Two man combos (AKA The Ryan Hollins Experience)
by Stop-n-Pop on Mar 10, 2010 7:53 AM CST
Email
PrintOne of the main themes we have written about over the past few weeks is absurdity of some of the Wolves' recent rotations. How weird are these rotations? I believe there are two solid ways for average fans to break down team play: comparison of 2 and 5 man units. 5 man plus/minus stats give us an idea of how well entire rotations play together. 2 man plus/minus stats give us an idea of how substitution patterns can be better constructed and how different player combos can affect the greater lineup when subbed in with one another (or for one another). By comparing how smaller rotations are worked into greater 5 man units, we can make decisions about who plays better with who, who is effective with other 2 man pairings, who doesn't work well together, who makes the biggest impact on 5 man rotations, and so on and so forth.
- Brewer/Flynn, Brewer/Jefferson, Flynn/Jefferson, Brewer/Gomes, Flynn/Gomes, and Gomes/Jefferson are the heavy lifters, each with more than 1000 combined minutes. Each duo also has a negative efficiency margin, the least offensive being Gomes/Jefferson.
- The highest rated duo on the team is Gomes/Sessions, with an eff margin of +3 in 528 minutes.
- Of all the duos with an eff margin more than the team average, only one pairing is a duo from the starting lineup (Gomes/Jefferson). (Note: This could have a lot to do with the relative level of competition; we'll have more on that angle in a later post; the bad news here is that there is data that suggests the reserves play just as much better against opposing starters as do the starters. This angle is also diminished in 2 man pairings because it's easier to compare how well a Starter A/Starter B combo does in relation to Starter A/Bench Player A or Starter B/Bench Player A than it is with similar comparisons in large 5 man groupings.)
- One of the most reliable indicators of the Wolves performing above their own efficiency average is a double digit positive possession margin. In plain English, when a Wolves duo creates 10 or more possessions per its time on the court than its opposition, the Wolves have a fighting chance. This is yet another reminder of just how inefficiently the Wolves' offense has played this year and how poorly they shoot the ball from the floor.
- The Wolves' starting front court duo (Jefferson/Hollins) is the 2nd worst duo on the team next to Jefferson/Pavs. The 3rd worst duo are yet another starting pairing, Flynn/Hollins...as are the 4th (Gomes/Hollins) and 5th (Brewer/Hollins).
- The Wolves' best post duo is Love/Jefferson, and it's really not even close.
- Sessions/Gomes > Flynn/Gomes, Brewer/Sessions > Brewer/Flynn, Jefferson/Sessions > Flynn/Jefferson...you get the picture.
- Kevin Love does not have a single 500+ possession pairing below the team average. Ramon Sessions only has one, when he is paired with Pavlovic.
- Ryan Hollins is a black hole of suck.
- Jonny Flynn plays relatively well with Wayne Ellington compared to Sessions. Ellington plays relatively well with Kevin Love compared to Sessions. How many minutes do you think the Ellington/Flynn/Love combo has seen the court? Would you be shocked to learn that the lineup of Flynn, Ellington, Gomes, Love, and Jefferson has actually been somewhat effective in very limited action?
But in the Mavs’ infamous first-round loss to Golden State two seasons later? “I got burned when following the advanced stats,” Johnson says. Winston’s numbers showed that during the regular season, the Warriors had smoked the usual Dallas starting line-up, which featured Dampier at center. In a decision he now regrets, Johnson adjusted his starting line-up for Game 1 by benching Dampier and starting Nowitzki at center. The Mavs lost. Johnson, though, stands by the decison. “It was the right move,” he insists. Still, he reversed course for Game 2 and went back to the normal starting line-up. Dallas won, and Johnson believes the Mavs played better because they were–psychologically–more comfortable with Damp at center. “Everybody had freaked out” at the Game 1 line-up change, Johnson says.
And that represents the closest thing to a consensus that emerged from this panel: The best decisions will be made when coaches consider advanced stats not alone, but alongside everything else—what their eyes tell them, what the film shows and the psychology of each individual player.
...
