Small ball..

[HarlemHeat37]

So I looked into the whole small ball style for this season..I'm not done looking at the data to form an opinion on certain matchups and trends with small ball, so I'll be posting that when I finish in a few days or whenever I have time to complete it all..it'll be more in depth and we'll see if we notice anything..

Just looking at the simple numbers, it's just as we all expected, and it's not just a perception..I didn't count a Bonner-Blair frontcourt as small ball since I don't consider it to be small ball, just an undersized frontcourt..so I counted Bonner as a big man, even though some might disagree..

After tonight's game, the Spurs are +213 points this season when we use a normal lineup that consists of 2 big men on the court at the same time..when we use only 1 big man + either Richard Jefferson, Michael Finley, Manu Ginobili and even Roger Mason at PF this season, the Spurs are +1..that is a MASSIVE difference..this number might even be worse since the game vs. Golden State had huge success with small ball and probably inflated the numbers..

That really is a huge difference though, and I'll be interested to see how the specific matchups and trends work with the stats once I really look into it..the number is like we all expected though, and it really is something that needs to stop..

[MaNu4Tres]

Nice dig Harlem

Small ball + lack of length and athleticism (more so foot speed/lateral quickness) on the perimeter, and to some degree on the interior, has been the culprit of the defensive demise.

[timvp]

Nice like this will be a quality thread :tu

Last year, small ball was pretty effective in a plus/minus sense. I haven't researched the numbers this season -- but if the spread is as huge as your work shows, that indeed validates those of us who despise small ball.

The most annoying use of small ball recently has been when the Spurs are playing well and then out of the blue Pop goes to small ball ... to only see the tide turn.

[kace]

good job at searching that.

and i don't like small ball either.

but, as often, the stats don't necessarily say the whole thing. You can imagine that smal ball was used by Pop for specific matchups and we don't know what those matchups would have been with two bigs.

It could have been even worse than +1 against those specific matchups we faced when we used small ball, .
maybe we just don't have the personnel and/or the gameplan to do well against those specific matchups that made Pop use small ball, who knows.

Honestly, from what i see in games, i don't think that's totally the case, but with the stats, you can arguably say everything that you want, and the contrary.

[xellos88330]

I cannot wait to see what numbers you come up with when you are done.

I am still wanting to see more of Mahinmi instead of small ball.

[Small Ball]

Pop has reconciled with me. His PMS finally ended.

[Obstructed_View]

The stats don't matter, folks. When the Spurs go small and immediately give up lots and lots of points, you don't realize that Pop is a genius with four rings and the Spurs would have given up those points but been completely unable to score without a bunch of undersized guys out there jacking up long jumpers, so with two bigs in the game they would have lost by like, I don't know, forty points.

[ElNono]

I hate when we try to either match up or create a mismatch by going small when we were doing just fine (sometimes building a lead, like last night) playing big. Pop does that even against scrub teams, and it's really annoying.

[SpurNation]

Apparently the numbers don't lie. That only means someone is lying to them self.

It appears many (who have a better IQ and understanding greater than mine) can't comprehend this as well.

Perhaps there is some method to the apparent madness we as casual and sometimes elevated coniseurs of the game just can't quite grasp.

Interesting and revealing dig. Thanks

[SCdac]

Even looking at Jefferson's individual production statistically, he has more of an impact (or less of a poor impact) when playing small forward than any other position. According to 82games.com, Jefferson has played 18% of the teams total minutes at PF, and in those minutes it hasn't brought many positives, if any..... just a few that standout to me.

Production by position:
SF: +98 net points
PF: +16 net points

Win %:
SF: 69%
PF: 59%

Defense (by position):
SF: 92.7 points
PF: 99.8 points

Opponent counterpart 48-minute production:
SF: 17.8 points (.492 eFG%)
PF: 21.5 points (.561 eFG%)

Net 48-minute production:
SF: +0.0 PER
PF: -6.7 PER

I won't argue that him playing minutes at PF is the 'direct' cause of him not playing well, but I think it's a factor. In the end, it's on HIM to improve and be that 13 million dollar player, but the stats suggest he's not playing well at the 4-spot for us, and I really wish Pop would scrap that role for him.

[lurker23]

Great job HarlemHeat37. :tu Can't wait to see the extended analysis. Just out of curiosity, where did you get the raw data?

[sabar]

Hopefully you can dig up these things too.

1. Defensive rebounding rate
2. Points against diff teams or lineup types with both styles

Dunno where you get the raw data from, but good job as usual. You have some quality posts at Spurstalk.

[pad300]

From 82games.com lineups data
http://www.82games.com/0910/0910SAS2.HTM

SAS top 10 units by minutes played, sorted by Win % (the number of times this unit has outscored its opponent over the total number of times the unit has seen the floor).

Unit Win % Min
Parker-Bogans-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 0.666666667 186.5 Big
Parker-Mason-Ginobili-McDyess-Duncan 0.636363636 39.4 Big
Parker-Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-Duncan 0.636363636 37.3 Small
Parker-Ginobili-Bogans-Blair-Duncan 0.571428571 39.1 Big
Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-Bonner-Duncan 0.545454545 43.7 Big
Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 0.533333333 42.7 Big
Hill-Mason-Ginobili-McDyess-Blair 0.5 45.5 Big
Hill-Mason-Ginobili-Jefferson-Blair 0.5 38.8 Small
Parker-Bogans-Jefferson-Blair-Duncan 0.4 123.6 Big
Parker-Finley-Jefferson-Bonner-Duncan 0.333333333 50.4 Big

There does not appear to be a strong correlation of small/big ball and win %.
Looking more closely, the data is available to calculate +/- per minute played for the lineup.

Unit Min "+/-" "+/- per min"
Hill-Mason-Ginobili-McDyess-Blair 45.5 17 0.373626374 Big
Parker-Ginobili-Jeff.-Bonner-Duncan 43.7 14 0.320366133 Big
Parker-Bogans-Jeff.-McDyess-Duncan 186.5 39 0.209115282 Big
Parker-Mason-Ginobili-McDyess-Duncan 39.4 6 0.152284264 Big
Parker-Ginobili-Jeff.-McDyess-Duncan 42.7 3 0.070257611 Big
Parker-Hill-Ginobili-Jeff.-Duncan 37.3 1 0.026809651 Small
Parker-Bogans-Jeff.-Blair-Duncan 123.6 0 0 Big
Parker-Finley-Jeff.-Bonner-Duncan 50.4 0 0 Big
Hill-Mason-Ginobili-Jeff.-Blair 38.8 -2 -0.051546392 Small
Parker-Ginobili-Bogans-Blair-Duncan 39.1 -3 -0.076726343 Big

Looking at the data in this fashion, shows that of our top 10 most used lineups, the big ball appears distinctly superior in term of +/- per minute.

However, the lineups shown only account for 647 minutes, less than a 1/3 of the minutes played. I do not know how to find the data for the other 2/3 of the minutes played. Also, consider LA's page; there top 10 units account for 1390 minutes, with 424 on their most used lineup. Even with the injury to Gasol, it is clear that their rotation is much more settled than ours. Similarly the Cavs (1088 and 365 minutes), the Mavs (1119 and 311 minutes), and so forth. Pop is still doing a crapload of mucking with the lineups. Hopefully, he will look at the 2nd table, and figure it out.

Finally, and perhaps most worrysome, the most productive lineup for SAS is +0.3723 pts/min. Each of LA, DAL, and CLE have at least 6 lineup combinations that have been more productive than that.

[Obstructed_View]

Well apparently I was mistaken, as it seems clear that no lineup can seem to play defense on this team.