If Spurs game in Alamodome is counted as a home game as it should, Thunder finish last in home attendance average. 14% below league average (and more if OKC is backed out of the average).
Thunder finish - 4 on actual wins vs. expected. With intelligent top of rotation lineup management, they might have competed for ) won the 4 seed.
Better lineup management next season? We'll see.
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
None of top six on team for efg% started. SGA was 10th, Giddey 13th, Dort last / 19th..
SGA jumps to 2nd on ts%, but the other two improve rank none and little.
7 of 8 worst pairs in 20 most used had Giddey or Jaylin Williams or both.
Jaylin most likely gets demoted for Chet. Giddey very unlikely to even be considered for that. At least for now.
3 best big minute pairs are all SGA with bench guys.
5 most used 5 man lineups negative, 9 of 10 most used quads negative, 9 of 11 most used trios negative, 4 of 5 most used pairs negative. 26 of 30 most used configurations picked by Coach D lost on average.
SGA jumps to 2nd on ts%, but the other two improve rank none and little.
7 of 8 worst pairs in 20 most used had Giddey or Jaylin Williams or both.
Jaylin most likely gets demoted for Chet. Giddey very unlikely to even be considered for that. At least for now.
3 best big minute pairs are all SGA with bench guys.
5 most used 5 man lineups negative, 9 of 10 most used quads negative, 9 of 11 most used trios negative, 4 of 5 most used pairs negative. 26 of 30 most used configurations picked by Coach D lost on average.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Typical Thunder game. Open with -7 deficit in first 5:30 minutes. (-60pts / 100p.) Get going in rest of first quarter. But up just 3 instead of 10 if they had opened even. Fade in 2nd. Big 3rd quarter run but drips away in 4th. Settled at very end.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
In their final regular season game, OKC's 7-12th guys beat Memphis' 7 thru 12, by 15 points. This was also 'typical', since OKC depth is such that those guys are actually pretty good, relative to almost any other team.
Thunder FT% is over 80%, top 5 in the league. So they'll typically have the advantage after teams are "in the bonus". This is never in the first few minutes of a game but always at the end.
Thunder FT% is over 80%, top 5 in the league. So they'll typically have the advantage after teams are "in the bonus". This is never in the first few minutes of a game but always at the end.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Difficult times ahead when 7-12 on Thunder try to get paid fairly. How much will be left after top 4-5 get paid or get money set aside to be paid soon? Will most eventually get replaced by new rookie contracts or a cheap stray veteran newcomer?
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
For Thunder to get 6th seed next season, they will likely have to perform better than 2 of Clippers, Warriors and Lakers. That could happen because there are real doubts about each of those. Also have to hold off all of TWolves, Pelicans, Mavs and Jazz.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder get steamrolled.
Starters go -56pts /100p. No lineup over 4 minutes is positive. 20 most used pairs were almost all negative (most horrendous) or neutral in a couple cases. Only 3 pairs that were positive all had Wiggins but low minutes. About as bad it gets.
Test almost no lineup meaningfully in regular season and have almost all of the most used lineups and sub-lineups negative and it is not a surprise that it might bite you. Playoffs tend to give more importance to fewer configurations. Tested / proven configurations are the traditional way to win tough games. Completely fail to develop them at your peril.
Starters go -56pts /100p. No lineup over 4 minutes is positive. 20 most used pairs were almost all negative (most horrendous) or neutral in a couple cases. Only 3 pairs that were positive all had Wiggins but low minutes. About as bad it gets.
Test almost no lineup meaningfully in regular season and have almost all of the most used lineups and sub-lineups negative and it is not a surprise that it might bite you. Playoffs tend to give more importance to fewer configurations. Tested / proven configurations are the traditional way to win tough games. Completely fail to develop them at your peril.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
They abandoned their usual strategy early and jumped out to a 7-2 lead. Unfamiliar territory.
Also they had no center; vs 2 pretty good centers.
Also they had no center; vs 2 pretty good centers.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Sort of. It was 14-12 TWolves at first substitution, so 7-2 for Thunder starters was followed by a quick, pretty awful 5-12 giveback. Then more negative later.
SGA and Giddey had bad games.
How much help Holmgren provides in general and against good teams, good to great centers are big questions for next season and beyond.
The top draft pick should be a big, PF or a Center with greater strength. Pick another guard, he better be seen as someone who will eventually jump ahead of at least one of the top 5 perimeters.
If the pick is not a big, the rebuild is certainly not complete and the timetable to get much better is even further in future than if it is a big.
The rebuild to something more meaningful than a play-in knockout continues regardless. 9-11 seed next season is at least about as likely as 6-8, probably moreso.
Every team in west ahead of them had a better center, with almost all being at least very good. So the weakness was huge and broad. How many will Chet be equal to or better and how fast? Good chance he will not be equal to 6 or 7 anytime soon or maybe ever compared to many of them. Could get to better than most but it is not a sure thing.
SGA and Giddey had bad games.
How much help Holmgren provides in general and against good teams, good to great centers are big questions for next season and beyond.
The top draft pick should be a big, PF or a Center with greater strength. Pick another guard, he better be seen as someone who will eventually jump ahead of at least one of the top 5 perimeters.
If the pick is not a big, the rebuild is certainly not complete and the timetable to get much better is even further in future than if it is a big.
The rebuild to something more meaningful than a play-in knockout continues regardless. 9-11 seed next season is at least about as likely as 6-8, probably moreso.
