Your Ideal Lineup

[KHD]

Another double post wee!

get it together Hackett

[SkywalkerAC]

Lowry
DeMar
OG
Pascal
Bruno

[gk17]

I take it you didn't read my article, either, if you think I'm not approaching this from a numbers perspective.

I've read your article. Look! I'm not argueing for Poeltl to start, because it would hurt the bench unit too much, but this is untrustworthy. You cannot sell your opinion as a fact - not based on those numbers.

Lineup | Minutes Played | Offensive Rating | Defensive Rating | Net Rating
KL-DD-SI-JP: 27 MP, 89.8 ORTG, 115.9 DRTG, -26.1 RTG
KL-DD-JP: 73 MP, 102.8 ORTG, 118.1 DRTG, -15.3 RTG

So... yeah, that’s not great. And 73 minutes is a pretty sizeable sample there. Personally I think that although Poeltl has shown great promise and has really helped that bench unit, he’s just not physically ready for the starting bigs this league can throw at you. For whatever reason, this idea looks less than promising. The defense has somehow been worse than the starting lineup’s has been, and the offense falls off a cliff.

Come on!? 73 minutes is a pretty sizeable sample? No, it's definitely not. 73 minutes - that's a 4-5 game sample at the most. For comparsion: JV played more than 2.000 minutes alone in the last season - mostly with the starters. And you want to base your "analysis" about Poeltl on 73 minutes?

Let me explain, why your analysis on a 73 minutes sample can't be taken serious. Let's take a short look behind those numbers.

1) These 73 minutes include 4 minutes of KL-DD-JP in the terrible 3rd quarter of the NYK-games. They had a -10 rating. In the same quarter JV played 4 minutes, before Poeltl was subbed in. With JV they had a -11 rating. That means: Of the -15 rating you are writing about, -10 are coming from this 4 minutes, and with JV it was even worse. Again: You want to base your analysis on 4 minutes of an exceptional bad quarter for the whole Raptors team?

2) These 73 minutes also include 14 minutes of KL-DD-JP against the GSW, the best offense in the NBA. 2 bad minutes in the 2nd quarter with a -8 rating and the last (not so bad) 12 minutes of the game with a -1 rating.

So they had a -19 rating together in those two games (18 minutes), whereas they had a +4 rating in the other 57 minutes.

What is the conclusion? They are really bad together? It could work?
No, neither nor. You can't say it at this point. I didn't check other games, but I'm sure there were good stretches as well as bad stretches. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not - for whatever reasons. There are too many variables in it (who they played with, who they played against) to judge their chemistry after 73 minutes.

Don't get me wrong: You could also be right, that Poeltl wouldn't improve the starters defense/rating, but give them at least 20-30 games (and that's not very much to get your things together on defense), before you think about making any conclusions.

But you're definitely right that - no matter who plays in the starting five - they have to put in more effort on defense, especially Lowry & Derozan. They lack on effort on this side of the floor as well as JV. It starts with the teams best players - on offense AND defense. Big question: Who is able the kick Derozans ass like Tucker did to make him play defense?

[Shaolin Fantastic]

I'm just not even going to bother at this point. Carry on, start JV.

[DanH]

I've read your article. Look! I'm not argueing for Poeltl to start, because it would hurt the bench unit too much, but this is untrustworthy. You cannot sell your opinion as a fact - not based on those numbers.



Come on!? 73 minutes is a pretty sizeable sample? No, it's definitely not. 73 minutes - that's a 4-5 game sample at the most. For comparsion: JV played more than 2.000 minutes alone in the last season - mostly with the starters. And you want to base your "analysis" about Poeltl on 73 minutes?

Let me explain, why your analysis on a 73 minutes sample can't be taken serious. Let's take a short look behind those numbers.

1) These 73 minutes include 4 minutes of KL-DD-JP in the terrible 3rd quarter of the NYK-games. They had a -10 rating. In the same quarter JV played 4 minutes, before Poeltl was subbed in. With JV they had a -11 rating. That means: Of the -15 rating you are writing about, -10 are coming from this 4 minutes, and with JV it was even worse. Again: You want to base your analysis on 4 minutes of an exceptional bad quarter for the whole Raptors team?

