Playing around with lineup data

[PharmD]

I'm at work on Xmas eve totally bored out of my mind. I'm looking at the Suns here and i'm noticing some things about Rubio and Booker.

On/Off
Rubio: offense 6.0 points better, defense 4.3 points better, net 10.3 points better
Booker: offense 10.4 point better, defense 9.9 points worse, net 0.5 points better

Booker is huge for the offense but total poison to the defense.

Lineups

Rubio + Booker + Oubre: +5.1 (460 min)
Rubio + Oubre: +5.7 (630 min)
Booker + Oubre: -2.0 (717 min)

Rubio + Booker + Saric: +8.3 (445 min)
Rubio + Saric: +7.0 (560 min)
Booker + Saric: +1.0 (674 min)

Rubio + Booker + Baynes: +4.4 (258 min)
Rubio + Baynes: +4.2 (325 min)
Booker + Baynes: +1.8 (370 min)

Rubio + Booker + Kaminsky: +5.2 (212 min)
Rubio + Kaminsky: +3.9 (333 min)
Booker + Kaminsky: -1.4 (426 min)

Rubio + Booker: +5.8

So the starters are mostly winning combinations. Replacing Ricky with anybody else kills most every lineup (we knew this). Interestingly, replacing Booker with anybody else seems to not really hurt at all. Notice, for example, that for Booker + Oubre to be -2.0 overall, while +5.1 in the 460 minutes they play with Rubio, means that they are getting DESTROYED in the 257 minutes they've played with not-Rubio. For Booker and Saric to be +1.0 overall when they are +8.3 in their 445 minutes with Rubio means they are getting DESTROYED in their 229 minutes without Rubio, etc.

[Dual]

Great job man!
Merry Christmas!

[Bogyo]

Yeah, then this is the case where (advanced?) stats are backing up the conventional wisdom + what we see with our eyes.
Basically if your pointguard is good at setting up the offense for everybody else, while he is a good (better than average) defender, as a one-on-one defender and as a positional/team defender, so it is harder for the opposition to start their drawn up plays, or just make their PG start the plays from an "uncomfortable" place, thus the defenders behind him have an easier time. Those 2 traits will make your team leaps and bounds better.

And some of it is really the small things, especially on D, what we fans don't really see or know. For example if you know that the opposing PG likes to operate from the left side of the floor you pick him up around halfcourt in a way that you steer him away from the left to the right a bit. It might not be really visible play-by-play, and there are some great players who just to whatever, but in the grand scheme of things it will count for sure. And there are many-many more things like this. It will never show up in any box score or directly in any advanced stat, but overall with larger sets of data it will jump out like the examples above: wow, our team is just so much better with that guy on the floor, wonder why that is! It's these little things put together.

Good find!

[Ghost of Kleine]

I'm at work on Xmas eve totally bored out of my mind. I'm looking at the Suns here and i'm noticing some things about Rubio and Booker.

On/Off
Rubio: offense 6.0 points better, defense 4.3 points better, net 10.3 points better
Booker: offense 10.4 point better, defense 9.9 points worse, net 0.5 points better

Booker is huge for the offense but total poison to the defense.

Lineups

Rubio + Booker + Oubre: +5.1 (460 min)
Rubio + Oubre: +5.7 (630 min)
Booker + Oubre: -2.0 (717 min)

Rubio + Booker + Saric: +8.3 (445 min)
Rubio + Saric: +7.0 (560 min)
Booker + Saric: +1.0 (674 min)

Rubio + Booker + Baynes: +4.4 (258 min)
Rubio + Baynes: +4.2 (325 min)
Booker + Baynes: +1.8 (370 min)

Rubio + Booker + Kaminsky: +5.2 (212 min)
Rubio + Kaminsky: +3.9 (333 min)
Booker + Kaminsky: -1.4 (426 min)

Rubio + Booker: +5.8

So the starters are mostly winning combinations. Replacing Ricky with anybody else kills most every lineup (we knew this). Interestingly, replacing Booker with anybody else seems to not really hurt at all. Notice, for example, that for Booker + Oubre to be -2.0 overall, while +5.1 in the 460 minutes they play with Rubio, means that they are getting DESTROYED in the 257 minutes they've played with not-Rubio. For Booker and Saric to be +1.0 overall when they are +8.3 in their 445 minutes with Rubio means they are getting DESTROYED in their 229 minutes without Rubio, etc.

Yes, pretty amazing job man!

[bwgood77]

I'm at work on Xmas eve totally bored out of my mind. I'm looking at the Suns here and i'm noticing some things about Rubio and Booker.

