Yes, but those are actual in-game used lineups; depending on sample size they might have been used against particularly strong or weak teams (or other sample size issue. for example, going small might work particularly well against a certain team, but not the rest of the league) . Winston is doing a projected performance for a lineup combination against an "average" team.
Right. But those numbers are an actual reflection of the team's output.
Projections normally tend not to account for fluctuations such as slumps, simply because it's very hard to predict those things. For example, Matt Bonner contribution is substantially different before and after his injury.
Another example would be Manu having a bad shooting stretch up until the recent rodeo road trip. Now, I'm not saying that his numbers are wrong or useless. I just think concrete numbers are more valuable.
Shocking! You mean when five of the seven best players on the team are on the court at the same time, playing their primary positions, that's when this team is at it's best? Imagine that?!
Pop needs to accept the fact that the Spurs, no matter how much he wants Bogans to be it, don't have a stopper on the wing, but with their commitment level, if he just cuts the small ball nonsense out, this can still be a solid defensive team. They don't have the personnel to be better than that, but they could still probably get to 7-8 in the league, rather than 9-11, which is where they hover at now.
I'm 50/50 on McDyess/Blair starting. I'd lean towards McDyess, but he claims to be more comfortable off the bench and honestly, it doesn't matter much. Like Ginobili, particularly when it matters most, he'll be playing starters minutes either way. Other than that, Duncan, Parker, Jefferson and Hill should start and along with Ginobili play the majority of the minutes. After that, Mason should round out the rotation, with Mahinmi/Hairston used sparingly. Bonner/Finley/Bogans should be on the outs.
OMG, someone show the stats to pop, that Parker - Hill - Ginobili - RJ - TD lineup stats...
I thought he spent some time during the AS break to figure things out
some thoughts from these numbers :
1) Duncan- Parker- Ginobili- Hill are by far the most succesful players
2) Tony and tim are together on the five lineups where they appear
3) RJ isn't on the two clearly best lineups
4) No small ball on these 7 best lineups even if the Blair-Bonner duo, which isn't a typical big men lineup, seems to work well (third best lineup).
5) Hill is the clear fourth man on this team. Indeed, if you add all the points, he is ahead the big thee (161) with tim, tony and manu being at 148.
6) While tim and tony play always together on their five lineups (see 2) ), manu appears in two lineups being the only member of the big three. Good idea to bring him from the bench.
what is surprising from these stats is that they bring different things than the 48MOH ones:
manu's role is largely down in these stats. not only manu doesn't appear on the four most used lineup (?) but he isn't on the two best lineup in Win% whereas RJ is. strange.
http://www.82games.com/0910/0910SAS2.HTM
Last edited by kace; 02-24-2010 at 08:12 AM.
these are really some great informations.
the shocking part:
Duncan-McDyess-Ginobili-Hill-Parker-------------48.24
Duncan-McDyess-Jefferson-Hill-Parker --------- 27.74
what a drop of production, when just RJ replaces Manu! didn't think it could be that significant.
seriously what the
Really, that's the difference between 2 guys who can kind of make a shot for either themselves or somebody else (Duncan, Parker) and 3 Guys (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili). Between that and the fact that Jefferson's effort level on D can be matched by Ginobli's left nut alone...
Imagine that? The units with Manu starting, two bigs, and Hill playing his native position give the highest per.......
I also noticed the extreme falloff whenever y J or Mason become part of the equation.
Small ball and Bogans = failure. You and many others have been preaching that for months now and Winston's stats bear it out. And Pop can't see this? Wonder why? Arrogance? Inability to adjust to the team's current talent level/capabilities? Most here would love to get inside his head and know why and what he is thinking.
Also statistics can prove anything so it isn't surprising that he believes that Odom and Deng are better than Kobe. But if we asked him who would you want to take the last shot with the game on the line between those three players I'd bet he would probalby take Kobe. If not then he, like Hollinger, are in love and blinded by their own statistics.
Or he has been draining his inventory from the winery.and yet our most used lineups are http://www.82games.com/0910/0910SAS2.HTM
Pop's saving the good lineups for the playoffs, He must be planning on making some playoff bets and hustling the NBA. which could also mean this is his last year and he's trying to make a little extra retirement money
That's was somewhat surprising to me but after thinking about it, not really. Over the past several months I've come to believe that RJ is a failed experiment and the Spurs would be better off with him coming off the bench. The difference is significant.
So the Spurs FO has been touted as one of the best in sports and they usually do their due diligence and evaluate their progress. Why haven't they figured this out yet?
I just want toat times!
Last edited by NFGIII; 02-25-2010 at 03:56 PM.
