11 Lineups And How They Worked on Defense

[Bricklayer]

Background: This season the Kings accomplished the dubious distinction of not only finishing the season with the league's worst Opponents Pts Against (104.44 -- worse than 29th place Denver by 3.4pts a game) and the league's worst Opponent Field Goal% (.476, edging out Charlotte, THE WORST TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE, in the final weeks for the "honor"). We were the first team since Orlando's 21-61 2003-04 debacle, that earned them Dwight in the draft, to accomplish the double dip. As such, even for a lousy defensive franchise, this team will have an argument with the worst we have ever fielded.

Method: So I was poking around yesterday and opened up a treasure trove of new (to me) searchable stats over at basketball-reference.com under a section called "plus". One of the things it allowed me to do was, going through individual players, to search through every lineup combination we used for the entire season, to restrict my search to the lineups with the most minutes, and to search those lineups for how they did in specific stats. Specifically in this case, defense.

So without further ado, here are the 11 major lineups we used this season (every lineup which played more than 50 total minutes together) ranked by opposing FG%:

Which btw the way, means that of the 11 major lineups we used this year we chose the absolute WORST defensive unit of the 11 to be our main lineup from late February onward. Brilliant.

 

[Spike]

But we scored more points!

 

[ESP47]

I'd be curious to see what our offensive stats are with those lineups as well. Our best defensive lineup might be holding them to 44% but if we're scoring 37% then it's just as bad as if we were scoring at 45% with our worst defensive lineup.

The scary thing is our main starting lineup gives up 3 pointers at a 50% clip. That basically means that Steve Kerr is shooting every 3 on us any time that lineup is on the floor. That comes from our guards getting beat and/or doing their half assed phantom double teams on opposing post players while leaving their man wide open.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

The question is, would that lineup still be the worst if it wasn't used so much? Maybe, but it sure seems like the lineups that played the most played the worst defense. Chicken and egg scenario ...which came first, the bad defense or the extended minutes? Meaning any lineup we would play that plays that many minutes would also have terrible defensive numbers.

I think that tells us more about our team than that specific lineup. The top 4 lineups were also used more than any other lineup aside from #6. Just horrible defense from this team this season.

And I would think that the last lineup benefited greatly from playing the Bobcats and the Dleague Lakers ... The starters (that unit) absolutely dominated those games. In the Bobcats game every starter was over +20, and in the Lakers game every starter was over +14.

The big takeaway for me is that if you combine those bottom 4 lineups (the best ones) you have a compilation of 30 games played 267.9 minutes. All of those Lineups have Tyreke at either the PG or SG. It is essential he plays at either one of those two positions next season.

 

[uolj]

I'd be curious to see what our offensive stats are with those lineups as well.

 

[SacTownKid]

Holy ****. Looking at that, this was easily the most bi-polar coaching in the history of basketball. LOOK AT THOSE LINEUPS!!! So it was as crazy as it looked .

 

[pshn80]

Background: This season the Kings accomplished the dubious distinction of not only finishing the season with the league's worst Opponents Pts Against (104.44 -- worse than 29th place Denver by 3.4pts a game) and the league's worst Opponent Field Goal% (.476, edging out Charlotte, THE WORST TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE, in the final weeks for the "honor"). We were the first team since Orlando's 21-61 2003-04 debacle, that earned them Dwight in the draft, to accomplish the double dip. As such, even for a lousy defensive franchise, this team will have an argument with the worst we have ever fielded.

Method: So I was poking around yesterday and opened up a treasure trove of new (to me) searchable stats over at basketball-reference.com under a section called "plus". One of the things it allowed me to do was, going through individual players, to search through every lineup combination we used for the entire season, to restrict my search to the lineups with the most minutes, and to search those lineups for how they did in specific stats. Specifically in this case, defense.

So without further ado, here are the 11 major lineups we used this season (every lineup which played more than 50 total minutes together) ranked by opposing FG%:

Which btw the way, means that of the 11 major lineups we used this year we chose the absolute WORST defensive unit of the 11 to be our main lineup from late February onward. Brilliant.

I'm very interested but I can't read much of the fine print or long wordy paragraphs so could you provide me with an overview of what it says. If not, I undersrtand.

Qiestion: how would the lineup for thelast three games or so work? Cou, Tson, OUtlaw, Evans, Thomas.

 

[SacTownKid]

Pace is everything. I really don't think this team should be a run and gun team with a midget wing combo. This team should dominate with the size it has and control the clock. That's what teams with talent do.

 

[Rookie]

Size is everything. I really don't think this team should be a run and gun team with a midget wing combo. This team should dominate with the size it has and control the clock. That's what teams with talent do.

fixed.

