thedoper wrote: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.
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.
Clearly you don't think so. But for a team who's starting unit has played 200 more minutes than any other unit on a single team team I think looking at variance in lineup data is incredibly relevant. Our starting unit has played 42% of our total minutes together. That's a huge opportunity to look at variance from the bench that isn't even close for the other teams or units you mentioned. Less noise and more cut and dry observations can be made from our unique situation.
thedoper wrote: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.
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.
Clearly you don't think so. But for a team who's starting unit has played 200 more minutes than any other unit on a single team team I think looking at variance in lineup data is incredibly relevant. Our starting unit has played 42% of our total minutes together. That's a huge opportunity to look at variance from the bench that isn't even close for the other teams or units you mentioned. Less noise and more cut and dry observations can be made from our unique situation.
I acknowledged the relevancy of the stat MULTIPLE times...
I also pointed out that there might some noise in it beyond its "all Crawford and Dieng's fault."
Doper and I went back and forth on this earlier in the season. I think it is encouraging to see that our starting lineup as a unit isn't bottom of the barrel and in fact are quite solid together. But as Doper also acknowledges, there are also a number of lineups where if you just swap one guy out (like Dieng for KAT), suddenly our D-rating goes to shit. That doesn't exonerate the other four starters, especially since KAT is probably the worst among them and I don't consider Dieng a downgrade to KAT on defense.
I personally think we have two "full-time" plus defenders in Butler and Gibson and two "part-time" plus defenders off the bench in Tyus and Bjelly. Everyone else is a full-time or part-time negative to varying degrees.
thedoper wrote: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.
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.
Clearly you don't think so. But for a team who's starting unit has played 200 more minutes than any other unit on a single team team I think looking at variance in lineup data is incredibly relevant. Our starting unit has played 42% of our total minutes together. That's a huge opportunity to look at variance from the bench that isn't even close for the other teams or units you mentioned. Less noise and more cut and dry observations can be made from our unique situation.
I acknowledged the relevancy of the stat MULTIPLE times...
I also pointed out that there might some noise in it beyond its "all Crawford and Dieng's fault."
I never said it was all their fault nor used one stat to present that. I did say that from an individual net rating they are two of our lowest players getting significant minutes. This is because they are the part of so many units that get beat. The combination of lineup data plus individual net rating leads me to the conclusion that they shouldn't be getting more minutes. So yes to use your words, saying it's "all Crawford and Dieng's fault" is a noisy conclusion.
Q12543 wrote: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.
Good points. I still like Crawford's ability to create shots but I wouldn't have been upset at getting either of those other guys. FWIW It was reported Luc wasn't interested in coming here and signed with the Rockets for the league min.
The problem with this team is it doesn't have a real identity yet and really hasn't since probably Adelman at best. That can make it difficult to find those bench players that fit when you don't know exactly what you are gonna need. It seems like Thibs to some extent is still willing to go with developing this team in some respects because he plays Tyus (even if he is the better player) went all out to get Bazz back instead of other vets and then didn't sign another vet wing but kept MGH. He did get Brooks but that made some sense because they needed another PG and having a vet behind Tyus made sense.
At this point this team the team seems to need shooting or defense from some depth guys. If you could get those things in one player...wow that would be awesome. We need to develop one guy to help out even if they don't maybe figure it out this year if they contribute down the road that would be worth it. I'm still a bit surprised they haven't signed anyone to a 2-way deal. Meanwhile some teams are signing and letting go of guys.
Moving Dieng for a wing would address that issue but create another one. Dieng is also the only insurance we currently have if KAT or Taj go down.
Cole Aldrich is the one we should be trying to move for a wing. Has a partial guaranteed contract for next year I believe. Someone mentioned the idea of moving him and Bazz to Phoenix for PJ Tucker. I'd be all for that.
KiwiMatt wrote:Moving Dieng for a wing would address that issue but create another one. Dieng is also the only insurance we currently have if KAT or Taj go down.
Cole Aldrich is the one we should be trying to move for a wing. Has a partial guaranteed contract for next year I believe. Someone mentioned the idea of moving him and Bazz to Phoenix for PJ Tucker. I'd be all for that.
PJ Tucker signed with Houston... along with Luc Mbao a Moute.
Kiwi may have meant Dudley instead of Tucker. I'd love either of those players in a Wolves uniform! I can't believe Dudley isn't gettable.....He could be a hedge as a small ball 4 too since Bjelly seems so damn unreliable on the health front.
Q12543 wrote:Kiwi may have meant Dudley instead of Tucker. I'd love either of those players in a Wolves uniform! I can't believe Dudley isn't gettable.....He could be a hedge as a small ball 4 too since Bjelly seems so damn unreliable on the health front.
Dudley and Belinelli will both be available... soon enough.
Q12543 wrote:Kiwi may have meant Dudley instead of Tucker. I'd love either of those players in a Wolves uniform! I can't believe Dudley isn't gettable.....He could be a hedge as a small ball 4 too since Bjelly seems so damn unreliable on the health front.
