More lineup analysis:
https://x.com/bballstrategy/status/1966682016113717626
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
SGA with Giddey in 2024 playoffs net margin was 350% of SGA-Dort. It was middle of pack for main guys, but minutes were reduced.
SGA-Dort went from very good in 2024 to great in 2025 but playoffs net margin was 70% less in 2024 and 60% less in 2025. With Caruso or Wallace were both significantly better. In fact SGA - Dort was 7th best SGA playoff pair of 12 in 2024, 9th of 11 in 2025. Sure strength of opponents faced probably has some impact. But it isn't the foundation by results.
SGA - Hartenstein in playoffs was only neutral to +1 depending on source. Worst pair partner performance.
Not expecting any major change this season. But if they consider change next summer, those are 2 candidates to consider.
SGA-Dort went from very good in 2024 to great in 2025 but playoffs net margin was 70% less in 2024 and 60% less in 2025. With Caruso or Wallace were both significantly better. In fact SGA - Dort was 7th best SGA playoff pair of 12 in 2024, 9th of 11 in 2025. Sure strength of opponents faced probably has some impact. But it isn't the foundation by results.
SGA - Hartenstein in playoffs was only neutral to +1 depending on source. Worst pair partner performance.
Not expecting any major change this season. But if they consider change next summer, those are 2 candidates to consider.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
By Darko projection, Holmgren is expected to be 50th best. By side ranks, a sorta average 5th best man on offense for an average team (tied for 128th best) and one of the best 2nd best on team defenders (32nd best).
His overall Darko peaked for now at mid-season and declined significantly late. On Darko improvement, he was near bottom 20% in league. O-DPM is the lowest it has been since the first month of his playing career. Defensive DPM improved to career to date peak by mid-season but then lost all of the season gains over prior season.
3pta rate projection never lower. FTA rate essentially never higher and same for at the rim rate.
Jalen Williams is close to a flipside to Holmgren. 33rd best on Darko projection. 33rd on offense, 158th on defense.
Slightly above average on improvement rate. Peaked early in season and then plateaued. Plateaued on offense. Peaked early on defense then gave it all back for no gain over prior season.
At the rim rate drifted to career low then recovered. FTA rate soared to by far career high. 3pta rate was not much changed.
SGA, 3rd best by Darko. 2nd best on offense, top 20% on D. Top 12% on improvement. Career high on overall DPM and offense and super steady climb his whole career. Defensive Darko reached career high then a slight decline.
3pta rate improved some over last 2 seasons but then gave much of it back, going to modestly above career low. FTA rate sliding down from peak 2 years ago.Same for at the rim rate, now near a 4 year low.
Ever see any of this mentioned elsewhere? I haven't.
Very good but changing. Will be watching next season.
His overall Darko peaked for now at mid-season and declined significantly late. On Darko improvement, he was near bottom 20% in league. O-DPM is the lowest it has been since the first month of his playing career. Defensive DPM improved to career to date peak by mid-season but then lost all of the season gains over prior season.
3pta rate projection never lower. FTA rate essentially never higher and same for at the rim rate.
Jalen Williams is close to a flipside to Holmgren. 33rd best on Darko projection. 33rd on offense, 158th on defense.
Slightly above average on improvement rate. Peaked early in season and then plateaued. Plateaued on offense. Peaked early on defense then gave it all back for no gain over prior season.
At the rim rate drifted to career low then recovered. FTA rate soared to by far career high. 3pta rate was not much changed.
SGA, 3rd best by Darko. 2nd best on offense, top 20% on D. Top 12% on improvement. Career high on overall DPM and offense and super steady climb his whole career. Defensive Darko reached career high then a slight decline.
3pta rate improved some over last 2 seasons but then gave much of it back, going to modestly above career low. FTA rate sliding down from peak 2 years ago.Same for at the rim rate, now near a 4 year low.
Ever see any of this mentioned elsewhere? I haven't.