Every team in west ahead of them had a better center, with almost all being at least very good. So the weakness was huge and broad. How many will Chet be equal to or better and how fast? Good chance he will not be equal to 6 or 7 anytime soon or maybe ever compared to many of them. Could get to better than most but it is not a sure thing.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Did the abrupt shift to a defensive strategy emphasizing opponent turnovers "work"? Not on overall defensive efficiency at season level. Got worse. Worse faster than others. Not at the cost of massive increase in foul rate. Not on somewhat lower shot defense. Not with big defensive rebounding decline.
Did it work at game level with big successes on opponent turnovers leading to more victories when really cooking on that than defeats when not? I'll look at correlation later.
Did the offense with SGA in charge and driving for fouls all the time and no talk of Giddey being in charge get better? Absolutely and on all factors. But it is still 1 clearly elite factor (own turnovers, less with less control by Giddey), bottom third on efg% and just average on ft/fga. Offensive rebounding went to very good. Is that enough? Yes to play near .500 ball, not enough to do more.
Did it work at game level with big successes on opponent turnovers leading to more victories when really cooking on that than defeats when not? I'll look at correlation later.
Did the offense with SGA in charge and driving for fouls all the time and no talk of Giddey being in charge get better? Absolutely and on all factors. But it is still 1 clearly elite factor (own turnovers, less with less control by Giddey), bottom third on efg% and just average on ft/fga. Offensive rebounding went to very good. Is that enough? Yes to play near .500 ball, not enough to do more.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Who are Thunder most like at factor level?
Hawks. Pacers. Griz were the quickest picks, there might be others. Overall performance closest to Hawks. Pacer and Hawks similarity should cause some concerns. Aspire to Griz level. Got to go above Hawks some way.
They aren't the Hawks offense or the Griz defense but they are pretty close to the other 4 halves and at least fairly similar to the best two on factor pattern if not quality.
Hawks. Pacers. Griz were the quickest picks, there might be others. Overall performance closest to Hawks. Pacer and Hawks similarity should cause some concerns. Aspire to Griz level. Got to go above Hawks some way.
They aren't the Hawks offense or the Griz defense but they are pretty close to the other 4 halves and at least fairly similar to the best two on factor pattern if not quality.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Will Thunder make any changes to defensive strategy beyond adding Chet?
Back off some going for steals? More minutes to better rebounders? (Less minutes for Dort, JDub, Joe, Waiters? More for JWill and possibly Sarr and / or Saric? Poku at 3 instead of 5?)
Back off some going for steals? More minutes to better rebounders? (Less minutes for Dort, JDub, Joe, Waiters? More for JWill and possibly Sarr and / or Saric? Poku at 3 instead of 5?)
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Giddey, 7 of 10 most used lineups negative, 8 of 10 most used pairs negative? Is that just player quality (him and teammates) or partially poor coaching?
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
It is too early to mean anything but Griz offense, 11th in playoffs; Hawks, 15th.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder compared to other play-in team performances:
Worst +/-, twice as negative as 7th place.
6th on 3pt fg%, 8th on defensive rebounding.
Tied for second on steals. Tied for 3rd lowest on fouls, so some reduction in intensity there.
Only 5th best on own turnovers, so way different than regular season. Tied for 6th on assists. Not good enough from the playmakers.
This comparison is to 13th to 20th best teams. Too many below average for this group marks. Thunder performed like a below average, middle-tier team. Tied for 19th best regular season and could call 18th to 29th best best by play-in record and net rating A new arrival in that not so respected tier and probably headed up, but that is where they are right now.
7th on efg% and 6th on ts% but got up to 3rd on offensive rating. 7th on defensive rating.
Would I be fairly positive or satisfied with that level of performance by any team? No, I have mainly followed teams with better season performances, with a handful of exceptions. But of course it is a step or two or three up from last two seasons.
The key though is the peak to me. Conference finals or beyond by when? Before that but far less meaningful to me, when?
If first round series win is 2-3 years off, can they get to conference finals before SGAs current contract runs out? It may be tight.
How many seasons without a first round series win will or should Coach D get? Coach Donovan got one good playoffs followed by 4 first round exits before it being enough to move on. Clearly the new Coach D will get next season and almost certainly the following. But if it is 5 years, no playoff series wins does he get more time? Probably will but 6 seems more likely to be too much. Would I give him 5 without a series win? Probably not.
Worst +/-, twice as negative as 7th place.
6th on 3pt fg%, 8th on defensive rebounding.
Tied for second on steals. Tied for 3rd lowest on fouls, so some reduction in intensity there.
Only 5th best on own turnovers, so way different than regular season. Tied for 6th on assists. Not good enough from the playmakers.
This comparison is to 13th to 20th best teams. Too many below average for this group marks. Thunder performed like a below average, middle-tier team. Tied for 19th best regular season and could call 18th to 29th best best by play-in record and net rating A new arrival in that not so respected tier and probably headed up, but that is where they are right now.
7th on efg% and 6th on ts% but got up to 3rd on offensive rating. 7th on defensive rating.
Would I be fairly positive or satisfied with that level of performance by any team? No, I have mainly followed teams with better season performances, with a handful of exceptions. But of course it is a step or two or three up from last two seasons.
The key though is the peak to me. Conference finals or beyond by when? Before that but far less meaningful to me, when?
If first round series win is 2-3 years off, can they get to conference finals before SGAs current contract runs out? It may be tight.
How many seasons without a first round series win will or should Coach D get? Coach Donovan got one good playoffs followed by 4 first round exits before it being enough to move on. Clearly the new Coach D will get next season and almost certainly the following. But if it is 5 years, no playoff series wins does he get more time? Probably will but 6 seems more likely to be too much. Would I give him 5 without a series win? Probably not.