On/Off
Rubio: offense 6.0 points better, defense 4.3 points better, net 10.3 points better
Booker: offense 10.4 point better, defense 9.9 points worse, net 0.5 points better

Booker is huge for the offense but total poison to the defense.

Lineups

Rubio + Booker + Oubre: +5.1 (460 min)
Rubio + Oubre: +5.7 (630 min)
Booker + Oubre: -2.0 (717 min)

Rubio + Booker + Saric: +8.3 (445 min)
Rubio + Saric: +7.0 (560 min)
Booker + Saric: +1.0 (674 min)

Rubio + Booker + Baynes: +4.4 (258 min)
Rubio + Baynes: +4.2 (325 min)
Booker + Baynes: +1.8 (370 min)

Rubio + Booker + Kaminsky: +5.2 (212 min)
Rubio + Kaminsky: +3.9 (333 min)
Booker + Kaminsky: -1.4 (426 min)

Rubio + Booker: +5.8

So the starters are mostly winning combinations. Replacing Ricky with anybody else kills most every lineup (we knew this). Interestingly, replacing Booker with anybody else seems to not really hurt at all. Notice, for example, that for Booker + Oubre to be -2.0 overall, while +5.1 in the 460 minutes they play with Rubio, means that they are getting DESTROYED in the 257 minutes they've played with not-Rubio. For Booker and Saric to be +1.0 overall when they are +8.3 in their 445 minutes with Rubio means they are getting DESTROYED in their 229 minutes without Rubio, etc.

Hasn't this always been the case with Rubio? Or at least over the last 5 years or so? I remember reading how the Twolves, like 3 or 4 years ago were basically a net rtg of 0 and had played teams evenly when he was on the floor, but when he was off the floor, they were the worst team in the NBA. This was when they had Towns of course, and Wiggins, and ended up like the 5th worst in the NBA despiting basically playing the equivalent of 500 ball with Rubio on the floor.

It appears here that we are far better than a 500 team with Rubio on the floor.

[sportpeso]

We cannot play Rubio for 40mn every night.
We need a good backup PG. Carter has shown glimpses of that , I feel confident every time he is on the floor .
Monty has to make his mind and stop messing with PG rotation .

[bwgood77]

We cannot play Rubio for 40mn every night.
We need a good backup PG. Carter has shown glimpses of that , I feel confident every time he is on the floor .
Monty has to make his mind and stop messing with PG rotation .

It clearly should be Okobo with a dose of Carter. Okobo was a huge plus when he was the pure backup. Had the highest +/- by far in a few games. He is only getting better too, being the youngest of the bunch, who has a long wingspan, is quick, makes great decisions after studying Rubio and has an extremely high ast/to ratio, rarely turning it over. Usually a decent defender, can get to the rim, and his shooting is improving.

It's clearly evident to me.

[Bogyo]

We cannot play Rubio for 40mn every night.
We need a good backup PG. Carter has shown glimpses of that , I feel confident every time he is on the floor .
Monty has to make his mind and stop messing with PG rotation .

It clearly should be Okobo with a dose of Carter. Okobo was a huge plus when he was the pure backup. Had the highest +/- by far in a few games. He is only getting better too, being the youngest of the bunch, who has a long wingspan, is quick, makes great decisions after studying Rubio and has an extremely high ast/to ratio, rarely turning it over. Usually a decent defender, can get to the rim, and his shooting is improving.

It's clearly evident to me.

The right answer is: both. We do not have an adequate backup SG anyways, becouse Johnson fell off a cliff, and Jerome was born under the cliff to begin with. Carter is a bulldog, with occasional spot up 3s, and little to none playmaking. Okobo is a cutter / drive to the basket type guard, with some shooting, also little playmaking, and no(t really) good D, but he is 6'3" and he is (mostly) playing with energy. So these 2 should be our backup guards most all of the time, in whichever order, or based on matchup and who has the hot hand. It should be enough, especially if one of them plays with one of Book or Rubio most of the time, and they only play together (with other subs) between 5-10 mins - closer to 5 tho.

[bwgood77]

We cannot play Rubio for 40mn every night.
We need a good backup PG. Carter has shown glimpses of that , I feel confident every time he is on the floor .
Monty has to make his mind and stop messing with PG rotation .

It clearly should be Okobo with a dose of Carter. Okobo was a huge plus when he was the pure backup. Had the highest +/- by far in a few games. He is only getting better too, being the youngest of the bunch, who has a long wingspan, is quick, makes great decisions after studying Rubio and has an extremely high ast/to ratio, rarely turning it over. Usually a decent defender, can get to the rim, and his shooting is improving.

It's clearly evident to me.

