together and is that the starting lineup? For what results? For how long?
His best pairs include Barnes, Champagnie and Sochan. If they play 3 guards and / or Olynyk or Kornet, will these guys maximize their time with Wemby or likely not and well short?
LIneup trends around the league
Re: LIneup trends around the league
2 different players at every position- 64 lineup combinations possible. If you understand player combinations, some will look and be better than others and not all 64 may really need testing.
3×3×3×3×3= 243 lineups. Use 4 players everywhere = 1024. Several NBA coaches got around 850. One nearly reached 1000. All used more than 243. Using more than 64 or 243 is searching, using inferior players and generally getting inferior results. Finch is low at 312, followed by Thibodeau.
Both could / should have been more selective. That was like using every combination of 3×3×4×3×3. It also makes the mean use of a lineup under 14 minutes for season and more than 2/3rds under 5 minutes. Unjudgeable. Finch had 9 over 100 minutes but only 3 over 160. The average team had a little over 3 lineups over the still pretty scant / not reliable 100 minutes. An average of 1 over 200 minutes.
Less than 1 in 4 tested anything over 400 minutes. All but 1 of the 7 were playoff teams, 5 made 2nd round, 3 made conference finals. An increasingly more common practice by those moving up the ladder. Thunder not in that group.
3×3×3×3×3= 243 lineups. Use 4 players everywhere = 1024. Several NBA coaches got around 850. One nearly reached 1000. All used more than 243. Using more than 64 or 243 is searching, using inferior players and generally getting inferior results. Finch is low at 312, followed by Thibodeau.
Both could / should have been more selective. That was like using every combination of 3×3×4×3×3. It also makes the mean use of a lineup under 14 minutes for season and more than 2/3rds under 5 minutes. Unjudgeable. Finch had 9 over 100 minutes but only 3 over 160. The average team had a little over 3 lineups over the still pretty scant / not reliable 100 minutes. An average of 1 over 200 minutes.
Less than 1 in 4 tested anything over 400 minutes. All but 1 of the 7 were playoff teams, 5 made 2nd round, 3 made conference finals. An increasingly more common practice by those moving up the ladder. Thunder not in that group.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Thought experiment with changing Timberwolves lineup management some at the top:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1957757674172600786
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1957757674172600786
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Blazers had some decent sub-lineup results with combinations of Henderson Sharpe Avdija Camara Clingan but all 5 together was horrible in a too brief 74 minute test.
Test it 200-300 minutes early and assess and change as appropriate.
Henderson - Clingan pair was bad overall. Will look for others. Sharpe - Camara was weak as was Henderson - Avdija. Should probably try to be more precise with the with / without details.
With Grant was a disaster with too many.
Avdija negative with everyone in main rotation but Clingan and barely Camara.
Henderson Sharpe was barely positive and the best main rotation pair but the rest are negative. I see no reason to design around that... other than to try it some more to probably get to the point of trading one or both. But deeper study is warranted.
Test it 200-300 minutes early and assess and change as appropriate.
Henderson - Clingan pair was bad overall. Will look for others. Sharpe - Camara was weak as was Henderson - Avdija. Should probably try to be more precise with the with / without details.
With Grant was a disaster with too many.
Avdija negative with everyone in main rotation but Clingan and barely Camara.
Henderson Sharpe was barely positive and the best main rotation pair but the rest are negative. I see no reason to design around that... other than to try it some more to probably get to the point of trading one or both. But deeper study is warranted.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
First draft core lineup rotation designed for Blazers based on last season's best sub-lineup performances. 9 lineups, 10 players, realistic / desirable minute allocations.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
2% of playoff lineups played 50+ minutes. Fairly tough but possible for 1st round outs, easier for the other half. 14 playoff teams had at least one but not the two teams who were 1st round sweeps. On average, teams had 1.5. TWolves and Thunder had 4, Knicks 3. About 65% were positive. TWolves, Knicks and Lakers had the worst performers. 8 double digits pts / 100p positive performers. Thunder with the best but 2nd least used. TWolves only one close, 15th most used. Thunder barely did enough to win. TWolves lost some ground using a great lineup too little and a bad one too much... and lost. 3 stunk from 3 pt range, 2 did well anyways including Thunder, Magic did not.
