Author Topic: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS  (Read 4297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« on: August 03, 2015, 02:16:52 PM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
A lot of talk has been focused on who should start, who should get minutes on our stacked roster, and who should we cut. I have decided to try and use a statistical model to predict our best lineup based on -/+ stat for player combinations, as per basketball reference. I used the following rules in the data I present:

A.   I ignored lineups that played less than 100 minutes
B.   I ignored lineups that included only/mostly players who are no longer on our squad

Here are the stats for the best and worst 2 player and 3 player combos

Player 1   Player 2   Player 3       Minutes   Diff +/-
Jerebko   Olynyk           223   20
Jerebko   Thomas           223   19.1
Jerebko   Datome           141   15.3
Smart    Thomas           228   14.7
Jerebko   Crowder           325   13.6
Smart    Olynyk           609   13.3
Jerebko   Smart           274   12.8
Zeller   Thomas           178   12.1
                    
Jerebko   Thomas   Crowder       154   28.4
Jerebko   Smart    Olynyk       117   24.6
Jerebko   Smart    Thomas       126   24.3
Olynyk   Smart    Turner       240   23.8
                    
Green   Turner           443   -15.4
Rondo   Turner           202   -13.5
Bradley   Thornton           140   -12.3
                    
Green   Sully   Turner       222   -16.1
Bass   Bradley   Sully       305   -14.5

Looking at the numbers, a few things really pop out

Jerebko is a statistical BEAST. He seems to dominate the +/- followed by Thomas, Olynyk and Smart.
Turner, Sully and Bradley are inefficient players. They can stuff the stat sheet, but overall they hurt the team.

Going one step further I would say:
Jerebko may have been the steal of the offseason. He is both efficient and vestatile and brings killer 3pt shooting and plus defense. I would go as far a saying he should be a starter.
Olynyk is the keeper in the Oly/Sully dual.
Smart has a very good season and should be better next year.
Thomas is a mini beast and CAN play alongside Smart.
Bradley and ET need to go.

Here is the lineup I see working best:
IT / Smart / Jerebko / Amir Johnson / Kelly

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2015, 02:34:16 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
The stats for Jerebko and Kelly need to be taken with a grain of salt because of who they were playing against and what positions they were playing.

Jerebko put up nice stats playing as a small-ball 4 and 5 against bench units and gassed starters.  Could he be that useful playing at the 3 in the starting lineup?

Can Kelly really work as a starting center?  I kind of doubt it.  As a starter, I think he needs to be in there at the 4, though Amir can probably function effectively as the center.


I'm intrigued by the idea of starting Jonas, I'm just not sure how effective he can be at the 3.  I have little doubt that Lee and Amir will be our starting frontcourt, for better or for worse.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 03:49:18 PM by PhoSita »
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2015, 02:36:40 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
So we put Jerebko in when the other team was emptying their bench. Good to know.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2015, 02:39:25 PM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
The stats for Jerebko and Kelly need to be taken with a grain of salt because of who they were playing against and what positions they were playing.

Jerebko put up nice stats playing as a small-ball 4 and 5 against bench units and gassed starters.  Could he be that useful playing at the 3 in the starting lineup?

Can Kelly really work as a starting center?  I kind of doubt it.  As a starter, I think he needs to be in there at the 4, though Amir can probably function effectively as the center.


I'm intrigued by the idea of starting Jonas, I'm just not sure how effective he can be at the 3.  I have little down that Lee and Amir will be our starting frontcourt, for better or for worse.

I had the same exact thoughts, but didn't want to make the post TOO long...

I would consider IT / Smart / Crowder / Jerebko / Amir J as another option, with KO and Lee coming of the bench. Crowder has very decent +/- though not steller. He would add toughness and defense at the cost of offense to the lineup

I am certain IT / Smart would be better than Bradley or Turner at the 2. They stunk it up.. Also, Sully was terrible in most lineups...

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2015, 02:48:09 PM »

Offline Robert24

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 63
  • Tommy Points: 6
Jerebko shouldn't start. Olynyk should not start at center.

I think Amir has to be the starting center. He's listed at 6'9", but from looking at pictures, he's definitely taller. Looked about 6'11" to me. There's too many PFs on the team for him to not be playing at center.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2015, 02:59:33 PM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
Keep in mind that the 2 guard position has the lowest efficiency as a position. We ask Bradley and Turner to fill lower efficiency roles. If we plug Smart in there and have him score 14-15 points a game against starters and he is efficient, then he deserves the spot. But he will have to improve as a player to do it. He shot under 37% and scored less than 8 points per game in just a few less minutes than Bradley. The team needed Bradley and Turner to make plays. Smart could pick his spots.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2015, 03:05:40 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Amir...has to start ....Zeller is his backup....I have KO as a Center behind both.

Lee ...should start ....early season/mid....but Sully has the skills to replace him at some point ...if he is fit and happy.
 
I think .....CBS will go with AB ...no matter what
Smart needs to start and be on the floor .....honing his craft with the above vets ..he is part of the future  ...they'll help him improve his point game.

the rest of the players is interesting ....who will .....prove they should play the three ?

ET ....Crowder......Young ......Hunter

I predict BY the end of the season ...... Hunter will be a SOLID second string player......one who will make a noticeable difference  with his presence .

Young will continue to be a bust this year .