So what do teams do when they don't have the size and talents?

 

[uolj]

Qiestion: how would the lineup for thelast three games or so work? Cou, Tson, OUtlaw, Evans, Thomas.

That lineup was the best in both offensive and defensive FG%, although remember that 80 minutes isn't a very large sample size, especially when a lot of it came against the Bobcats and the Lakers B team. (Of course, the other half came against the Thunder, so...)

 

[spudfan]

I'd be curious to see what our offensive stats are with those lineups as well. Our best defensive lineup might be holding them to 44% but if we're scoring 37% then it's just as bad as if we were scoring at 45% with our worst defensive lineup.

I don't think it would be a good idea to chase offense while forgoing defense. That's the trap some of the small ball teams get into. It may be just as bad statistically, but when you look at the big picture it is going to be near impossible to win championships with the focus on offensive and not defense. For a team that is somewhere in middle of the road balancing defense and offense is worth juggling... but when you are they worst defensive team I don't think it should come into consideration.

 

[mac]

I don't think it would be a good idea to chase offense while forgoing defense. That's the trap some of the small ball teams get into. It may be just as bad statistically, but when you look at the big picture it is going to be near impossible to win championships with the focus on offensive and not defense. For a team that is somewhere in middle of the road balancing defense and offense is worth juggling... but when you are they worst defensive team I don't think it should come into consideration.

I agree entirely. However, as much as I don't appreciate the direction that the team took, I think it has to be said that Keith Smart did not have a training camp with the guys, and they had to learn a lot of things on the fly. It's much easier to "improve" the team by just telling them to run and gun than it is by getting guys to set screens and run proper offensive schemes, or to teach the guys to rotate better on defense.

 

[spudfan]

I agree entirely. However, as much as I don't appreciate the direction that the team took, I think it has to be said that Keith Smart did not have a training camp with the guys, and they had to learn a lot of things on the fly. It's much easier to "improve" the team by just telling them to run and gun than it is by getting guys to set screens and run proper offensive schemes, or to teach the guys to rotate better on defense.

Ya. I think it would be ignorant to say they didn't learn on the fly too. I still remember the streak of games where they were getting blown out by 20+ after a couple quarters... They definitely did improve even if the record didn't show it. We went from a lot of blow outs losses to close games.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm very interested but I can't read much of the fine print or long wordy paragraphs so could you provide me with an overview of what it says. If not, I undersrtand.

Qiestion: how would the lineup for thelast three games or so work? Cou, Tson, OUtlaw, Evans, Thomas.

Made it old person sized

 

[Sptsjunkie]

The chart is interesting, but it's hard to draw too much of a conclusion due to sample sizes. I mean our worst defensive lineup here played 317 minutes together. Fair enough. We are a bad defensive team. But I'm certainly not ready to say that a lineup that played 50-90 total minutes together is better. That's less than two full basketball games, so there's likely to be a lot of noise in there.

Were some of these combos mixed starters and bench players because they were playing against the other team's second string? Was a combo used against a weak string of opponents (Wizards, Raptors)? Were some of these used from February forward when we really became an uptempo team trading fast breaks both direction (Answer appears to be Yes, based on Pace category)?

I think this is an interesting exercise, but not sure we can draw any real conclusions from it. Maybe our small ball lineup stinks at D, but even that's reading this while inserting my own bias.

 

[Spike]

I would take a 20 point loss here and there with wins over elite teams over 5 point losses every night.

 

[uolj]

The chart is interesting, but it's hard to draw too much of a conclusion due to sample sizes. I mean our worst defensive lineup here played 317 minutes together. Fair enough. We are a bad defensive team. But I'm certainly not ready to say that a lineup that played 50-90 total minutes together is better. That's less than two full basketball games, so there's likely to be a lot of noise in there.

Were some of these combos mixed starters and bench players because they were playing against the other team's second string? Was a combo used against a weak string of opponents (Wizards, Raptors)? Were some of these used from February forward when we really became an uptempo team trading fast breaks both direction (Answer appears to be Yes, based on Pace category)?

I think this is an interesting exercise, but not sure we can draw any real conclusions from it. Maybe our small ball lineup stinks at D, but even that's reading this while inserting my own bias.

I agree to a large extent, but it's more than just individual numbers. Two of the three worst lineups (by Opp FG%) were with Evans at SF. The seven best all had Salmons or Outlaw at SF and six of those seven had Hickson or Thompson at PF. I think it's perfectly fair to say the data supports the idea that small ball led to bad defense.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I agree to a large extent, but it's more than just individual numbers. Two of the three worst lineups (by Opp FG%) were with Evans at SF. The seven best all had Salmons or Outlaw at SF and six of those seven had Hickson or Thompson at PF. I think it's perfectly fair to say the data supports the idea that small ball led to bad defense.

