C's roster vs. East Playoff Squads

[incoherent]

So I wanted to quickly gauge our roster vs. the other teams in the east in terms of quality of player top to bottom, because, like most of us, I believe our roster is very deep for not having any stars.

I know PER is a flawed stat that is somewhat weighted towards offense but overall it does a good job of generally determining the players on court value as it pretty much ignore's minutes played. (Players that play under 20mpg can still have high PERs as long as their production is good while on the court)

Top ten PERs on each team combined

Hawks: 171.96
Cavs: 168.17
Raptors: 164.73
Celtics: 160.14
Bulls: 156.07
Bucks: 149.55
Nets: 150.27
Wizards: 142

For fun I did the Knicks (128.85) and Philly (133.62)

It makes sense that the Cavs and Hawks would be at the top and that the Raptors would beat us out.  Surprised the Bulls are below us but they are notorious for overplaying their starters (Butler gets 39mpg), same thing with the Wizards (Wall 39mpg).  In comparison our best player gets only 30mpg.

Much like last year, our bench is most likely going to dominate the upcoming season.  Also the Celtics will certainly thrive when injuries start to pile up as we have a much better "next man up" roster then most of the teams in the East.  The problem is that we are by far the least top heavy, which is what generally wins in the NBA.

Regardless, great job by Danny for putting together a full roster of quality players while retaining extreme flexibility.

[LilRip]

So are you saying the Nets are going to be better than the Wiz this year? So much for our "lottery pick" from them. 

[littleteapot]

Not only is PER a flawed stat but any metric where you just add up individual efficiency stats of players will make the Cs look good because we have a team almost full of potential rotation players. Unfortunately only 5 of them can play at a time.

[jpotter33]

By this method solid quantity could potentially beat out better quality. I don't think this is a very effective way to gauge these teams, but it does validate the notion of how deep we are.

[PhoSita]

Not only is PER a flawed stat but any metric where you just add up individual efficiency stats of players will make the Cs look good because we have a team almost full of potential rotation players. Unfortunately only 5 of them can play at a time.

Correct.

[incoherent]

Not only is PER a flawed stat but any metric where you just add up individual efficiency stats of players will make the Cs look good because we have a team almost full of potential rotation players. Unfortunately only 5 of them can play at a time.

Yes I made a point to say being top heavy is what wins and we are the least top heavy.

What this does show me is we have a strong bench and will thrive when injuries come into play.

[Chris22]

So I wanted to quickly gauge our roster vs. the other teams in the east in terms of quality of player top to bottom, because, like most of us, I believe our roster is very deep for not having any stars.

I know PER is a flawed stat that is somewhat weighted towards offense but overall it does a good job of generally determining the players on court value as it pretty much ignore's minutes played. (Players that play under 20mpg can still have high PERs as long as their production is good while on the court)

Top ten PERs on each team combined

Hawks: 171.96
Cavs: 168.17
Raptors: 164.73
Celtics: 160.14
Bulls: 156.07
Bucks: 149.55
Nets: 150.27
Wizards: 142

For fun I did the Knicks (128.85) and Philly (133.62)

It makes sense that the Cavs and Hawks would be at the top and that the Raptors would beat us out.  Surprised the Bulls are below us but they are notorious for overplaying their starters (Butler gets 39mpg), same thing with the Wizards (Wall 39mpg).  In comparison our best player gets only 30mpg.

Much like last year, our bench is most likely going to dominate the upcoming season.  Also the Celtics will certainly thrive when injuries start to pile up as we have a much better "next man up" roster then most of the teams in the East.  The problem is that we are by far the least top heavy, which is what generally wins in the NBA.

Regardless, great job by Danny for putting together a full roster of quality players while retaining extreme flexibility.

Great post. I felt all this intuitively, especially the part about when injuries pile up at the end of the season, we have such depth, it won't hurt us.

[incoherent]

So are you saying the Nets are going to be better than the Wiz this year? So much for our "lottery pick" from them. 

I'm definitely not saying that but I was a little surprised by the Nets score.  Lopez is their best with 22 PER, thankfully there's little chance he'll play a full season!

The Wizards play their starters heavy minutes to offset their weaker bench. 

The scores just reflects the average quality of a teams top ten players.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Interesting. Obv you acknowledged it's an imperfect measure for team success, and yeah I agree it's a nice indicator of depth.

Made me start to wonder what optimal line-ups could be given ability, status on the team, and strength of units. Say Sully comes in less fat than fat... would it be worth giving him an early nod to start? He has proven he can succeed against 1st units, and he's arguably playing for more than any one else on the team...

Intriguing to me b/c I imagine a pretty nice PnR between IT and Lee that would cause a lot of problems for 2nd units. Would be nice to play Lee and Amir a lot together for defensive help, but all our bigs need to play with Amir. Might as well run the tires off that guy this season.