In regular season, teams had an average of a bit less than 9. The max was 14. Less than 10% of such regular season lineups repeated this fairly modest feat in playoffs.
70% of playoff lineups were used 5 minutes or less total. Almost 50 per team on average. Only about 35% were positive. Less than 25% shot better than average from 3. 40% had elevated TO rate.
In regular season, teams had an average of a bit less than 9. The max was 14. Less than 10% of such regular season lineups repeated this fairly modest feat in playoffs.
70% of playoff lineups were used 5 minutes or less total. Almost 50 per team on average. Only about 35% were positive. Less than 25% shot better than average from 3. 40% had elevated TO rate.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Markannen - Filipowski - Kessler was used, albeit for only 49 minutes. The trio was far better than any other with / without combination of the three and the tiniest bit positive, a feat for a bad team.
I'd like to see more testing of that trio. Preferably with Clayton. Perhaps with Bailey.
Why not go big, biggest of anybody (?) and see what happens? What looks more promising?
Try others with the trio, mainly with 4 of those 5.
I'd like to see more testing of that trio. Preferably with Clayton. Perhaps with Bailey.
Why not go big, biggest of anybody (?) and see what happens? What looks more promising?
Try others with the trio, mainly with 4 of those 5.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
I'd try Fox Barnes Sochan Wemby Kornet and variations with 4 of them.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
I'd try Russell Flagg Washington Davis Lively and variations with 4.
Many teams should try going bigger, in general and especially aimed at Thunder.
VanVleet Thompson Durant Sengun Adams is probably too light on shooting but 4 of them and Smith is better. And why not try all 5 and see what happens?
Murray Braun Johnson Gordon Jokic with get a lot of run. But I'd also like to see Holmes in there for somebody other than Jokic.
Many teams should try going bigger, in general and especially aimed at Thunder.
VanVleet Thompson Durant Sengun Adams is probably too light on shooting but 4 of them and Smith is better. And why not try all 5 and see what happens?
Murray Braun Johnson Gordon Jokic with get a lot of run. But I'd also like to see Holmes in there for somebody other than Jokic.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Every Nuggets playoff lineup over 10 minutes with 2 or more bench players was negative and most of the smaller ones too.
That is the main task for the team to change.
Probably should try to maximize minutes with 0-1 bench even more; but if they find 2 bench player lineups that are positive, give them minutes and shut off as many of the bad minute lineups as possible. Come playoff time, shouldn't be playing many or any bad small discretionary dinks. Trade if they need to, but the new bench has some probably bright spots.
That is the main task for the team to change.
Probably should try to maximize minutes with 0-1 bench even more; but if they find 2 bench player lineups that are positive, give them minutes and shut off as many of the bad minute lineups as possible. Come playoff time, shouldn't be playing many or any bad small discretionary dinks. Trade if they need to, but the new bench has some probably bright spots.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
The 3 teams in west closest to but not top 8 seeded all had 2 strong lineups in 5 most used, 2 marginal positives and 1 bad negative. Not enough somewhere.
All lower than 11th had 2-4 negatives in their 5 most used.
Of the west's top 8 seeds, the 2 conference finalists had no negatives in 5 most used lineups, 5 had one and the 8th seed had 2.
All lower than 11th had 2-4 negatives in their 5 most used.
Of the west's top 8 seeds, the 2 conference finalists had no negatives in 5 most used lineups, 5 had one and the 8th seed had 2.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Looking at 4 best teams in east by positive and +5/100p or better lineups and player pairs:
Cavs and Celtics were perfect and near perfect by these criteria in regular season. For Cavs, 2 of 5 playoff lineups went negative along with 3 of 5 pairs. Mitchell Strus Mobley was where the main trouble was. Net shooting & net passing. Similar for Celtics with the main trouble with White Brown Horford. Horford won't be back, Cavs will have their 3. Will they use it same way, as much?
Knicks and Pacers 3 and 2 negative 5 most used lineups in regular season. Knicks, none above +5, Pacers just two. Knicks got a little better in playoffs on lineups, Pacers much worse. Knicks got way worse at pair level, Pacers slightly lesser. Knicks a disaster at pair level, Pacers a disaster at lineup level. Pacer negatives when playing with 2 bench guys.
One Coach fired, one extended significantly.