Very good but changing. Will be watching next season.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Regular season April was a short and meaningless month but it was SGA's worst on defense and worst on offense except for October. The defense by D-BPM got worse in most months.
His ts% fell to below league average and just barely improved in playoffs. He was only modestly above playoff average in 2024 and it fell slightly in 2025. Usage level and opponent focus basically explain it but a super efficient playoff scorer he was not. (His most efficient playoffs was as a rookie on 18% usage.)
His ts% fell to below league average and just barely improved in playoffs. He was only modestly above playoff average in 2024 and it fell slightly in 2025. Usage level and opponent focus basically explain it but a super efficient playoff scorer he was not. (His most efficient playoffs was as a rookie on 18% usage.)
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Holmgren's offense bounced around but was best in April. Similar to SGA his defensive rating drifted down every month.
TS% and A/TO both declined year to year.
TS% and A/TO both declined year to year.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder opponent turnovers is close to straight down month to month, from 21 / gm in October to 14-16 in Feb. to April. Opponent scoring is close to straight up from 95 to 114. Opponent efg% close to straight up.
Did the league figure it out? Did the Thunder let off the gas? What comes next from both sides?
Thunder scoring peaked in February and went down. Regular season scoring went from 120.5 to 114.7 in playoffs.
Did the league figure it out? Did the Thunder let off the gas? What comes next from both sides?
Thunder scoring peaked in February and went down. Regular season scoring went from 120.5 to 114.7 in playoffs.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Jalen Williams -8pts / 100p raw on / off in regular season? -4.4 in playoffs?
Career low TS%?
Max?
Dort -7 on / off in playoffs.
SGA just +1.8.
Hartenstein -8.8.
Jaylin Williams -8.9.
Career low TS%?
Max?
Dort -7 on / off in playoffs.
SGA just +1.8.
Hartenstein -8.8.
Jaylin Williams -8.9.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Dynasty or the 7th one title and out in a row?
Super confident, stay the same? Or recognize the peril and think about everything and claw and probably make some changes?
Who is still on way up?
Super confident, stay the same? Or recognize the peril and think about everything and claw and probably make some changes?
Who is still on way up?
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Why did Timberwolves lose so badly to Thunder?
Thunder was better team.
But also at least 5 guys played really badly in games 1, 2 and 5. Coach lost those games badly too.
Game 4 was close and pivotal and they lost that one also.
What will they learn / change from it?
They might be the team that could do it, but they have to change. And really did nothing in off-season to show change. Change could still come but it isn't being signaled.
They could change Conley's minutes. I don't know if they could move him for a better PG but they should try that or moving Dillingham and move whatever else needed to get someone valuable.
Jrue Holiday might not be "the answer" or obtainable but look.
Morant?? They might look but would they pay the trade price?
Reed Sheppard?
Harper or Castle?
Herro?
LaMelo Ball?
Grimes?
Scottie Barnes?
Scottie Pippen Jr?
Coby White or Dosunmu?
Ivey, Sharpe, Monk?
D Murray?
They committed to Gobert twice and seem unlikely to be able or willing to move him.
They committed to Randle and McDaniels before that. I'd certainly at least look at moving one.
Develop the bench or change the bench.
Thunder was better team.
But also at least 5 guys played really badly in games 1, 2 and 5. Coach lost those games badly too.
Game 4 was close and pivotal and they lost that one also.
What will they learn / change from it?
They might be the team that could do it, but they have to change. And really did nothing in off-season to show change. Change could still come but it isn't being signaled.
They could change Conley's minutes. I don't know if they could move him for a better PG but they should try that or moving Dillingham and move whatever else needed to get someone valuable.
Jrue Holiday might not be "the answer" or obtainable but look.
Morant?? They might look but would they pay the trade price?
Reed Sheppard?
Harper or Castle?
Herro?
LaMelo Ball?
Grimes?
