APBRmetrics

The discussion of the analysis of basketball through objective evidence, especially basketball statistics.
It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:31 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Report: Celtics to consider lineup changes.

Yeah.

4 of top 7 most used over last 15 games negative, 3 horrendous.

199 lineups used, just 33% cumulatively positive. That is kinda low.


Non-dink lineups plus 19 for this stretch, even with the bad ones.

The 192 dink and super dink lineups? -44 or about -3 per game.

Consider lineup changes? Yeah, at top and bottom. Almost 2/3rds of total time spent in dink lineups, which, surprise (not), cost them points and probably wins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
If you don't like the denomination of minutes per game for the season, then just look at total minutes for the season. The point is low minutes not the terminology. If you miss or dismiss the message over the terminology that is a loss.


Some discussion of Spurs' lineups https://mobile.twitter.com/bballstrateg ... 917824?p=v
Stuff on Magic, probably in mid- January, same kind of checks. A little on the Rockets earlier in season. Maybe someday fans, Coaches, GMs, analysts will do similar or reconsider the issues & patterns discussed or reveal more about what they think & do with lineup data (instead?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Toronto Raptors... some good lineup management. Enough?

Top lineup used about 10 minutes per game for season. The right way to look at overall usage. Plus 11.2 per 100 possessions. Could be used more... but top 5 most used lineups are also plus 11.2 on average. 17 minutes per game. Could be more...

371 other lineups used at plus 5.2 per 100 pos. Only 33% of these dink lineups were cumulatively positive. Some greater selectivity and / or lower use of dink lineups could make a difference.

Last playoffs the Raptors concentrated on top 5 most used lineups almost twice as much as they are right now. It helped them barely get by the Bucks. Blown out by Cavs. Lineup tightening could have been more massive and wouldn't have been enough. But this season? It might be the crucial difference. I'd concentrate on best and biggest lineups more than they or almost anyone ever has. Imo, that is the best general, initial strategy out there. Change as information suggests you should, but don't dink up the playoffs as much as everyone still does. Casey is only picking 33% winning lineups. That may not be enough. Last playoffs their 5 most used lineups averaged plus 4.5 per 100 possessions. The rest of lineups, -5.7 / 100. But the dink lineups got twice as much total time.

Don't repeat that Dwayne. Some insider tell him. Do they know? Do they care / agree? Will they see this, follow the suggestion? Probably not. Insiders. Set in ways, not searching enough, not trying new enough. Probably.

Does dink lineup management (both quality & quantity) decide many series including the Finals? I dunno but probably. They get as much or more minutes in playoffs compared to the top few. NOBODY HAS EVER PUBLISHED SUCH A STUDY IN PUBLIC (to my knowledge), or maybe even asked? Have any or many insiders? I kind of doubt it is many. Any? I'd hope so but I dunno. Insider lineup management looks so rough, undisciplined in general from the patterns and results that I wonder about the quality of the analytic advice and / or the utilization of that advice.

Now it may be that coaching moves REQUIRE dink lineup responses a lot. I doubt it is better than using 5-20 lineups but that could be tested. The right person / model could test these alternative strategies. Has anyone? Even if you SHOULD dink, are they choosing the right dink lineups? About 2-1 no on average. Machine learning might improve the selection process, with non-dink and dink lineups. Probably not worse than coaches going on gut and being right 1/3rd of time, plus or minus a little.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Celtics vs. Cavs, Stevens uses just one lineup more than 2 minutes per game for series. It was fairly negative. Win rate for 46 other lineups is pretty average. Not good enough. Probably not concentrated enough against Cavs. Some worse teams? Yeah, got by them.

Was there only one lineup he had enough confidence in to play 14 plus minutes? I doubt that. That would be sad after a season of time to test. But only one lineup actually got that meager level of use. Completely weird and unacceptable to me but not to them I guess.

Used about 13 lineups per game. They were so "good" and so "necessary" that on average he used them less than twice in the series. That is a lot of custom match-ups. Usually a losing game and ultimately it was here for them.

Cavs with 3 lineups over 3 minutes per game. Not enough imo but enough against and compared to Celtics. One lineup got 11 minutes per game. Top 3 lineups yield over 370% of the total net points needed in the series. Coaches scrap fight with dink lineups for most of time but the real muscle came from the top lineups. Will teams pay attention, change any? Not seeing much sign they will. It is not just this simple but there is a message here, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Top 3 Rockets lineups used over 2 minutes per game in series -28. Warriors top 3, plus 26. Not the full story but a huge part of it. If Paul can't go they won't use those 3 lineups. Might not be as terrible as thought. Those 3 weren't working on average.

My guess is both coaches will use a lot of dink lineups in the decisive game and most of them won't work. The best bigger minute lineups will probably decide the game.

Dink lineups apparently kept Rockets in series but it is usually a losing proposition. Has D' Antoni been brilliant or lucky with dink lineups? Has Kerr been terrible at them or unlucky? Some combination. But again, the bigger minute lineup more likely to provide the final decision than the dink war. We'll find out pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
BRef hasn't posted the lineup data yet but from gameflows it sure looks like Warriors had the better performing top 3 most used lineups. More concentration on both sides. If it made sense to do that, it made sense to do it more earlier too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Rocket lineups over 4 minutes in game 7, -7. Warriors plus 20. Slight win for D'Antoni in the dink wars but who cares. Big minute lineups settled it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
6 of 7 most used Jazz lineups were negative in playoffs, some really terrible. All had Mitchell - Gobert. Just outplayed or were they outcoached too? Lineup concentration evaporated after Rubio went down. No clearcut, confident, effective Plan B. O'Neale not bad in boxscore but a total bomb on team plus minus. Burks won his time but only got half as much, when he played.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Almost nothing is working for Cavs against Warriors at cumulative lineup results level... except some trios involving a selection from Green, James, Korver, Nance and Clarkson. About 40% of total minutes have such trios. Put all five together? +27 per 100 possessions, though only used 14 minutes. Emphasize trios or all five together more? Maybe. Might be best bets. It doesn't always work but it appears to be working better more often than the 60% of tine without such trios.

2/3rds of Warriors bigger minute lineups are positive. All of them that are not involve at least 2 bench players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Turns out between game 1 and game 2 Lue cut use of such trios by almost half. Searching for better than that? I guess. But didn't find it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
Raw plus minus isn't a great tool but fwiw Simmons and Saric were weakest on that of the main Sixers rotation. Could be poor play, strong matchups or poor use or a combo. Whatever it is, they'll want to do better there and everywhere but maybe especially there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 5230
2017-18 Thunder lineup analysis:

414 lineups used. For an average of 3.6 games each. 31% cumulatively positive.

5 used more than 2 minutes per game for season. Intended starting lineup was used a lot and great but derailed by Roberson injury. With substitution in of Brewer or Abrines, just neutral. Ferguson, mildly negative. Huestis, very good. (But haven't heard a word about retaining him.)

If Anthony leaves, Thunder will be either playing lineups used lightly, very lightly or not at all before. Nothing played more than 1 minute per game for season and positive still possible except for one all bench lineup.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group