Notes from Wayne Winston, part 2
by Timothy Varner
48 Minutes of
Recently, 48MoH has discussed the struggles of San Antonio’s interior defense. Please see The Roots of Defensive Decline and The Root of All Defensive Evil for discussion of these points. But a struggling interior defense is often an indication of a prior breakdown on the perimeter, which seems to be the case with San Antonio this season, Manu Ginobili’s Manu-ness not withstanding. (He’s gone all ice cold clutch lately.) This post will look at the bigger picture, and my timing couldn’t be worse.
One point of interest from my recent conversation with Wayne Winston is whether George Karl is correct in his assessment that,
Keep reading →
I'm starting to wonder if Ginobili could work well at SF. It seems to me that the one or times they matched up on a mismatch Durant had a tougher time with Ginobili than he did RJ/Bogans. He's long, lanky, athletic, might be good for the spot.
The statistics are good, but the interpetation is wrong. This is why you have to watch the game today and as it has been played in the past on defense.
Penetration to the basket is not the root problem, nor is open shooters. Both of these problems are caused by small lineups or poor rotations by the bigs. We use to crowd the shooters and dared them to drive on our bigs. Our bigs would rotate in a way where one would cut off the driver and the other would position for the block out. The off wing player would play center field waiting to cut off any pass.
The problem now is when we go small and crowd the shooter the driver goes to the basket and the big that is their to defend the basket is left in no mans land as he tries to defend the basket from the defender and protect the backside at the same time. If he comes out on the driver, the driver simply throws it up because he knows his man will get the ball on the back side for the easy put back. We see this as part of the high number of offensive rebounds that we give up.
When Blair is the primary big on the floor most drivers can simply go over the top of him anyway. The perimeter defenders know this so they are more worried about the drive than the shot, thus we leave more shooters wide open. Add this equation into a simple pick and roll and the defense can easily be picked apart by any NBA team.
The interior defense must be fixed first before we can start pin pointing problems on the perimeter defense.
They're both huge problems and the numbers show it..
Our perimeter D is extremely slow and lacks athleticism, just like our interior D..at least Duncan still has a huge impact on our D, as the numbers show, but we don't have ANY consistently effective perimeter defenders..our perimeter "stopper", Keith Bogans, has the worst +/- of any Spurs player..how is that allowed?..how the can that be our perimeter stopper?..the defense is better with Bogans on the bench and the numbers back that up..
Notes from Wayne Winston, part 3
by Timothy Varner
48 Minutes of
Over the last two games, the Spurs floored more traditional lineups, eschewing small-ball combinations for the better part of each contest. This has something to do with Gregg Popovich’s efforts to keep Richard Jefferson at small forward rather than power forward, where he languishes. Coach Popovich has not shown a complete aversion to small-ball, nor should he. But the last two games find the Spurs trending back toward two-big lineups.
Keep reading →
More Wayne Winston on the Spurs Notes
http://waynewinston.com/wordpress/?p=469
San Antonio
Hairston (+23) has been great in limited minutes while Bogans (-11) and Bonner (-4) have struggled.
"Spurs trending back toward two-big lineups"
These seven words are like music to my ears.
And the effect, on-court, is significant. When we play our best lineups and best players, it gives us much better chances to win ball games. A shame it's taken this long.
Yep, small ball line up numbers are to low to even be up on that list.
Too small of a sample size for Hairston, but Bogans' bad +/- considering how many minutes he plays with our best players is pretty sad and isn't surprising..
man i like hill manu jefferson duncan and mcdyess (or blair)
it is a fun lineup to watch
Small sample size, you bet. But we appear to be cutting down to an 8 or 9 man rotation.
Too small of a sample size for Hairston, but Bogans' bad +/- considering how many minutes he plays with our best players is pretty sad and isn't surprising..
TP, Duncan, Manu, Jefferson, Hill, McDyess, Blair are pretty much all in, but are only 7.
If you need another big, chose between Bonner and Mahinmi (and yeah, I think the Hornets game is a pretty good indication that that choice has been made in Bonner's favor).
If you need a wing, chose between Hairston, Bogans and Mason. At least 2 of those options have demonstrated suck this season. I'd be really tempted to give Hairston some burn as part of the shaking down process, and pray it works out. I don't think that a team with Mason or Bogans in it's top eight is going all the way...
Well Sean said that Pop was planning on giving Hairston minutes and experience down the stretch..so I'm sure(at least I hope) that Malik will get a shot..he's already better than Bogans to begin with, but I expect Bogans' shooting and offense to be even worse with the apparent finger injury now..
If it's between Hairston and Mason, Pop will go with Hairston for his "defensive presence"..also, I don't think he's too fond of Mason at this point with the trade demand..
Bogans has the worst +/- on the team this season and he's in a huge slump offensively..we aren't losing anything if he's replaced..
Spot on, my man. Spot on.
Pop needs to get over himself, keep Bogans on the pine, NOT in the starting lineup.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