I agree. Called it out in my last line. I think our small ball lineups were bad. But even then, the second lineup also had Donte Green at PF. We only employed this against teams like Dallas who had versatile PFs.

But I do agree, the small ball lineup should be retired except for very specific match ups.

 

[pshn80]

Made it old person sized

Thnks, Brick. That helped. I wish I could cure my impatience as easily. I look at a long paragraph followed by another one and ......... sorta give up. But i'll keep hanging in there. I can still read anything but it is hard work.

 

[Gary]

I like that last lineup and I think most of us wanted that lineup going into next year. Small sample but I think it's a better team because MT/IT/Evans is too small, and MT/Evans guard combo just sucked.

Well that last lineup with Williams instead of Outlaw, but if Outlaw would get his crap together and be a consistent player then I wouldn't mind playing him over Williams.

We need to get bigger though and shed a few of our smaller players or else Smart will go back to his bad habits of running with Evans at SF which totally blew chunks.

And our increased PPG does not help if the opponent is still scoring more than we are... We still lose if the opponent outscores us

 

[pshn80]

I like that last lineup and I think most of us wanted that lineup going into next year. Small sample but I think it's a better team because MT/IT/Evans is too small, and MT/Evans guard combo just sucked.

Well that last lineup with Williams instead of Outlaw, but if Outlaw would get his crap together and be a consistent player then I wouldn't mind playing him over Williams.

We need to get bigger though and shed a few of our smaller players or else Smart will go back to his bad habits of running with Evans at SF which totally blew chunks.

And our increased PPG does not help if the opponent is still scoring more than we are... We still lose if the opponent outscores us

And following your theme, which is mine also, I feel strongly that Thornton has to go. He and Evans are not a good pairing no matter what positions they play. Tyreke gets the choice over Thornton as a starter, Thornton, sixth man, sounds good but I see at least two problems, he still can't match up on defense and I really think his nose would be bent out of shape. He has value so trade him for the best we can get. I would do that even it means playing Outlaw and even Salmons, in my book Out law starting or sharing the 3 with Honeycutt, and Salmons as a veteran backup to the 1, 2, and 3.

Here I am writing a long paragraph and I complain about reading them myself. The more I think about finding Thornton a position on some other team the better it sounds to me. Solves lots of problems. Otherwise I have nothing against Thornton. As an alternative to Outlaw at the 3 as our primary, we may find relief through the draft or through trading Outlaw or in some other fashion. We don't need an All Star at the 3 with the rest of the lineup, in fact an all star might screw things up for the rest. All Star defensed, any time.

 

[VF21]

And following your theme, which is mine also, I feel strongly that Thornton has to go. He and Evans are not a good pairing no matter what positions they play. Tyreke gets the choice over Thornton as a starter, Thornton, sixth man, sounds good but I see at least two problems, he still can't match up on defense and I really think his nose would be bent out of shape. He has value so trade him for the best we can get. I would do that even it means playing Outlaw and even Salmons, in my book Out law starting or sharing the 3 with Honeycutt, and Salmons as a veteran backup to the 1, 2, and 3.

Here I am writing a long paragraph and I complain about reading them myself. The more I think about finding Thornton a position on some other team the better it sounds to me. Solves lots of problems. Otherwise I have nothing against Thornton. As an alternative to Outlaw at the 3 as our primary, we may find relief through the draft or through trading Outlaw or in some other fashion. We don't need an All Star at the 3 with the rest of the lineup, in fact an all star might screw things up for the rest. All Star defensed, any time.

Great points. Let's make it so.

 

[uolj]

Evans and Thornton weren't so bad together at the end of last year (2010-2011). They also weren't so bad together when Smart first took over. Heck, even including Westphal's tenure this year, the Kings had a slightly better record with Evans and Thornton starting than without.

So why does everybody think they don't work well together?

 

[pshn80]

Evans and Thornton weren't so bad together at the end of last year (2010-2011). They also weren't so bad together when Smart first took over. Heck, even including Westphal's tenure this year, the Kings had a slightly better record with Evans and Thornton starting than without.

So why does everybody think they don't work well together?

No. 1, at the end of the season you mention they only played maybe a dozen games together. No. 2, our deadliest backcourt combo for ball movement and initiating the offense was the two of them. No. 3. each ones'strength is one on one going to the basket, they had a lot to learn about team bascketball and they have been slow to pick it up. One we can profit by, two no way. Evans has the height, the defensive capability, the greater potential. Keep him and don't keep a 6th man whose nose would be bent out of shape. Also Williams can make a much more useful 6th man.