Nate Silver suggests that numbers are crucial, but that in-game context matters. If the stats say a football team should go for it on 4th down and five 62 percent of the time, the crucial thing will be figuring out if a particular 4th down falls under that 62 percent. That might have to do with the personnel available, the health of the team, the weather and other variables, Silver says. “But if every time 4th and 5 comes up, you’re looking for excuses not to go for it, you’re probably not making the best decisions,” he says. (Silver in general believes coaches should experiment more with different line-ups. “You have some regular-season games against the Clippers,” he says, becoming at least the fourth person to insult the poor Clips today).
Back to hoops: It’s clear Johnson wants to learn from the Wayne Winstons of the world, but he believes such information should form just part of the decision-making equation. In Dallas, for instance, Cuban hired a full-time sports psychologist to talk to the players and attend every practice. Johnson thought it intrusive at first but grew to like the arrangement, because the psychologist–like Winston–gave him more information. “It gives me an edge beyond knowing what happens when Jason Terry gets the ball on the right side of the floor,” Johnson says. “What is he thinking in a pressure situation? How is his family situation? Is he tough enough mentally to fight through fatigue?”
The quest is for more information, and the best coaches, everyone seems to agree, will be open to all types of information.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If the T'wolves are using this year...
to evaluate what they have, then they should read this column (and others like it on this blog). Of course, they are doing their own work, but this shows that we have a long ways to go.
We need plenty of new faces and have just a handful with value to keep/trade. Here’s my list of players with keep or trade value (in some sort of order): Love, Jefferson, (now it get’s dicey on order), Brewer, Flynn, Darko, Sessions, Ellington, Gomes. OK, that’s it in value.
The rest could either go or we wouldn’t get anything in trade.
Darko won’t likely be back, so you still have no real C, need help on the wing, and need some strong improvement/maturity at PG or a trade. The bright side is that I think Kahn won’t hesitate to make moves to try to address (some of) these areas and we have some flexibility. Here’s hoping he avoids Pavs type moves.
A question for you SnP...
Could the Wolves employ rotations, this year with the current squad, that would be more competitive? I think we’d all agree that the Wolves could put out stronger pairings on a more consistent basis. I think Sessions getting more minutes would give the Wolves a better chance to win. Still, the problem I see is that those rotations would be from 8 guys: Flynn, Sessions, Brewer, Ellington, Gomes, Love, Jefferson, Darko… and outside of some functional time from Wilkens you’ve got nothing else. I don’t know that in a full ‘development’ year that you want to run anyone for 40 minutes a game, every game. (I’m not asking because I don’t think it can happen… asking mostly because you know the numbers much better than me.)
This has just been a strange season when it comes to playing time, rotations, adjustments. I mean, I get the idea that you can throw Flynn into the deep end and let him learn by doing, good, bad,…. dribble dribble dribble… and surprising. If I thought I saw an elite PG in Flynn, I wouldn’t have a problem with that… at least this year. I get the feeling the the staff has seen what it wants to have seen with Love and Jefferson on the floor at the same time, and now they’re trying to make Love fight for his spot, to see what he does on the floor as the focal point down low.
Man, more than anything else, strange rotations or not, I’m just tired of bad basketball.
I agree about not giving anyone 40-plus
But if one does the math, it’s clear they wouldn’t have to do that.
240 MPG
Jefferson 32
Love 32
Brewer 32
Flynn 28
Sessions 28
Gomes 28
Ellington 20
Darko 20
Wilkins 20
= 240 minutes. This is all relative, of course: ideally they would prorate these over 36 minutes and then, if it’s within 20, put the combo that gives them the best chance to win on the floor for the remainder or until it becomes statistically out of reach.
The main issue right now, for me, is that a developmental player (as in “shouldn’t be playing except for blowouts or emergencies”) like Hollins doesn’t deserve to see the floor. They have him for 3 years; why throw him out there when he’s so unproductive. Hollins fits into the camp that Jawai, Tucker, and Pecherov fit in, and most of those guys are in suits every night.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 10, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
I know the math works out...
I was more wondering if the math worked out while still providing decent, decent for the Wolves anyway, rotations.
by Krotz the Wall on Mar 10, 2010 1:47 PM CST up reply actions
Isn't part of decent...
