Game Report - Wolves v. Blazers

[thedoper]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

That's a crazy stat. Where'd you find it.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

Nailed it, doper. Couldn't agree more with this.

[thedoper]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

That's a crazy stat. Where'd you find it.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612750/lineups-advanced/?sort=MIN&dir=1

Compare our lineup advanced stats to team rankings.

[Monster]

It seems to me there is still a scarcity value when it comes to worthwhile wings. That's part of why Wiggins is gonna keep playing a ton and why getting a wing above replacement level or a guy you could sign off the street sounds unlikely to me. If the Wolves really wanted to get a placeholder type wing just sign Brandon Rush or some other dude like that. It's interesting to me they don't seem interested in doing that. My guess is they are committed to giving young guys like MGH, Bazz and even maybe Anthony Brown a shot at the job during the season. We will see.

What this team could use is a mobile PF or combo forward that can play some decent minutes if Belly can't stay healthy or to fill in for a few games here and there when he misses some games. Belly coming back and playing well would be huge. He and Dieng are a pretty nice duo to have off the bench. Last year it got to be a place where usually at least one of those guys was playing well in any given game.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

That's a crazy stat. Where'd you find it.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612750/lineups-advanced/?sort=MIN&dir=1

Compare our lineup advanced stats to team rankings.

Cool. But it seems like a noisy statistic or something.

Denver is not good defensively (#22) but its most-used lineup is at 100.5.
Phoenix has the worst defense in the league. But it's most used lineup is at 98.6.
Atlanta is at 100.2.

"But the Wolves lineup plays a lot more than those lineups... so 102.5 over a longer period is better?"

Fair enough. There's some truth to that. So let's look at other heavier played starting lineups:

Out of the top 25 most-played lineups... Minnesota ranks #17th in Def Rating. Again, Minnesota's lineup plays together a lot more than these... but there sure seems to be some truth in many other teams falling apart a bit when it goes to bench units.

The one obvious outlier? Detroit. 2nd in the NBA with minutes for its starting lineup... they are -7 collectively with a 113+ defensive rating. What?

[thedoper]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

That's a crazy stat. Where'd you find it.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612750/lineups-advanced/?sort=MIN&dir=1

Compare our lineup advanced stats to team rankings.

Cool. But it seems like a noisy statistic or something.

Denver is not good defensively (#22) but its most-used lineup is at 100.5.
Phoenix has the worst defense in the league. But it's most used lineup is at 98.6.
Atlanta is at 100.2.

"But the Wolves lineup plays a lot more than those lineups... so 102.5 over a longer period is better?"

Fair enough. There's some truth to that. So let's look at other heavier played starting lineups:

Out of the top 25 most-played lineups... Minnesota ranks #17th in Def Rating. Again, Minnesota's lineup plays together a lot more than these... but there sure seems to be some truth in many other teams falling apart a bit when it goes to bench units.

The one obvious outlier? Detroit. 2nd in the NBA with minutes for its starting lineup... they are -7 collectively with a 113+ defensive rating. What?

So basically you're saying that Denver, Phoenix and Atlanta, like us, have huge bench issues? That seems to make sense to me based on their personnel. I don't think there's too much noise there, I think you'd be onto something more accurate if it were a graph of unit def rating / minutes played as you seem to be alluding to with your quote. The lineup data only helps you isolate what is contributing to your total team stats from how I see it.

The fact remains if our team D and often offense was better defensively once our starters began sitting down we'd be a better team overall. This doesn't absolve the starters. Outside of the starting unit many of those players are part of horrible 5 man lineups, but together they're pretty good. I think it is a depth issue, and I agree with Cam's notion that we lose less by gaining depth at the wing instead of the front court. I know many think G is a good defender, I really haven't seen it for a few years now. I'd rather have someone quicker who can close out on shooters which seems to be how opposing bench units kill us.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

One of the theories of moving Dieng to the bench is that he was finally taking his rightful place as a backup big and after a couple years playing starting-level minutes, could really do some damage playing against inferior bench bigs. Hasn't happened unfortunately.....

Crawford saved our ass last night, but on balance, he's been more of a liability than an asset. His defense is awful, far worse than Wiggins and probably even worse than Bazz.

I think one of the mistakes Thibs made was going after Crawford vs. a Thabo or Mbah Moute.

[thedoper]

One of the theories of moving Dieng to the bench is that he was finally taking his rightful place as a backup big and after a couple years playing starting-level minutes, could really do some damage playing against inferior bench bigs. Hasn't happened unfortunately.....

Crawford saved our ass last night, but on balance, he's been more of a liability than an asset. His defense is awful, far worse than Wiggins and probably even worse than Bazz.

I think one of the mistakes Thibs made was going after Crawford vs. a Thabo or Mbah Moute.

I wasn't thrilled with the possibility of Luc but I think you are spot on here. Combining Bazz and Crawford in any unit is suicide.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Crawford and Dieng shouldn't be getting more minutes simply because the two of them together bring our stats down to one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Our starters have a defensive rating of 102.5, which would tie us for 7th best in the league. All other combinations of lineups drag us down to 26th in the league. Looking at individual net rating, Dieng and Crawford are the lowest of players getting significant minutes. Trading G for a serviceable wing could do a lot for us, including giving a clear alternative at the wing when Wiggins shot isn't falling. G for 14 mil to sit on the bench isn't giving us anything, particularly since he hasn't been a plus player this year.

That's a crazy stat. Where'd you find it.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612750/lineups-advanced/?sort=MIN&dir=1

Compare our lineup advanced stats to team rankings.

Cool. But it seems like a noisy statistic or something.

Denver is not good defensively (#22) but its most-used lineup is at 100.5.
Phoenix has the worst defense in the league. But it's most used lineup is at 98.6.
Atlanta is at 100.2.

"But the Wolves lineup plays a lot more than those lineups... so 102.5 over a longer period is better?"

Fair enough. There's some truth to that. So let's look at other heavier played starting lineups:

Out of the top 25 most-played lineups... Minnesota ranks #17th in Def Rating. Again, Minnesota's lineup plays together a lot more than these... but there sure seems to be some truth in many other teams falling apart a bit when it goes to bench units.

The one obvious outlier? Detroit. 2nd in the NBA with minutes for its starting lineup... they are -7 collectively with a 113+ defensive rating. What?

So basically you're saying that Denver, Phoenix and Atlanta, like us, have huge bench issues? That seems to make sense to me based on their personnel. I don't think there's too much noise there, I think you'd be onto something more accurate if it were a graph of unit def rating / minutes played as you seem to be alluding to with your quote. The lineup data only helps you isolate what is contributing to your total team stats from how I see it.

The fact remains if our team D and often offense was better defensively once our starters began sitting down we'd be a better team overall. This doesn't absolve the starters. Outside of the starting unit many of those players are part of horrible 5 man lineups, but together they're pretty good. I think it is a depth issue, and I agree with Cam's notion that we lose less by gaining depth at the wing instead of the front court. I know many think G is a good defender, I really haven't seen it for a few years now. I'd rather have someone quicker who can close out on shooters which seems to be how opposing bench units kill us.

I think MOST teams probably have bench issues.

And I think the stat, while definitely with some merit, isn't as cut-and-dry as you painted it.