Rosier quietly gets better.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2015, 03:16:46 PM »

Offline max215

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
  • Tommy Points: 624
Not surprising that Smart and Crowder are extremely positive players. Jerebko I think is a mixture of excellent efficiency and lesser competition. The real surprise for me is that Bradley has had such a negative impact when on the court.
Isaiah, you were lightning in a bottle.

DKC Clippers

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2015, 03:26:14 PM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
The problem with your statistical analysis is that there's a lot of stats with little analysis. That's not supposed to come off harshly - you came up with some very interesting numbers and started an intriguing topic. But those stats need some context.

For instance, take a common CB debate: Sully vs. KO. The stats you gathered paint a great picture of Olynyk and a poor one of Sully. What needs to accompany these stats is an acknowledgement of the overall lack of talent differential between our starting lineup and our bench, in comparison to the average NBA team. Sully and Kelly are marginally better or worse than one another - yet the competition they face can often be vastly superior or inferior, depending on whose perspective you choose to view it from. Sullinger faces starting frontcourts on a game to game basis, while Olynyk faces bench mobs. If there is only little separation between Sully and Olynyk in terms of vacuum production, the superior talent Sully faces will make a big difference in how one concludes who is the better player between the two based on how they do against competition of varying talent level.

TP for the topic. Just my 2 cents on how to read the stats.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2015, 04:09:23 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Get real folks, our best lineup is some of the new guys that arrived in terms of bigs.

Sully and KO won't be playing in crunch time, I wager over Amir and maybe even Lee.  If ainge thought they were that great he would not have signed Amir, traded for Lee or resigned Jonas.  I have a feeling we are still not done in that regard for the longterm.   Both Sully and KO at the end of the day are skilled, subpar athletes.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2015, 04:10:29 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
The problem with your statistical analysis is that there's a lot of stats with little analysis.

This is something, unfortunately, that happens a lot on the basketball internet.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2015, 04:54:39 PM »

Offline ahonui06

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 614
  • Tommy Points: 27
These numbers are what mathematicians and statisticians consider outliers haha.

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2015, 02:12:32 AM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
The problem with your statistical analysis is that there's a lot of stats with little analysis. That's not supposed to come off harshly - you came up with some very interesting numbers and started an intriguing topic. But those stats need some context.

For instance, take a common CB debate: Sully vs. KO. The stats you gathered paint a great picture of Olynyk and a poor one of Sully. What needs to accompany these stats is an acknowledgement of the overall lack of talent differential between our starting lineup and our bench, in comparison to the average NBA team. Sully and Kelly are marginally better or worse than one another - yet the competition they face can often be vastly superior or inferior, depending on whose perspective you choose to view it from. Sullinger faces starting frontcourts on a game to game basis, while Olynyk faces bench mobs. If there is only little separation between Sully and Olynyk in terms of vacuum production, the superior talent Sully faces will make a big difference in how one concludes who is the better player between the two based on how they do against competition of varying talent level.

TP for the topic. Just my 2 cents on how to read the stats.

OK.. I did not add my analysis since I wanted to separate the hyperbole from the facts. Still, here are a few thoughts on why the numbers are what they are:

AB - I have posted multiple times on why Avery, though a talented hard worker is a bad fit. To summarize - he takes long 2 point shots, doesn't get to the line, is a bad passer and can't man up taller SG. He is a statistical disaster.

Sully - A MONSTER rebounder, but - takes a lot of 3s and doesn't make them (could be by design which makes him look worse than he is), doesn't move the ball, is too short to guard centers and too slow to guard wings - so he is bad switching on defense.

IT - A BEAST. Was our best pick and roll player. Gets to the line a lot and makes shots. Efficient 3pt shooter. Surprisingly good rebounder for a 5"7 dude.

Jerebko - The ideal player for today's NBA. Can guard 3 positions. VERY efficient 3pt shooter. Good passer.

As for the "face lesser competition" argument that would make our starters look bad and bench look good. I agree that this should have some effect - but not as much as some would think. Yes, Sully and Bradley started more games than KO, IT and Jerebko - BUT as the games unroll, our bench and starters mixed freely (I can back this up with lineup minutes) so many times, we had 2 or 3 starters one the floor with 2 or 3 bench players vs. a similar mix of players on the opposing squad.

It comes down to fit over talent. Celtics are playing very modern game based on ball movement, spacing, 3pt shooting and quick switches on defense. The players who fit this strategy look good and the ones who don't.... don't.

Sully is not a BAD player and KO is not a great one. But KO fits our system, and Sully.. not so much. And so it goes for AB, Jerebko, Turner, Smart etc...

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2015, 05:32:02 AM »

Offline makaveli

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3138
  • Tommy Points: 320
  • The Truth
JJ has so much game, i like crowder as well but i would like to see JJ get some quality minutes, he can flat out play.
excelent shooter
energy guy
decent D on 3 and 4
great spot up shooter
long
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Re: Our best lineup - BY THE NUMBERS
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2015, 08:16:47 AM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
JJ has so much game, i like crowder as well but i would like to see JJ get some quality minutes, he can flat out play.
excelent shooter
energy guy
decent D on 3 and 4
great spot up shooter
long

One of the best signings this summer in the whole NBA. He is a 6"9 guy who could go 40%/50%/90% (he shot 36%/50%/86% this year). That is elite shooting. He is also an above average rebounder and defender. At $5M/Yr that is virtually free in today's NBA...