2) These 73 minutes also include 14 minutes of KL-DD-JP against the GSW, the best offense in the NBA. 2 bad minutes in the 2nd quarter with a -8 rating and the last (not so bad) 12 minutes of the game with a -1 rating.

So they had a -19 rating together in those two games (18 minutes), whereas they had a +4 rating in the other 57 minutes.

What is the conclusion? They are really bad together? It could work?
No, neither nor. You can't say it at this point. I didn't check other games, but I'm sure there were good stretches as well as bad stretches. Sometimes it worked, sometimes not - for whatever reasons. There are too many variables in it (who they played with, who they played against) to judge their chemistry after 73 minutes.

Don't get me wrong: You could also be right, that Poeltl wouldn't improve the starters defense/rating, but give them at least 20-30 games (and that's not very much to get your things together on defense), before you think about making any conclusions.

But you're definitely right that - no matter who plays in the starting five - they have to put in more effort on defense, especially Lowry & Derozan. They lack on effort on this side of the floor as well as JV. It starts with the teams best players - on offense AND defense. Big question: Who is able the kick Derozans ass like Tucker did to make him play defense?

I agree that if we had any past data to suggest that Poeltl works as a starting C, we should ignore such a small sample. But in terms of lineup stats, you really can’t compare to a player’s raw minutes totals. Lineups playing together get nowhere near that number of minutes. The starting lineups that everyone simply has to change have about 120 and 90 minutes respectively. Poeltl’s sample with Lowry/DeMar is almost as big as the current starting lineup’s sample all season long.

And since the entire discussion is being propelled by the disastrous starts and 3rd Q’s of late, I’d think including Poeltl’s chance to stem such a bad start would be entirely relevant. Never mind that Poeltl had another 80+ minutes with basically identical results with the two stars last season.

And all I’m saying is that if you want to make a change from a starting lineup that has posted average results, you should be sure you will get better than average results with the change (because you will be risking the bench results in the process). And I’m not saying I have proof that Poeltl would suck - I’m just saying on the whole this year, the team has not found any more success with JP at C than with JV, so there’s no reason to be confident this would lead to improvement.

[TheWaterboy]

The starting line-up I'd like to see, at least in the short term, is Kyle-Demar-OG-Pascal-Jonas. That should be sound defensively, great in transition and capable of scoring both in set plays and in broken ones (I expect OG and Pascal both to execute the cuts needed for options to always be there even when their number isn't called initially.) I realize that Pascal for Serge may reduce our spacing a little and result in a lower three point percentage, but I think the increase in defensive energy and overall movement may be enough to offset this.

Granted, this will take away some of the swarming and speed aspects of our second unit's defence, but I think that having Serge/Jakob/Norm playing together will still result in a defence that can shut down bench players in a positionally sound way, while being able to score in multiple ways (driving/passing/from deep).

Regardless of the above, I agree with whoever it was upthread who suggested that the real problem this team has isn't lineups per se, it's that our big three of DD/KL/SI are not playing with the energy and involvement on defence - particularly at the start of games. It's no coincidence that the starters have talked multiple times about the energy shown by the second unit (and the resulting dominance) giving them a spark they didn't have at the start of the game.

If the starters defended with the energy and tenacity of our bench, things we be so much different for us. Their offensive numbers would not be nearly as gaudy, but their net rating would be much improved. That said, I think that at some level - maybe not even a conscious level - Kyle and Demar are reluctant to let go of their offensive dominance completely, as it's been their meal ticket in years past.

[gk17]

Poeltl’s sample with Lowry/DeMar is almost as big as the current starting lineup’s sample all season long.

Really?

KL-DD-JV / 269 minutes
KL-DD-JP / 73 minutes

But in terms of lineup stats, you really can’t compare to a player’s raw minutes totals. Lineups playing together get nowhere near that number of minutes.... ....Never mind that Poeltl had another 80+ minutes with basically identical results with the two stars last season.