Scottie Barnes?
Scottie Pippen Jr?
Coby White or Dosunmu?
Ivey, Sharpe, Monk?
D Murray?
They committed to Gobert twice and seem unlikely to be able or willing to move him.
They committed to Randle and McDaniels before that. I'd certainly at least look at moving one.
Develop the bench or change the bench.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Can a team beat the Thunder in the playoffs if the playoff dink lineup management is negative or badly negative?
4 teams failed in this playoffs at that. Pacers not as badly as the others but still moderately negative.
Thunder won far more outside of 5 most used lineups than with them in overall playoffs but not so against Pacers. Actually lost with rest of lineups. Barely won by barely doing enough with 5 most used and Pacers not going positive with either of their groups.
Obviously an opponent will have to go positive with one group, the other or both. The better strategy? Maybe it is the 5 most used but need to try to limit the rest of lineups losses. One way is to limit their minutes and focus on their best lineups with far more concentration. Nuggets showed far more concentration on 5 most used lineups in playoffs than Timberwolves or Rockets. Clippers were at same level as Nuggets. Lakers a bit less but still considerably more than Rockets and Timberwolves.
Warriors a complete joke on playoff lineup concentration and far less than all these. But those 5 were 1 great but way under-utilized, 2 meh, 2 horrible. So there was some reason not to concentrate on at least 2, maybe 4. Under-utilization of starters was absurd and other positive lineups should have gotten priority as well. Regular season lineup concentration was a complete joke as well, so very little meaningful testing occured. Ohkerred.
Rockets 5 most used lineups won mildly in regular season against Thunder, rest of lineups lost badly. 5 most used were used moderately but not enough. Nuggets 5 most used lineups also won mildly against Thunder just almost broke even with rest of lineups despite a weak bench. Will they do better next season with a better bench? Good chance I think.
Lakers won slightly with 5 most used and lost slightly with rest of lineups for basically a draw on net margin. But 1 W - 2L. Clippers lost badly every way.
Timberwolves lost regular season mildly with Thunder with 5 most used but won mildly with rest of lineups to break nearly even. Why didn't they do better in playoffs? Should compare everything from regular season to playoffs.
Kerr broke about even with 5 most used but won moderately with rest of lineups. Not a fan of lack of concentration but any win is good and that makes 2 contenders who won regular season matchup with bench, 3 with starters. No one won both.
4 teams failed in this playoffs at that. Pacers not as badly as the others but still moderately negative.
Thunder won far more outside of 5 most used lineups than with them in overall playoffs but not so against Pacers. Actually lost with rest of lineups. Barely won by barely doing enough with 5 most used and Pacers not going positive with either of their groups.
Obviously an opponent will have to go positive with one group, the other or both. The better strategy? Maybe it is the 5 most used but need to try to limit the rest of lineups losses. One way is to limit their minutes and focus on their best lineups with far more concentration. Nuggets showed far more concentration on 5 most used lineups in playoffs than Timberwolves or Rockets. Clippers were at same level as Nuggets. Lakers a bit less but still considerably more than Rockets and Timberwolves.
Warriors a complete joke on playoff lineup concentration and far less than all these. But those 5 were 1 great but way under-utilized, 2 meh, 2 horrible. So there was some reason not to concentrate on at least 2, maybe 4. Under-utilization of starters was absurd and other positive lineups should have gotten priority as well. Regular season lineup concentration was a complete joke as well, so very little meaningful testing occured. Ohkerred.
Rockets 5 most used lineups won mildly in regular season against Thunder, rest of lineups lost badly. 5 most used were used moderately but not enough. Nuggets 5 most used lineups also won mildly against Thunder just almost broke even with rest of lineups despite a weak bench. Will they do better next season with a better bench? Good chance I think.
Lakers won slightly with 5 most used and lost slightly with rest of lineups for basically a draw on net margin. But 1 W - 2L. Clippers lost badly every way.