Removing guys like Hollins and Pavlovic from the equation?
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 10, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
I do think they've left some wins on the table...
…with bad rotations. How many? I don’t know. Al Jefferson and Kevin Love should be getting a lot of time together. Ramon Sessions should be getting burn with the starting unit. They still don’t have a lot of talented players and ultimately that’s a big problem with the roster, but I do think they’ve left some stuff on the table by not maximizing what they do have.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
There's a take on Al and Love that I thought was a novel one...
…or at least I had not heard it at the time I read it.
lostwolf95 on the ESPN message board wrote:
I’ve been thinking a lot about playing both Al and Love at exclusively appart from each other. I’m wondering if there is another reason other than “they can’t play together”. This is what I am wondering: we saw them play together for a fairly limited amount of time, but Love went to the 2nd unit right around the time that the Big Al trade rumours started coming out. Does Kahn want to really evaluate both Big Al AND Loves abiltiy WITHOUT having them being on the court together? In that way, you can evaluate their true value rather than their value only in conjunction with each other.
This is one of a few possible reasons they may not be playing with each other. I think it is a reasonable conclusion made by a fan of the Timberwolves, as most other explanations don’t make sense.
Well..
…at least they’re discounting tickets if that’s the case.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I really get the sense...
That they’ve decided to move one of Al or Kevin, so they don’t want to commit time to developing that pairing. I get the feeling they’ve decided to keep Love and are trying to develop his game without Al’s offensive presence in the low post.
by Krotz the Wall on Mar 10, 2010 9:40 PM CST up reply actions
Very interesting post
Raises lots of great questions. I would love to see some sort of chart illustrating PT and substitutions and +/- … basically trying to visually convey whether or not Rambis is astutely playing combos of players that let us lose just enough to stay ahead of GSW in the ping pong race. ;)
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Yes...
the Wolves have done a poor job in recent seasons of positioning themselves for the lottery. In 2008, we had the most pathetic team in the league, aside from maybe Memphis (but only after they traded away Pau.) Miami and Seattle (soon to be OKC) had worse records, but they had Dwyane Wade and Kevin Durant, so they automatically had more hope than we did. Despite that, we finished better than they did, and took 3rd in the draft lottery.
Last season was a pretty similar story — at least once Jefferson went down. Durant and Westbrook’s team had a worse record than ours, as did a team with Arenas/Butler/Jamison.
This year, we’ll only be better than the Nets, and that’s what Kahn and Rambis are making sure of. Our worst outcome on May 18th will be the 5th Pick, and we already know we’ll have a 38.7 percent chance at John Wall or Evan Turner. We’ll have a 55.8 percent chance at Top-3, and a 44.2 percent chance at having a mass suicide of the remaining fans.
I sense a new tagline candidate
Tagline: May 18th forecast for MSP – Sunny with a 44.2 percent chance of mass suicide among remaining Timberwolves fans.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
I think your numbers are wrong
I think the Suicide Rate is 61.2 Percent.
by Jose Cordoba on Mar 10, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions
Ha!
Why settle for cloudy when gloomy will do, right?
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
I suppose...
but I think that trading up from 3 will be quite a bit easier than trading up from 4 or 5. That’ll be especially true of GA Tech makes the tournament and Favors builds more momentum.
Something else I find astounding
Darko’s PER this year (with us) is 10.1, which sucks. However, if you visit 82games you find that he’s holding his opponent to a PER of 7 and an efg% of .357. So in limited minutes Darko doesn’t exactly produce much in the boxscore but helps his team to an overall positive +/- and limits his opponents to even less production than his own.
Hollins’ PER this year (as a 5) is 11.2, which sucks. However, if you again visit 82games you discover his opponents’ PER is 17.2 with an efg% of .537. (shuddering) Ugh, just had a moment there where it was really hard to be a TWolves fan while I was considering the differences between these two players and SnP’s post.