The numbers from last season:
KL-DD-JV / 1056 minutes
KL-DD-JP / 86 minutes

You still can't ignore the fact, that KL-DD-JV have a long history playing together to figure out, what they should do. There's evidence that it won't get better in the next month. Wereas there is a chance that KL-DD-JP could find some chemistry, if they get more minutes. More than 86 minutes in Poeltl's rookie season (1 minute per game).

btw an interesting fact: The KL-DD-JP lineup had 81 rebounds in 86 minutes (0,94/minute); the KL-DD-JP lineup had 901 rebounds in 1056 minutes (0,85 minutes). This season: 0,91 with Poeltl & 0,89 with JV. So the conclusion would be that rebounding is better with Poeltl on the floor? So much for just looking at the naked numbers ;-)

I’m just saying on the whole this year, the team has not found any more success with JP at C than with JV,...

And I'm just saying that the sample size, your opinion is based on, is too small. And that's why...

...,so there’s no reason to be confident this would lead to improvement.

...this simply is not true. There's no guarantee, but also a chance this would lead to improvement. We have different opinions here.

--------

We still agree that JV doesn't fit with the bench like Poeltl. But in the long run - if JV will be traded in the next months - the Raptors should find some more minutes for Poeltl with KL-DD to improve their chemistry. Unless they go with Ibaka at starting C in the next season and get another PF.

[gk17]

The starting line-up I'd like to see, at least in the short term, is Kyle-Demar-OG-Pascal-Jonas.

No way that Ibaka plays from the bench. That means trouble in the locker room.

[DanH]

Really?

KL-DD-JV / 269 minutes
KL-DD-JP / 73 minutes

Huh? Starting lineup. That's 5 guys. Even the 4-man lineup taking out the SF has played only 228 minutes. So Poeltl's sample being roughly 1/3rd the starters makes it unusable, while we can definitely rely on the starter sample showing us that the starters should be changed? Curious where the line is.

The numbers from last season:
KL-DD-JV / 1056 minutes
KL-DD-JP / 86 minutes

You still can't ignore the fact, that KL-DD-JV have a long history playing together to figure out, what they should do. There's evidence that it won't get better in the next month. Wereas there is a chance that KL-DD-JP could find some chemistry, if they get more minutes. More than 86 minutes in Poeltl's rookie season (1 minute per game).

I absolutely 100% agree that Poeltl should get some more minutes with the starters in short spurts to increase their chemistry and increase that sample size. When have I ever suggested otherwise? That does not mean making him a starter and giving him the majority of his minutes in that scenario, in spite of them struggling together when they have gotten those minutes.

btw an interesting fact: The KL-DD-JP lineup had 81 rebounds in 86 minutes (0,94/minute); the KL-DD-JP lineup had 901 rebounds in 1056 minutes (0,85 minutes). This season: 0,91 with Poeltl & 0,89 with JV. So the conclusion would be that rebounding is better with Poeltl on the floor? So much for just looking at the naked numbers ;-)

I would never judge a lineup's rebounding ability based on the way number of rebounds they get. That would be incredibly foolish of me. For example, if one lineup (say Poeltl's) missed a whole lot of shots and were terrible at offence, and had a top notch rebounder (like Poeltl), they might get more rebounds than a lineup that could actually score well. Just as an example.

And I'm just saying that the sample size, your opinion is based on, is too small. And that's why...

...this simply is not true. There's no guarantee, but also a chance this would lead to improvement. We have different opinions here.

When did I say there was no chance of improvement? I said there was no reason to be confident that it would. To be sure. Do you really look at the data we have and suggest we can say, with confidence, that Poeltl subbing in for JV would improve the performance of the starters?

We still agree that JV doesn't fit with the bench like Poeltl. But in the long run - if JV will be traded in the next months - the Raptors should find some more minutes for Poeltl with KL-DD to improve their chemistry. Unless they go with Ibaka at starting C in the next season and get another PF.

Getting Poeltl minutes with the starters is precisely why since the off-season I've been suggesting JV take some minutes with the bench (though I assumed Lowry would be playing the start of the 2nd and 4th where I'd want JV playing), while also still starting to help shield Poeltl from minutes he's not ready for, and Ibaka from having to play heavy minutes at C.

