Oklahoma
City |
Driving
|
Decision
Making |
Shot Selection
|
Shooting
|
Defense
|
Overall
|
Collison
|
D
|
A-
|
A
|
B+
|
A-
|
B+
|
Durant
|
B+
|
A-
|
B+ 77%
|
A
|
B+
|
A-
|
Ibaka
|
D-
|
B-
|
A 84%
|
C+
|
B+
|
B-
|
Martin
|
B-
|
C+
|
B-
|
C+
|
C
|
C+
|
Perkins
|
D-
|
D+
|
B
|
C
|
B-
|
C-
|
Sefolosha
|
C+
|
B-
|
B-
|
C+
|
B+
|
B-
|
Westbrook
|
A
|
C+
|
C- 60%
|
C
|
B-
|
B-
|
Oklahoma City Thunder
Westbrook-Martin-Sefolosha-Durant-Collison
My ideal lineup goes somewhat small and takes out both Ibaka and Perkins. It outscores opponents 140 to 113 per 100 possessions, the sixth most used lineup for the Thunder, most effective in the top 10. Second best (behind Durant) +- on the Thunder? Collison. On
court best +-.
Glad to see when my opinions are verified, However it's a small sample size for this lineup at 76.9 minutes so it doesn’t actually verify me.
Sefolosha has the second best +- per 48.
The PG for the Thunder shoots eFG of .456 which is a minimum of .101 (!)
lower than the next lowest position on the Thunder.
KD underrated a bit defensively.
The PER of the SF (Mostly KD obviously) is an absolutely
dominating 11.1, the next best, at +6.1, is put up surprisingly enough by the
PG posisition.
Sidenote.. I
think PER is a relatively decent basic basline, but I do think that it overvalues (a little
bit) players who handle the ball more (see that as hog).
Some websites like Wages of Wins really dislike it, and while I mostly agree with their points I still think it gives you some bonus data. And when that data is combined with lots of other data, and the eye test, etc, then you can come up with an even more informed conclusion about a player.
Also, WoW really dislikes +-, mostly because it has such a low consistency from year to year. Again I don't really disagree with them, but I still think that +- can be a fairly useful statistic.
Everyone else on the Thunder averages out to about a +3.
Denver
|
Driving
|
Decision M
|
Shot S
|
Shooting
|
Defense
|
Overall
|
||||||
Chandler
|
B
|
C+
|
B+
|
C
|
A+
|
B
|
||||||
Faried
|
B
|
B+
|
B+
|
B-
|
B
|
B
|
||||||
Gallinari
|
B
|
B
|
C+
|
B-
|
C+
|
B-
|
||||||
Iguodala
|
B+
|
B+
|
B
|
B-
|
B+
|
B+
|
||||||
Koufos
|
C+
|
B
|
B
|
B-
|
A-
|
B
|
||||||
Lawson
|
A-
|
B+
|
B+
|
B
|
B
|
B+
|
||||||
McGee
|
B-
|
C+
|
B
|
D
|
B
|
B-
|
||||||
*As with most teams, my defensive charting is very low, but
in my limited charting of the Nuggets
while Koufos was a very good defender, Wilson Chandler was so good he was effectively off the charts.
Denver Nuggets
Small positives for PER’s across the board.
Each position shoots more inside shots then the person he is
guarding.
It appears that Denver is good, but not superb, across the
board against good, mediocre, and bad teams. (until this last 13 game stretch when they've been superb)
3 more FTA per game then opponents.
An insanely impressive 10% more shots than opponents that
are not jump shots.
43% of their shots come within the first 10 seconds of the
shot clock.
Koufos has effectively no net production, but has a +8 +-.
McGee performs at a very high level, 22.6, but then
apparently has lapses on defense and gives up 17.7, for a net production level
of 4.9. Meanwhile his adjusted +-
needs some work at -5.2.
While Lawson is positive in all the phases, I’m a little
surprised to see his numbers so low.
I would disagree with this, but according to Simple Rating, Gallinari is
the best player on the Nuggets.
My lineup is wholly unimaginative (partially becaue it’s
just a good lineup)
Lawson, Iguodala, Gallinari, Koufos, Faried
It came in at #1 at a fairly impressive (in terms of data
size) 666.9 minutes played.
Among the top 10 most used lineups it was number 4 in
production. It outscores opponents 110 to 102 per 100 possessions.
Utah
|
Driving
|
Decision M
|
Shot S
|
Shooting
|
Defense
|
Overall
|
Burks
|
B-
|
C-
|
D+
|
C-
|
C-
|
C-
|
Carrol
|
B
|
B-
|
B+
|
C
|
C+
|
B-
|
Favors
|
C+
|
C+
|
B-
|
C
|
B-
|
C+
|
Hayward
|
C+
|
B
|
B
|
B-
|
C+
|
B-
|
Ma. Williams
|
C+
|
C-
|
D
|
D+
|
C-
|
C-
|
Utah Jazz
PG position is demolished, however the PF and C positions win
in PER. Utah Centers only shoot
36% of their shots in what is deemed to be close to the hoop.