The right answer is: both. We do not have an adequate backup SG anyways, becouse Johnson fell off a cliff, and Jerome was born under the cliff to begin with. Carter is a bulldog, with occasional spot up 3s, and little to none playmaking. Okobo is a cutter / drive to the basket type guard, with some shooting, also little playmaking, and no(t really) good D, but he is 6'3" and he is (mostly) playing with energy. So these 2 should be our backup guards most all of the time, in whichever order, or based on matchup and who has the hot hand. It should be enough, especially if one of them plays with one of Book or Rubio most of the time, and they only play together (with other subs) between 5-10 mins - closer to 5 tho.

I wouldn't play 1 over Bridges assuming our backup lineup is Okobo or Carter/Bridges/Cam/Kaminsky/Baynes. If Ayton is still out and you slide everyone up a spot, then playing both is good.

[PharmD]

I'm at work on Xmas eve totally bored out of my mind. I'm looking at the Suns here and i'm noticing some things about Rubio and Booker.

On/Off
Rubio: offense 6.0 points better, defense 4.3 points better, net 10.3 points better
Booker: offense 10.4 point better, defense 9.9 points worse, net 0.5 points better

Booker is huge for the offense but total poison to the defense.

Lineups

Rubio + Booker + Oubre: +5.1 (460 min)
Rubio + Oubre: +5.7 (630 min)
Booker + Oubre: -2.0 (717 min)

Rubio + Booker + Saric: +8.3 (445 min)
Rubio + Saric: +7.0 (560 min)
Booker + Saric: +1.0 (674 min)

Rubio + Booker + Baynes: +4.4 (258 min)
Rubio + Baynes: +4.2 (325 min)
Booker + Baynes: +1.8 (370 min)

Rubio + Booker + Kaminsky: +5.2 (212 min)
Rubio + Kaminsky: +3.9 (333 min)
Booker + Kaminsky: -1.4 (426 min)

Rubio + Booker: +5.8

So the starters are mostly winning combinations. Replacing Ricky with anybody else kills most every lineup (we knew this). Interestingly, replacing Booker with anybody else seems to not really hurt at all. Notice, for example, that for Booker + Oubre to be -2.0 overall, while +5.1 in the 460 minutes they play with Rubio, means that they are getting DESTROYED in the 257 minutes they've played with not-Rubio. For Booker and Saric to be +1.0 overall when they are +8.3 in their 445 minutes with Rubio means they are getting DESTROYED in their 229 minutes without Rubio, etc.

Hasn't this always been the case with Rubio? Or at least over the last 5 years or so? I remember reading how the Twolves, like 3 or 4 years ago were basically a net rtg of 0 and had played teams evenly when he was on the floor, but when he was off the floor, they were the worst team in the NBA. This was when they had Towns of course, and Wiggins, and ended up like the 5th worst in the NBA despiting basically playing the equivalent of 500 ball with Rubio on the floor.

It appears here that we are far better than a 500 team with Rubio on the floor.

Over the 6 years Ricky was in Minnesota the Wolves were +355 with him ON and -1585 with him OFF. Some of that was Rick Adelman running hockey lineups where the starters were awesome (1052 min at net rating +12.3 in 2013-14) and the bench was atrocious. But generally the wolves completely fell apart when ever Ricky was off the court or hurt. And he was hurt a lot.

[Bogyo]

It clearly should be Okobo with a dose of Carter. Okobo was a huge plus when he was the pure backup. Had the highest +/- by far in a few games. He is only getting better too, being the youngest of the bunch, who has a long wingspan, is quick, makes great decisions after studying Rubio and has an extremely high ast/to ratio, rarely turning it over. Usually a decent defender, can get to the rim, and his shooting is improving.

It's clearly evident to me.

The right answer is: both. We do not have an adequate backup SG anyways, becouse Johnson fell off a cliff, and Jerome was born under the cliff to begin with. Carter is a bulldog, with occasional spot up 3s, and little to none playmaking. Okobo is a cutter / drive to the basket type guard, with some shooting, also little playmaking, and no(t really) good D, but he is 6'3" and he is (mostly) playing with energy. So these 2 should be our backup guards most all of the time, in whichever order, or based on matchup and who has the hot hand. It should be enough, especially if one of them plays with one of Book or Rubio most of the time, and they only play together (with other subs) between 5-10 mins - closer to 5 tho.

I wouldn't play 1 over Bridges assuming our backup lineup is Okobo or Carter/Bridges/Cam/Kaminsky/Baynes. If Ayton is still out and you slide everyone up a spot, then playing both is good.

Sure, that was implied in my post I thought (whichever order, or based on matchup and who has the hot hand). But yeah, if everyone is healthy "coach" has the opportunity to pick one of the 2.