[max215]

Interesting. Obv you acknowledged it's an imperfect measure for team success, and yeah I agree it's a nice indicator of depth.

Made me start to wonder what optimal line-ups could be given ability, status on the team, and strength of units. Say Sully comes in less fat than fat... would it be worth giving him an early nod to start? He has proven he can succeed against 1st units, and he's arguably playing for more than any one else on the team...

Intriguing to me b/c I imagine a pretty nice PnR between IT and Lee that would cause a lot of problems for 2nd units. Would be nice to play Lee and Amir a lot together for defensive help, but all our bigs need to play with Amir. Might as well run the tires off that guy this season.

I've thought up these first and second units that I think work very well:

IT/Turner
Smart/Bradley
Crowder/Jerebko
Lee/Sully
Amir/Zeller

If PJ3 makes the roster, then he can have some of Jerebko's minutes. Ultimately, my hope is that Sully has a big first half and we move him as a major piece in a trade for a star. He may end up being the (fool's) gold that we need to pull off another KG trade.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Interesting. Obv you acknowledged it's an imperfect measure for team success, and yeah I agree it's a nice indicator of depth.

Made me start to wonder what optimal line-ups could be given ability, status on the team, and strength of units. Say Sully comes in less fat than fat... would it be worth giving him an early nod to start? He has proven he can succeed against 1st units, and he's arguably playing for more than any one else on the team...

Intriguing to me b/c I imagine a pretty nice PnR between IT and Lee that would cause a lot of problems for 2nd units. Would be nice to play Lee and Amir a lot together for defensive help, but all our bigs need to play with Amir. Might as well run the tires off that guy this season.

I've thought up these first and second units that I think work very well:

IT/Turner
Smart/Bradley
Crowder/Jerebko
Lee/Sully
Amir/Zeller

If PJ3 makes the roster, then he can have some of Jerebko's minutes. Ultimately, my hope is that Sully has a big first half and we move him as a major piece in a trade for a star. He may end up being the (fool's) gold that we need to pull off another KG trade.

Yeah, I could see both working. I know IT probably won't start this year, but I would love to see that 1st unit line-up for some extended minutes.

[max215]

Interesting. Obv you acknowledged it's an imperfect measure for team success, and yeah I agree it's a nice indicator of depth.

Made me start to wonder what optimal line-ups could be given ability, status on the team, and strength of units. Say Sully comes in less fat than fat... would it be worth giving him an early nod to start? He has proven he can succeed against 1st units, and he's arguably playing for more than any one else on the team...

Intriguing to me b/c I imagine a pretty nice PnR between IT and Lee that would cause a lot of problems for 2nd units. Would be nice to play Lee and Amir a lot together for defensive help, but all our bigs need to play with Amir. Might as well run the tires off that guy this season.

I've thought up these first and second units that I think work very well:

IT/Turner
Smart/Bradley
Crowder/Jerebko
Lee/Sully
Amir/Zeller

If PJ3 makes the roster, then he can have some of Jerebko's minutes. Ultimately, my hope is that Sully has a big first half and we move him as a major piece in a trade for a star. He may end up being the (fool's) gold that we need to pull off another KG trade.

Yeah, I could see both working. I know IT probably won't start this year, but I would love to see that 1st unit line-up for some extended minutes.

Just to be clear, those are the lineups I want to see. I would bet our starting lineup on opening night is as follows:

Smart
Bradley
Crowder
Lee or Sully
Amir

Honestly, I think the designation as a 'starter' won't matter all that much for us, with guys like Thomas and Sully/Lee getting close to 30 minutes off the bench. However, I think we'll see a lot of my desired first unit in crunch time.

[littleteapot]

Not only is PER a flawed stat but any metric where you just add up individual efficiency stats of players will make the Cs look good because we have a team almost full of potential rotation players. Unfortunately only 5 of them can play at a time.

I think we are protected from the two nightmare scenarios where half your team gets hurt or your team is completely reliant on one player and that guy goes down. However, I don't know if normal injury situations will give us a huge advantage. If Marcus Smart and Kyle Lowry are both out for the season, I still think Toronto is much better than us. Isiah Thomas and Avery Bradley are worlds better than the other options Toronto would have, but those guys would still be in a tough spot to succeed because they would be playing with the same hodge-podge of other players, instead of legitimate starters like Valanciunas and DeRozan, and Patrick Patterson who last year was a much better 6th man than anyone we have.

[D.o.s.]

Wouldn't it be possible to do the same sort of methodology (flawed as it is, being based on PER and otherwise) with a Playoff rotation of 8 or 9 guys, rather than stacking the entire rosters?

[ahonui06]

I'd have to agree with some other posters that PER shouldn't be used as a team/collective statistic since it is an individual efficiency metric.

That being said, Boston does have a solid roster compared to most other Eastern squads.