Carroll provides a surprisingly high SR of 6.9.
Not very surprisingly, Mo and Marvin Williams both produce
vaguely high negatives in all three categories.
Tinsley gets absolutely dominated in production, but still
manages to post a + net +-. Basically
the same thing for Burks.
I’m not positive about all the positions for players for
Utah… So this lineup is a tad iffy..
Carroll, Burks, Millsap, Hayward, Jefferson (Favors)
(Tinsley)
My preferred lineup did not exist, so I went with the
closest thing,
Tinsley-Hayward-Carroll-Favors-Kanter.
It came in at #11 on the minute’s chart, and #1 in production when
compared to the top 10. Per 100
possessions it would theoretically score a healthy 125 and give up 100.
Portland
|
Driving
|
Decision M
|
Shot S
|
Shooting
|
Defense
|
Overall
|
Aldridge
|
B-
|
C
|
D
|
B-
|
C-
|
C
|
Batum
|
C-
|
C
|
D
|
C
|
C+
|
C-
|
Hickson
|
C
|
C+
|
B+
|
B-
|
B
|
B-
|
Lillard
|
B+
|
B-
|
B-
|
B-
|
C
|
B-
|
Matthews
|
C+
|
C-
|
D+
|
C+
|
D+
|
C-
|
Maynor
|
B
|
B-
|
B-
|
C+
|
C-
|
B-
|
Portland
Trailblazers
About
average PER’s except the PF and SG are -3.5.
2% more
turnovers then opponents. 7% less
inside shots as opposed to opponents.
It appears
that Portland is slightly below average when facing all three types of teams,
good, average, and poor.
Babbit is
destroyed per PER at -13.3.
Lamely
enough, I did not actually know until a couple weeks ago that Meyers Leonard
was a rookie.. I thought he was a
bit older than that. Don’t get
around to seeing many Trailblazer games..
Anyways, he struggled a bit -5.1 production net, and a +- net of -6.9.
Whoa. Lillard only gives up a 14.7 defensive
PER thought it would be closer to 17, net production rate of
1.3. For a rookie he absolutely
destroys his +- net at +9.0.
(Though one reason could be that Portland didn't really have a good
backup PG.. Until they picked up Maynor.)
Aldridge
wins his production battle 4.1, and annihilates his net +- at +9.0. Decent SR at 5.7.
Lillard-Matthews-Batum-Aldridge-Hickson
(Leonard)
The lineup
with Hickson came in at #1 in minutes and #5 in production. 106 to 110 per 100 possessions. So about average +- for Portland. And the minutes for that lineup charted
an intimidating 840.9 minutes.
The lineup
with Leonard came in at #3 in minutes and #4th in production. 115-112 per 100 possessions. And this lineup was used around 730
fewer minutes then the previous lineup.
Minnesota
|
Driving
|
Decision M
|
Shot S
|
Shooting
|
Defense
|
Overall
|
Barea
|
B+
|
B+
|
B+
|
B
|
C-
|
B
|
Kirilinko
|
C-
|
B-
|
A
|
B+
|
C+
|
B
|
Love
|
B
|
A-
|
B+
|
B+
|
B
|
B+
|
Pekovic
|
C+
|
B
|
A ‘85%!
|
C-
|
B-
|
B
|
Ridnour
|
B+
|
B+
|
B+
|
B
|
C+
|
B
|
Williams
|
B+
|
C+
|
B+
|
B-
|
B-
|
B
|
While my ratings tend to lean towards an average a fair amount higher than a C, and the T-Wolves have suffered a ton of injuries this year... C'mon, Minnesota is 23-45 right now? With a bunch of B type players, at least according to me, they should be a playoff team.
Rubio has a surprisingly bad Simple rating and +-, Ridnour’s a
little lower than expected, Williams has a bad +-.
Ignoring the obvious main injuires to the T-Wolves, (Kiri, Love, Roy, Budinger,) imo the best
lineup for them is to go fairly small with..
Rubio, Ridnour, Pekovic, Barea, and Williams
It doesn’t
exist…
I’ll try putting in Cunningham
for Barea for some size and move Williams to the SF
It doesn’t exist, so I give up on that. (since there are so many injuries the lineups are fairly random)
Most of their lineups are negatives or around 0, so I’ll just give
a shout out to a good, and very random lineup. Barea-Shved-Gelabale-Cunningham-Stiemsma
and a +22 per 100 possessions. Insanely small sample
size for it yes, but I don’t really understand how that could be a good
lineup.
No comments:
Post a Comment