Opponents as a team scored 3.4 more pts / 100p with Dort on vs off. Better team shooting, more offensive rebounds, less turnovers. Dort's man shot less well but opponent's did better. That's on some combination of Dort (and what he focuses on and doesn't as well), teammates and Coach D's lineups and / or defensive schemes.
Presti gets his individual man of action to show off (as his find and ideology), but oh well on team results.
Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Number of starters with ts% above 57% (slight below lg avg of 58%):
Nuggets, Kings 5. Warriors 5 with Poole, not quite with Wiggins.
Suns, Griz 2.
Thunder, 2.
That is a big gap and Nuggets and Kings for sure are going to be around awhile.
(Not named are not checked.)
Nuggets, Kings 5. Warriors 5 with Poole, not quite with Wiggins.
Suns, Griz 2.
Thunder, 2.
That is a big gap and Nuggets and Kings for sure are going to be around awhile.
(Not named are not checked.)
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
16 of 20 most used Thunder pairs got outshot on efg% by the opponent. The four that won, all / only comprised of SGA, JDub, Wiggins and K Williams.
Those formed a quad for only 57 minutes. 53rd in usage. They only won by 2.6 points 100p but that was still better than all of the 10 most used quads.
I would have wanted to try this quad at least 4 times as much, possibly 10-15 times as much. But Giddey, Dort... No. Play what appears to work better.
Maybe the quad is not that good or "too much". But the trios are far too lightly tested as well.
Best two team performances on net FTAs (a concern of Presti's) among the 20 most used pairs naturally included SGA... and bench players (Wiggins and Joe). Another reason the starting lineup is sub-optimal.
Those formed a quad for only 57 minutes. 53rd in usage. They only won by 2.6 points 100p but that was still better than all of the 10 most used quads.
I would have wanted to try this quad at least 4 times as much, possibly 10-15 times as much. But Giddey, Dort... No. Play what appears to work better.
Maybe the quad is not that good or "too much". But the trios are far too lightly tested as well.
Best two team performances on net FTAs (a concern of Presti's) among the 20 most used pairs naturally included SGA... and bench players (Wiggins and Joe). Another reason the starting lineup is sub-optimal.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
33 wins in year before Jenkins. First year of Jenkins & Morant in Memphis, 5 of 8 most used lineups positive. Yr 2, 6 of 8 positive. Yr 3, 6 of 7 positive. Yr 4, 9 of 9 positive.
44 wins in year before Coach D. First yr Coach Daigneault, 1 of 16 most used lineups positive. Yr 2, 1 of 7. Yr 3, 0 in 5.
No the teams weren't in exactly same part of cycle. But you can win your top lineups on a lottery team and Jenkins did and built from there.
44 wins in year before Coach D. First yr Coach Daigneault, 1 of 16 most used lineups positive. Yr 2, 1 of 7. Yr 3, 0 in 5.
No the teams weren't in exactly same part of cycle. But you can win your top lineups on a lottery team and Jenkins did and built from there.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
History and the layout of roster and draft picks and future contracts strongly suggest the Thunder won't do much or anything with free agency...
but the option still exists.
Here are the main outside names I'd at least consider: Porzingis, Poeltl, G Williams, N Reid, C Johnson, Watanbe, M Wagner, Eubanks, K B-Diop, Muscala, Damian Jones, T Craig, P Reid, N Alexander-Walker, O Porter, Yurtseven and Julian Chamagnie.
Porzingis would be the radical move. The rest are about supplementing the rotation.
If they going to do a radical move, it would be better sooner than much later. Not saying I'd go big for Porzingis but look at it. Might be interesting next to Chet. 20th best on Darko with about 40th best improvement. Not impossible to see him leave Wizards.
but the option still exists.
Here are the main outside names I'd at least consider: Porzingis, Poeltl, G Williams, N Reid, C Johnson, Watanbe, M Wagner, Eubanks, K B-Diop, Muscala, Damian Jones, T Craig, P Reid, N Alexander-Walker, O Porter, Yurtseven and Julian Chamagnie.
