The problem is most of those lineups have fewer than 30 minutes total played all season and larsv8 mentioned the small sample size. And trust me, most of those lineups wouldn't be as great if they'd played more minutes or played against starters. Like that 2nd-best lineup sorted in terms of NetRtg has only played 19 minutes in 5 games - that's like less than 4 minutes per game. The 3rd- and 4th-best lineups are just as bad in terms of minutes they've played. Almost all of those lineups haven't even played 30 minutes all season. It's somewhat like saying a guy averages 4 ppg playing 8 mins/game, so if we played him 32 mins/game well, hell, he'd be a 16 ppg scorer - why isn't he starting?! Also, to put this in perspective, switch it over the Celtics or the Bucks and a few of their "best" 5-man lineups don't include Giannis or Jaylen Brown... again because of the minutes/games played and who was playing at the time (probably starters vs backups). I'd like to see some of those lineups more, too, but I'm not confident many of them would fare well with more time. That being said, I agree with others - I want Tari to get more time, but that may come at the expense of lottery balls or something. lol.
Why not? Bench Gordon and Smith and play KMJ and Eason instead. It's not like we have anything to lose.
The lineup with the large sample size is bad. This is irrelevant of the sample size of the others. So we ask what makes it bad. We are looking at the other 5s to get useful info on what to try more. It doesn’t mean the small sample sizes would work better for sure but you gotta try and see what happens.
Well, that's precisely why the minutes/game and small sample sizes exist - they're trying and seeing what happens with multiple lineups. If you look at bad teams, they probably all have this issue. They're going to go through multiple sets of 5-man rotations. Arguing a lineup that has played 19 minutes in 5 games is good/bad/better/worse is moot. I mean, you can say "I sure would like to see that lineup more", and I may agree with you, but arguing that that lineup is somehow better than whatever other lineup we throw out there simply based upon NetRtg in 19 minutes is almost pointless.
I am not arguing the second line up will perform better. But there is relative information there that you cannot dismiss totally. The second, third and fourth lineups all have a similar structure. They total to 75 minutes. It is not negligible and I think is a good starting point to identify problems and what try more.
The sample size definitely small, plus if you expect Bruno will continue distribute better than CP3 and Garuba shoot better than Steph, I'll be pity on you. However, we are at the bottom of the standing and it can't be worse anyway. Even if you said bringing Augustine back from the grave to run this team, I'll have no problem with it. The problem is, Silas won't do it no matter how much evidence you are presenting.
I can agree with that. I was referring to looking at each lineup individually and saying "this lineup should be playing more". For example, if you see a lineup with Garuba and Eason have better NetRtg or some other stat(s), maybe you try that or even if the eye test tells you that. I'm just against looking at each row and saying "yes, that is a better lineup" when each row hardly shows any playing time over the course of the season. Interestingly you can filter/sort by 2-, 3-, and 4-man lineups, too, but I don't know if that's better or worse. lol
I know, individual lineups is not what I am looking at. Rather groups of players and lineup structures. i actually spent a lot of time on the 2 3 4 man lineups. But you lose information there since the remaining spots are bundled into one number. It is more informative to filter out the 3 man, from the 5 man line up and look at how they do in different 5 man combinations. To do that after choosing 5 man line up, press the filter icon to the right top of the table and into lineup option enter the player name. You can push filter icon again to add another player. That way you can list all 5 man lineups that has Garuba, green, tari for example.
These lineups can be REALLY misleading based on how the coach handles the rotations. Just to give an example - if you play with Jabari, your lineups will be bad, and if you play with Tari, your lineups will be good. The guys that are forced to play with Jabari all the time look really bad. The guys who always get to play with Tari look really good. To give some examples... Jalen Green net rating: -12 Jalen Green with Jabari: -20 Jalen Green without Jabari: -2.3 Jalen Green without Jabari and WITH Tari: +10.3 KPJ net rating: -9.3 KPJ with Jabari: -15.6 KPJ without Jabari: +4.9 KPJ without Jabari and with Tari: +13 Sengun net rating: -9.6 Sengun with Jabari: -18.7 Sengun without Jabari: +5 Sengun without Jabari and with Tari: +5.5 Another one to add here that really bothers me is that I always felt Sengun and KMJ had really really good chemistry. It was clear as day last year, they just played so well together. And then this year, since Sengun is a starter, and Martin is not, they rarely get to play together. It seems like Garuba always comes in as a pair with KMJ, and Sengun sits down. Data to support my eye test- Sengun with KMJ and without Jabari: +13.1
I want to see the productivity of garuba Jabari Tari KPJ Green I think I saw this lineup tonight and it looked good.
Because playing EG and Smith is bringing the desired results - minutes for Jabari and increasing digits in the L column.
