2025-26 Lineup Thread -- How's it shakin out?

[doclinkin]

As far as improvements I think I’d likely predict the biggest jump in raw stats like this:

Cam Whitmore
Alex Sarr

KyShawn George
Bilal Coulibaly
Bub

Vuk
Champagnie
AJJ

Cam will be given more opportunity to simply gun for box score numbers. He’s not shy to do so and as long as he looks like he’s giving effort on D coach BK will let him play. He has produced in the past when he’s gotten minutes, even if he gives up those numbers at the other end. The numbers will look like a jump. We can afford the losses cache offense is fun to watch. Even as a 6th man or shock troop off the bench he will likely earn steady minutes.

Sarr is the only sure starter out of this bunch. He will get all the minutes he can handle. So even modest improvement will make all of his numbers look better. Especially if his 3pt shot begins to fall.

Key, Bcool, and Bub will have vets sharing their minutes until trades open things up. Their numbers may be suppressed early.

This should be Bilal’s 3rd year breakout, though as a young player it may be delayed to his 4th season. Still, he’s likely a starter with KMidd off the bench. Our top defender, showing more versatility in dribble attack, best athlete. The smart money would say he’s got the most potential to make an actual jump and get recognized for it.

That said Kyshawn has been steadily improving, even during the season. Getting more fit. Stronger. Growing in confidence. Seems the hardest working of the bunch. And he’s willing to get chesty and play physical. Plus he’s not shy to shoot from range add has playmaking chops. I think he makes it hard for coaches not to play him. His versatility finds him minutes. Would not be surprised to see him as our best performer in all the data nerd stats that measure if we are a better team with him playing.

Bub is a ball handling lead guard. He will share minutes with CJ. Tre will sop up many more guard minutes. But if CJ is shipped then Bub is our only set up man on the roster. I expect his 3ball to improve which should open up the floor for other players. His rebounding means he’s our most likely double double threat of the bunch. I’d rather he rack them in assists instead. But hey.

I don’t expect JC to improve all that much since he’s already good in his role. I do expect he will largely be a bench player. In part because of that fact, developing his upside is less of a factor in our future success AND we need to lose. His rebounding and efficiency work against that.

AJJ is in a numbers crunch at guard. Skinny and likely to remain so, if he can’t play back up PG he may be starved of minutes behind the vets, Tre and all our larger versatile wing players.

Vuk has a real chance to make a jump and get his 2way deal converted. He just needs to rebound on the defensive end to earn consistent minutes in relief of Sarr. Or ideally next to him. Incremental improvement in the other things he does well will also help.

[payitforward]

Here's what I use as a roll-up. Per 40 minutes, obviously:

Add up: points + rebounds + steals + 1/2 assists + 1/2 blocks.

From the above total, subtract: FGAs + 1/2 FTAs + TOs + 1/2 PFs

The resulting numeric total is useful in comparing players at the same position.

This roll up may be compared to, for example, PER -- but is better, because PER makes any player look better the more points he scores at any FG% over 30% -- which is ridiculous.

It might also be compared to PPA, but I'd argue it's more accurate -- i.e. on a whole-team basis it's over 93% accurate to team wins which, in the end, is the only valuable metric.

That said, it's a tool & not a religion.

[payitforward]

Got any measure people like better than PPA? Or a database that tracks it.

PER?

Position Adjusted Win Score?

Box Plus Minus?

Versatility Index?

Or does Kev keep an updated database accessible online. Otherwise we have to wait til the end of the season for Kev to reveal his secret ratings.

Note that the formula for ppa is publically available (I have it somewhere...), hence there's no need for a database. Can be calculated easily from basketball-reference.com.

[doclinkin]

Got any measure people like better than PPA? Or a database that tracks it.

PER?

Position Adjusted Win Score?

Box Plus Minus?

Versatility Index?

Or does Kev keep an updated database accessible online. Otherwise we have to wait til the end of the season for Kev to reveal his secret ratings.

Note that the formula for ppa is publically available (I have it somewhere...), hence there's no need for a database. Can be calculated easily from basketball-reference.com.

Link me if you have it. My understanding is it is adjusted by position and I’ve not seen the formula for that.

[doclinkin]

Here's what I use as a roll-up. Per 40 minutes, obviously:

Add up: points + rebounds + steals + 1/2 assists + 1/2 blocks.