 

[kingsfan101]

Evans and Thornton weren't so bad together at the end of last year (2010-2011). They also weren't so bad together when Smart first took over. Heck, even including Westphal's tenure this year, the Kings had a slightly better record with Evans and Thornton starting than without.

So why does everybody think they don't work well together?

I too had suggested that we should look for trades for MT
http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?45326-Tyreke-is-NOT-happy&p=899788#post899788

However, I do agree that the points you raise are valid. There are some differences compared to the end of last season, when we traded for MT, and he played very well for us.

1. We replaced Beno with 3 people who play/should play in the 1/2 spot; Salmons, Jimmer and IT.
2. While Salmons was bad at 3, particularly at the beginning, he shall likely be a good 2.
3. Plus, we have Cisco, who, while inconsistent, can give useful role player minutes at 2.
4. While MT is clearly best amongst them all, he also has the most value.
5. With the growth of DMC, and the need for us to get Reke more involved, we need something more out of Reke's backcourt partner, than just scoring.
6. IT/Cisco/Salmons can all provide some of that, and over time, maybe even Jimmer can.
7. Add the fact that we shall be adding another high lottery pick this year. Someone, who might need a few shots of his own.

I still believe that if we draft a 3 like MKG/Barnes, we should look to trading MT to the Bulls for some front court help. MT shall be a good fit there, they need a 2, have good defensive minded front court players. Plus, I'm really scared that someone shall throw a big offer to JT, that our owners shall refuse to match, and we shall need some front court help.

Maybe HW takes a big step this year. Otherwise, we should look to add some front court depth. Plus, having one less smaller guard shall help in reducing Smart's small ball tendencies.

 

[uolj]

I agree that losing Udrih and adding Thomas (and Fredette and Salmons and Outlaw and Williams) caused a glut of a certain type of player on the team.

But that doesn't mean Thornton and Evans don't work together. Out of all the options recently, they were the most successful as starters. If you want to take advantage of Thornton's value because he'd be worth the most in a trade, that makes sense. But one poster said, "MT/Evans guard combo just sucked" and another said, "[Thornton] and Evans are not a good pairing no matter what positions they play." Those statements just don't appear to be true given the team's records with them starting and playing together (relative to how the team played otherwise).

 

[pshn80]

I want Evans to start. Not at the three. First choice, the two and as our PG as a fall back position. Thornton has to play the two, which is the position he scores prolifically at but is the position he will never be good enough at defensively. He just won't. He would be a decent offfensive 6th man but on our team I don't want to live with his needs, be the guy no matter, and pout when he isn't. Does not portend well for our team future. We have enough problems with Evans, Cousins, small forward, Thomas etc. I'd love to solve THOSE.

 

[kingsfan101]

I agree that losing Udrih and adding Thomas (and Fredette and Salmons and Outlaw and Williams) caused a glut of a certain type of player on the team.

But that doesn't mean Thornton and Evans don't work together. Out of all the options recently, they were the most successful as starters. If you want to take advantage of Thornton's value because he'd be worth the most in a trade, that makes sense. But one poster said, "MT/Evans guard combo just sucked" and another said, "[Thornton] and Evans are not a good pairing no matter what positions they play." Those statements just don't appear to be true given the team's records with them starting and playing together (relative to how the team played otherwise).

Evans and MT can be a good pair. In fact, Reke's size at 1 can help MT, as he can guard the smaller guard, and MT's outside shooting can help Reke's drives, as well as drives and kick outs.

However, IT, MT, Reke, DMC shall likely not work. If we do so, we roll out a midget back court. Plus, as I mentioned, last year, the pairing worked, since we played to their strengths. Now, we moved Reke, since the others can't be moved, killing our size advantage. IT can play only 1, and MT is not enough of a ball handler/passer to play anything other than a 2.

We could potentially trade one of IT/Jimmer, and bring the remaining one off the bench, similar to how we used Beno. However, I think MT can get back a lot more. Plus others, particularly IT, can impact the game in ways other than scoring. Hopefully, Jimmer can be enough of a ball handler/better defensive player over time, to play some 1.

 

[The_Jamal]

Enough with putting Reke at the PG. The sooner we realize he's a 2, the sooner he and us as a franchise can actually progress forward.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Enough with putting Reke at the PG. The sooner we realize he's a 2, the sooner he and us as a franchise can actually progress forward.

The problem is, so are half the other players on this team: Thornton, Salmons, Garcia, Williams, and arguably Fredette. What a poorly, poorly constructed roster.