For giggles Al’s PER as a 5 is 21.4, while his opponents (also at 5) are averaging 18.3 with an efg% of .561. I think the only reason Al’s PER is higher is because, per 48 minutes, he attempts over 8 more shots than his opponents do. This raises an important question I’ve been thinking about a lot recently given all the draft talk and would love to hear other’s thoughts on it: how much should we value efficiency as a team wide trait? What I’m getting at is whether or not a team made up of Kevin Martin-type efficient scorers would do well, or if there is some value in having some bullish volume scorers or streaky scorers on a team? I love Darko, for example, and want him back on the team – he’s a net positive despite not producing much in the boxscore. Can a team of Darko-type players and production win? Please help me understand the tradeoffs or the nature of why you might choose to go with a more inefficient player.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Especially in the playoffs, when defense is much much tougher, you need guys who can get off their own shot and hit at a good percentage.
A healthy Al’s value increases exponentially in the playoffs.
It would be nice to see that value come to fruition in this millenium.
by Kevin Love Jefferson on Mar 10, 2010 10:18 AM CST up reply actions
You need a balance of the two playstyles.
5 Darko type players can probably compete decently, but a good team that is dedicated to playing D will shut down passing lanes and limit the opportunities that you can generate via good ball movement unless your team is abolutely exceptional at both moving off the ball and making the right passes. Even then, a team like Houston just isn’t going to get it done in the playoffs because of the overall value of elite shot-creators. There’s a reason that the best teams always feature these guys, and that’s because you can’t always rely on ball movement to generate shots. At some point, you need a guy (or guys) who can put his head down and make something happen.
On the flip side, a team that’s all offensive flash without much efficiency or defense, i.e. the Warriors, will never get it done either because the good teams will put the clamps down while still scoring enough to beat them.
The problem the Wolves have is that they can’t stop anyone and they suck offensively with only 2 guys, in my estimation, who seem capable of creating offense by themselves in Jonny (relatively inefficiently) and Al (more efficient, but still not a star). You’re going to be a very bad team when you suck at defense AND 2nd best shot creator is a rookie who shoots in the low 40’s, whichever way you slice it. The bottom line is that this team just needs more talent to level out their playstyle on either or, preferably, both ends of the floor.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Makes sense
Also makes me ponder drafting this guy (or a guy like him) to be our future backup PG. Size, length, and athleticism to develop into a fiendish defensive PG presence with adequate backup PG skills. I should clarify – he’d make a good 3rd PG/SG backup if we keep Flynn instead of Sessions.
Oh, if only Al could play great defense. He’d be the foundation block we’re looking for.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
by biggity2bit on Mar 10, 2010 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
"could" should be "would"
He can play great defense. I think it’s a matter of effort and desire.
It’s also a team issue, so I don’t mean to pin this on Al by himself – NBA defense is rarely (if ever) played in a vacuum.
But he’s definitely shown flashes of being a very good defender, which is part of the reason folks get frustrated with his apparent lack of effort at times.
by highpockets on Mar 10, 2010 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
But there are some guys he just can't guard
A healthy Bynum or Odom for example can destroy Al in the post because they are just too physically overpowering for him, being both bigger AND more athletic. Also, no matter how well he does as a man-on-man defender, he still isn’t quick or rangy enough to be effective as a team defender – hedging screens, switching out on the perimeter, weakside shotblocking, etc. Yes, he can give a nice effort at times, but he simply can’t play next to a similarly limited athlete like Kevin Love and hold his own. These guys just get overwhelmed on most nights by physically superior players.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 10, 2010 7:05 PM CST up reply actions
Or a guy like
Malcolm Lee or David Lighty! :)
I will continue to preach the pick for a mid to late second rounder (or undrafted FA)!!!!
Nice thread idea
Looking at the pairs defensive metrics, I wasn’t surprised to see the far-and-away leader (or loser) was the Flynn/Hollins pairing… giving up more 2.5 more points per 100 possessions than the next pairing (Jefferson and Mr. 21 minutes).
So frustrating seeing Sasha continue to get minutes when he’s awful. So frustrating to see Hollins start when he’s awful. So frustrating to see Love not play minutes when he’s the opposite of awful.
I want to see Kahn
Pritchslap Portland Trailblazer GM, Kevin Bitchard.
Possible Center Solution?
Does anyone think the Pacers would trade Roy Hibbert? They are in desperate need of a Point Guard, who would say no first to a Sessions for Hibbert trade? Would anyone be interested in a trade like this? I’m going to assume it wouldn’t happen until the Pacers and Wolves saw where they were going to draft.