But throwing Poeltl into the starting lineup is not the only way to get him minutes with the starters, and is certainly the highest risk path to take considering their past results (over two seasons now).

[DanH]

Let me explain, why your analysis on a 73 minutes sample can't be taken serious. Let's take a short look behind those numbers.

1) These 73 minutes include 4 minutes of KL-DD-JP in the terrible 3rd quarter of the NYK-games. They had a -10 rating. In the same quarter JV played 4 minutes, before Poeltl was subbed in. With JV they had a -11 rating. That means: Of the -15 rating you are writing about, -10 are coming from this 4 minutes, and with JV it was even worse. Again: You want to base your analysis on 4 minutes of an exceptional bad quarter for the whole Raptors team?

2) These 73 minutes also include 14 minutes of KL-DD-JP against the GSW, the best offense in the NBA. 2 bad minutes in the 2nd quarter with a -8 rating and the last (not so bad) 12 minutes of the game with a -1 rating.

So they had a -19 rating together in those two games (18 minutes), whereas they had a +4 rating in the other 57 minutes.

OK, so I had time to look at this in detail and it's completely wrong.

I removed the GSW and NYK games from the sample, and in the other 48 minutes they played outside those two games, they posted:

107.5 ORTG, 114.1 DRTG, -6.5 net rating.

So in our imaginary fantasy land where the worst minutes a lineup plays don't count for some reason, the KL-DD-JP three man lineup posted a worse ORTG (-3.9 points), a worse DRTG (+3.5 points) and worse net rating (-7.3 points) than the KL-DD-JV three man lineup has this year, without any of their bad games removed.

I just really don't see the argument here. If the argument is that we like Poeltl (we do) and think he might be great with the starters in spite of sucking with them every chance he's gotten, I understand that. I don't understand anyone who thinks they've had success so far, or that it's a sure thing they would be better than what we've been starting of late.

[Deems]

F the numbers we need more Poetl less JV for a more aesthetically pleasing game to watch lol. Bring on the Ls!

[gk17]

I don't understand anyone who thinks they've had success so far, or that it's a sure thing they would be better than what we've been starting of late.

I haven't said that. I said that there were good stretches and bad stretches. I said that there is no guarantee for improvement, but a chance - and that they should find some more minutes for Poeltl with KL-DD to improve their chemistry. And I said that you can't base a trustworthy analysis, how they are going to perform, on a 73 minutes sample.

[DanH]

I haven't said that. I said that there were good stretches and bad stretches. I said that there is no guarantee for improvement, but a chance - and that they should find some more minutes for Poeltl with KL-DD to improve their chemistry. And I said that you can't base a trustworthy analysis, how they are going to perform, on a 73 minutes sample.

You said that this line of mine:

...so there’s no reason to be confident this would lead to improvement.

Was untrue. So that means you think there is reason to be confident that Poeltl starting would lead to improvement.

My argument is we shouldn't just try stuff, we should try stuff that we are pretty confident would lead to improvement. Not a fan of the throw-shit-at-wall-see-what-sticks rotation strategy.

And I agree that you can't base a trustworthy analysis of how a lineup will perform based on 73 minutes. Heck, you can't really predict what a lineup will do with the 200 minutes the starters have. I do want Poeltl to get more time with the starters, in spots where the team needs his skill set, and in matchups that work for him, and see if he can have success in that sample, before throwing him into the starting lineup and screwing up the rotation just to hope and pray that it's better, contrary to all the (admittedly limited) evidence we have thus far.

If your argument is just "well, we don't know for sure and basically anything could in theory work" then, yeah, I agree, that's true. I just find it a strange position to base rotation decisions on.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

It's not throw shit at the wall you just don't want JV to start so it's basically pointless to even continue to discuss this.

[jacobdr4]

It's not throw shit at the wall you just don't want JV to start so it's basically pointless to even continue to discuss this.

He doesn't believe its necessarily best to start someone besides JV just like you don't believe that Jv should start. You don't have to sound so pissed off that he doesn't agree with you. People are allowed to disagree.