Simple data checks, not ever seen elsewhere.
Thunder, perfect by these criteria in regular season. Pair data completely held up but several 5 most used lineups slipped out of positive or strong positive.
Timberwolves had several regular season lineups that weren't strong and 4 of 5 pairs were not. In playoffs, lineup performance slipped further while more most used pairs got better. Did not coach the lineups well enough.
Nuggets were great on top pairs in regular season, slightly less good at lineup level than these other two western contenders. Lineups got worse in playoffs. Top pairs stayed positive but only one stayed strong. Not quite good enough in regular season fell to much worse with new Coach in playoffs. Better do much better next season.
Cavs and Celtics were perfect and near perfect by these criteria in regular season. For Cavs, 2 of 5 playoff lineups went negative along with 3 of 5 pairs. Mitchell Strus Mobley was where the main trouble was. Net shooting & net passing. Similar for Celtics with the main trouble with White Brown Horford. Horford won't be back, Cavs will have their 3. Will they use it same way, as much?
Knicks and Pacers 3 and 2 negative 5 most used lineups in regular season. Knicks, none above +5, Pacers just two. Knicks got a little better in playoffs on lineups, Pacers much worse. Knicks got way worse at pair level, Pacers slightly lesser. Knicks a disaster at pair level, Pacers a disaster at lineup level. Pacer negatives when playing with 2 bench guys.
One Coach fired, one extended significantly.
Simple data checks, not ever seen elsewhere.
Thunder, perfect by these criteria in regular season. Pair data completely held up but several 5 most used lineups slipped out of positive or strong positive.
Timberwolves had several regular season lineups that weren't strong and 4 of 5 pairs were not. In playoffs, lineup performance slipped further while more most used pairs got better. Did not coach the lineups well enough.
Nuggets were great on top pairs in regular season, slightly less good at lineup level than these other two western contenders. Lineups got worse in playoffs. Top pairs stayed positive but only one stayed strong. Not quite good enough in regular season fell to much worse with new Coach in playoffs. Better do much better next season.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Are you taking into account their competion?Nuggets were great on top pairs in regular season, slightly less good at lineup level than these other two western contenders. Lineups got worse in playoffs
team - SRS
LAC -- 4.84
OKC - 12.70
Den -- 3.97
On average, a given lineup (or any combination) should be right around 5 pts/100 poss. lower against these 2 PO opponents, compared to the RS.
If the dropoff was less than 5, they over-performed in PO.
Kawhi Leonard avg'd 14.4 min over 82 games, and when he was on the floor, the Clipps were +12.0 per 48 -- right up there with OKC.
In the Denver series, he went 38 mpg, BPM up from RS 3.1 to 7.0 in PO; but the Nuggets were within 0.6 pts/G -- a serious improvement over an expected deficit of somewhere between -1 and -8.
vs OKC, the Nuggs were outscored by 9 ppg, just about the expectation based on season SRS.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
No, I didn't adjust for playoff competition. That would be an improvement.
Looking at main contenders all unadjusted wouldn't capture specific opponent strengths but would expect some increase in strength faced across the board.
Average regular SOS faced in playoffs or by series would be worth knowing, along with playoff SOS. BRef does not calculate playoff SOS or SRS. I don't see the reason not to.
Maybe somebody has calculated adjusted net ratings for playoffs somewhere?
Always more to do to be better, more precise. First thoughts may not be the best possible but a start is worth something.
Looking at main contenders all unadjusted wouldn't capture specific opponent strengths but would expect some increase in strength faced across the board.
Average regular SOS faced in playoffs or by series would be worth knowing, along with playoff SOS. BRef does not calculate playoff SOS or SRS. I don't see the reason not to.
Maybe somebody has calculated adjusted net ratings for playoffs somewhere?
Always more to do to be better, more precise. First thoughts may not be the best possible but a start is worth something.
Re: LIneup trends around the league
Playoffs are almost entirely against better than median and mean net margin teams.
Slippage in team performance by net margin will occur. But my post helps identify some of where and how much in different places. It may be typical for some 5 man lineups and pairs to slip, but how much for each team is important and "new" information.
Slippage in team performance by net margin will occur. But my post helps identify some of where and how much in different places. It may be typical for some 5 man lineups and pairs to slip, but how much for each team is important and "new" information.