I don't hate it
But, until Rubio (or Wall) is on the team, I don’t love it either.
I think the Pacers would counter with
Dunleavy for Jefferson and our pick.
I imagine they would, at least, want one of our later picks on top of Sessions. Talented C’s are a pretty rare commodity, and ones who can drop 7 assists are even more scarce. Considering he’s only just coming into his own, I’d imagine they value him pretty highly.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Okay a new question
Should the Wolves look at trading for him? I’m not saying the Pacers are going to give him away but is he worth giving up an asset for? Maybe Sessions and the Utah pick? I just have a fear that Kahn sees a Center that can defend as the missing piece and he is going to do something stupid in the draft and take Aldrich #4.
I’d probably do something like Flynn and Charlotte’s pick for Hibbert and their pick, but that might not be realistic. He’d be nice here, though, as he’s got the size to defend real centers and he’s a good passer who would look great in the triangle. Doesn’t really help our biggest weakness by bringing athleticism, but he can still protect the rim and defend the post while creating plenty of mismatches on the other side of the court.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Hibbert seems like a promising young C with good size, but ...
he would amazingly make our front court even more plodding.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Mar 10, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
But at least that cement-footedness would come with legit size and the ability to protect the rim, unlike our current situation.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
The team needs fewer, not more, plodders
Otherwise we’re just making moves without the style of play in mind.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Mar 10, 2010 6:00 PM CST up reply actions
Brewer
continues to be somewhat of an anomoly. Averaging out his numbers, he probably comes out slightly above average, but he is really all over on that board. Unfortunately for him, he logs heavy minutes with Flynn and Hollins, which drastically lowers his averages. I’d like to see this with Brian Cardinal included and Darko as well (once he gets a substantial amount of PT). Think the janitor plagues the top spots?
Can we get Jason Hart back too? He had an incredible +/- in that game he played in. And then we could have a lineup of:
Hart/Pecherov (the spot he was born for)/Cardinal/Love/Darko
The whitest team in the league, and probably 5 of our top 7 (unadjusted) +/- guys without regard to competition or sample size.
I think Brewer
might be one of those guys who looks better and better if he’s playing next to better players. Either that or he’s like the Al Jeff of the wing – he just does what he does regardless of who he’s surrounded by. Thus he looks great next to Love and Sessions and terrible next to Flynn and Hollins.
Growing my own "Darko-stache" since last Monday.
Good call
I guess his 2 man stats would still suffer quite a bit next to guys who are doing bad and do well with guys who aren’t. So either way, Brewer carries his workload, it’s just up to his second man to carry his?
I’ve actually said that about Brewer a few times now: He’s a nice guy to have when defense cracks down because he will probably shoot 43-46% no matter what. It’s hard to defend what he does. Unfortunately it’s also hard to be successful at what he does on a regular basis.
Also, I agree that he will look better when surrounded by more talent. Mostly on his defensive numbers, but definitely on offense as well. I still see him as a Trevor Ariza type (at the beginning of the year people were clamoring for Ariza > Brewer, but now look what happened when he doesn’t have Pau, Odom, Bynum, Bryant carrying him: Brewer >= Ariza).
Good point on Brewer vs Ariza
But I still think Corey has a super long ways to go as a player. I like the improvement, but he’s gone from downright horrible to passable. Let’s hope he’s one of these players that just keeps getting better and better well into his 20s.
by Rascal Flatts on Mar 10, 2010 7:08 PM CST up reply actions
can we email this entire thread
to kahn and rambis. of course, that won’t make them read it…unless you cc McHale
way over my head
but interesting as all hell (yes, it’s been a very long and grueling season).
I keep thinking we have a chance of keeping Darko. Minnesota is much more like Serbia than any of the other places he’s been, we’ve got tall women and the fans like him.
Why would he go back to Serbia with his tail between his legs when he could get one more go around at making it in the NBA? He’s sharp so he must realize how much he helps this team — even when he’s way out of shape.
There’s only three players I’d really like to see back next year for sure: Love, Brewer and Darko.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