Porzingis would be the radical move. The rest are about supplementing the rotation.
If they going to do a radical move, it would be better sooner than much later. Not saying I'd go big for Porzingis but look at it. Might be interesting next to Chet. 20th best on Darko with about 40th best improvement. Not impossible to see him leave Wizards.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
According to an article at 82games.com last month, Thunder won 45% of time when they have a good offensive game (119 efficiency or better). That put them in 24th place and was less than overall win%. Somewhat more likely to win with good defense or good efficiency on both.
The starling lineup was designed for offense first. Not that effective though.
SGA - Jaylin Williiams was worst performing pair in 20 most used. Mainly because of net efg% and mainly within that because of opponent 2 pt fg%, because of defense and / or randomness.
That pairing probably is a bench pairing next season; but depending on rotation, it could be either fairly common or rare.
The starling lineup was designed for offense first. Not that effective though.
SGA - Jaylin Williiams was worst performing pair in 20 most used. Mainly because of net efg% and mainly within that because of opponent 2 pt fg%, because of defense and / or randomness.
That pairing probably is a bench pairing next season; but depending on rotation, it could be either fairly common or rare.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Opponent turnovers had only a modest .17 overall correlation with victory.But they were 7W-4L when 20 plus occurred.Crow wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:15 pm 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.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
At this moment I am not buying Holmgren as a near-term, starting center on a team trying for a decent playoff seed.
He'll get time there but I want to see him at PF and even SF as well.
He'll get time there but I want to see him at PF and even SF as well.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
If draft goes mainly along lines of conventional media projections, I would prefer to trade out of the first pick and possibly add to or improve the later picks.
Kalkbrenner, Jaquez, Coulibaly, Jackson-Davis.
Kalkbrenner, Jaquez, Coulibaly, Jackson-Davis.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Thunder can either go full throttle for a 4-6 seed next season... or do a similar mixture of development, tanking, chaotic farting around and competing as past season.
Imo if they do not make the real playoffs, next season will be a failure. How big a failure depends of perspective, timeline, SGA patience and maybe a little about how close they were.
Imo if they do not make the real playoffs, next season will be a failure. How big a failure depends of perspective, timeline, SGA patience and maybe a little about how close they were.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
SGA voted 1st team All-NBA. Mainly on yay points voting.
27th on Darko overall projection. Nobody below 14th made conference finals as the #1 this time (J Butler). As #2 or #3, yeah.
Future contention? By Darko, SGA will need to take 1 or 2 more steps.
11th on EPM, fwiw. 15 on Raptor.
32nd on the other projection model, DRIP.
Why the significant gap between current performance metrics and projections? Big stats on a meh team? Over-reward of high usage? Something to ponder.
Appropriate restraint in response to career year or under-response?
None of metrics that close to top 5 voting.
27th on Darko overall projection. Nobody below 14th made conference finals as the #1 this time (J Butler). As #2 or #3, yeah.
Future contention? By Darko, SGA will need to take 1 or 2 more steps.
11th on EPM, fwiw. 15 on Raptor.
32nd on the other projection model, DRIP.
Why the significant gap between current performance metrics and projections? Big stats on a meh team? Over-reward of high usage? Something to ponder.
Appropriate restraint in response to career year or under-response?
None of metrics that close to top 5 voting.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Number of western conference teams trying to make top 10 seeds next season? Probably somewhere between 12 and 14, going into the season. More than last season. Maybe a few change course later.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
In terms of #1s on Darko, SGA is currently 16th highest.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Pencil the Nuggets into next playoffs and Spurs out, then 46% of the remaining Western conference teams will not make final 8.
Re: Thunder lineup analysis and other commentary
Unless something major happens, the top 5 western seeds this time probably make top 8 next season. So that would leave 9 teams fighting for 3 spots. Jobs will likely be lost on some of those who fail to make playoffs and maybe on some that do.