Timberwolves lost regular season mildly with Thunder with 5 most used but won mildly with rest of lineups to break nearly even. Why didn't they do better in playoffs? Should compare everything from regular season to playoffs.
Kerr broke about even with 5 most used but won moderately with rest of lineups. Not a fan of lack of concentration but any win is good and that makes 2 contenders who won regular season matchup with bench, 3 with starters. No one won both.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Timberwolves starting lineup was great in regular season and playoffs against Thunder. Modestly lesser in playoffs but should have emphasized more.
Alexander - Walker and Reid on court results were much worse in playoffs overall and among most used. NAW gone. Reid given big money.
DiVincenzo - Edwards was good generally in regulation season, mildly negative in modest test against Thunder. Bad on average in playoffs in big 20 minutes per game every game, turned super horrendous against Thunder but essentially stayed at same in use. No option they were willing to try instead? Did them in.
Against Thunder: NAW - Edwards turned bad. Edwards - Reid turned super horrendous well. Edwards - Randle quite bad, Edwards - McDaniels bad. With Conley and Gobert ok. But that is a lousy Edwards set. Problem did not arise in earlier series. So vastly greater use of starters as a complete group would appear to have the proper answer not taken. That or radically core the core going forward or somehow avoiding Thunder.
Perhaps more could be found.
Alexander - Walker and Reid on court results were much worse in playoffs overall and among most used. NAW gone. Reid given big money.
DiVincenzo - Edwards was good generally in regulation season, mildly negative in modest test against Thunder. Bad on average in playoffs in big 20 minutes per game every game, turned super horrendous against Thunder but essentially stayed at same in use. No option they were willing to try instead? Did them in.
Against Thunder: NAW - Edwards turned bad. Edwards - Reid turned super horrendous well. Edwards - Randle quite bad, Edwards - McDaniels bad. With Conley and Gobert ok. But that is a lousy Edwards set. Problem did not arise in earlier series. So vastly greater use of starters as a complete group would appear to have the proper answer not taken. That or radically core the core going forward or somehow avoiding Thunder.
Perhaps more could be found.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
For the expected roster, the Thunder have 10 listed guards and everybody else plays at least some PF or C. If you count the 3 recent training camp additions, it is 13 guards at the moment.
SF is mostly played by guards and guards 6-5 and under. Even PF is frequently played by 6-5 and under.
It is a deliberate choice that has worked but will it always? I've wondered before if tall teams might have best chance against Thunder, teams with impactful forwards who are sized and play like forwards.
Something to watch and study further.
Small forwards are probably the least talented, least impacrful position (though that could be studied further). There are guard skills and big man skills. It may be the sensible approach. But can you go too far?
Thunder weren't much bothered by SFs in last playoffs. But they didn't face top guys.
"Rockets head coach Ime Udoka said he plans to experiment at points with what would be the biggest lineup in NBA history:
PG: Amen Thompson
SG: Kevin Durant
SF: Jabari Smith
PF: Alperen Sengun
C: Steven Adams
Houston had immense success running jumbo lineups in the playoffs."
SF is mostly played by guards and guards 6-5 and under. Even PF is frequently played by 6-5 and under.
It is a deliberate choice that has worked but will it always? I've wondered before if tall teams might have best chance against Thunder, teams with impactful forwards who are sized and play like forwards.
Something to watch and study further.
Small forwards are probably the least talented, least impacrful position (though that could be studied further). There are guard skills and big man skills. It may be the sensible approach. But can you go too far?
Thunder weren't much bothered by SFs in last playoffs. But they didn't face top guys.
"Rockets head coach Ime Udoka said he plans to experiment at points with what would be the biggest lineup in NBA history:
PG: Amen Thompson
SG: Kevin Durant
SF: Jabari Smith
PF: Alperen Sengun
C: Steven Adams
Houston had immense success running jumbo lineups in the playoffs."