From the above total, subtract: FGAs + 1/2 FTAs + TOs + 1/2 PFs

The resulting numeric total is useful in comparing players at the same position.

Win score. Dave Berri. There’s a site that calculates it but I lost the link with my dead laptop.

Sure if you have a link to a dbase that updates regularly we can use that one.

I’d prefer to see it position adjusted of course. Otherwise front court rebounders hog the glory.

And honestly the Per 40 aspect I think sometimes skews the data for roleplayers with minimal touches. I’d like to see a usage correction for starters/heavy possession users since they become a focal point for defenses. A high use efficient scorer is worth more to a team than, say, a highly efficient Otto Porter who we often dinged for being passive and not forcing the action.

[doclinkin]

Truth is in todays NBA 3pt makes and FT attempts probably have a stronger effect on the game than most roll ups take into account.

Not even 3pt efficiency. Simply makes. Teams will run defenses out to challenge high volume gunners even if they miss. You can’t afford to let them get on a streak. This makes other players more efficient since the gravity gets dragged to the shooter.

And FT attempts because they alter late game play by forcing fouls on opponents best defenders. Even more important: High volume Foul harvesters like SGA can control the pace of play by scoring with a stopped clock.

[payitforward]

Here's what I use as a roll-up. Per 40 minutes, obviously:

Add up: points + rebounds + steals + 1/2 assists + 1/2 blocks.

From the above total, subtract: FGAs + 1/2 FTAs + TOs + 1/2 PFs

The resulting numeric total is useful in comparing players at the same position.

Win score. Dave Berri. There’s a site that calculates it but I lost the link with my dead laptop....

Yes. boxscoregeeks.com -- but there what's used is the more complicated "wins produced" metric. Close enough....

Win Score is pretty plain vanilla -- obvious in a sense -- yet quite accurate as to what players do & its relationship with how many games their teams win.

I’d prefer to see it position adjusted of course. Otherwise front court rebounders hog the glory. ....

Beyond me to do that, but it's at the above site.

...honestly the Per 40 aspect I think sometimes skews the data for roleplayers with minimal touches....

It can't skew the data itself, obviously. I'd say you are reluctant to value other forms of productivity as highly as scoring -- which is not uncommon & is easily understood of course! -- since every kind of coverage is skewed to highlight scoring.

But, both teams score, & despite what we think when we see a guy drop a ton of points, it's not a player's scoring volume that helps you win, it's his scoring volume at high efficiency. This mistake is precisely what led to people here viewing Kuz as "good" a few years ago, in say '22-23, when in fact he was absolutely terrible, among the 25 worst players in the league.

...I’d like to see a usage correction for starters/heavy possession users since they become a focal point for defenses. A high use efficient scorer is worth more to a team than, say, a highly efficient Otto Porter who we often dinged for being passive and not forcing the action.

Sure! All win score does is give you a tool for comparison of value across differing skill sets. It's not an absolute or a metaphysical summary of everything that matters.

But it does let you take two dissimilar players (at the same position) w/ one being a high-volume shot taker & the other, say, a big-time rebounder & steals guy & come to some reasonable idea of how to compare their value to the team -- or, really, their effect on the team.

Even in that case, it's just a tool; it's not an absolute number system, some kind of universal solvent eliminating those player differences in a single number that represents "goodness" of players in some absolute way. For starters, after all, there are only so many shots available! &, for that matter, only so many rebounds.

In his best years, btw, Otto took a healthy number of shots.

As to your point about shooters vs. other types, I don't think the tool is particularly skewed away from those. After all. 3 of its top 4 last year were SG-A, Jokic & Giannis.

What it does do is give you a tool for understanding just how tremendous the other guy in that group of 4 is (Josh Hart).

On that subject, look at Detroit's improvement last year. Did they add a big-time shooter? No.

But if you look at how many minutes of above average play they had in '24-25, win score says it was 9600 minutes -- as against @3850 the previous year. Above all that represented enormous improvements from Cade Cunningham, Jalen Duren, & Stewart, plus the addition of Tobias Harris (who had quite a good year).

[payitforward]

Back to this:

...honestly the Per 40 aspect I think sometimes skews the data for roleplayers with minimal touches....

...which I think we can call the Justin Champagnie problem -- although I'm sure I'll also get negative responses to the high ranking of Josh Hart, & for the same reasons.

In fact, these two guys -- Hart & Champagnie -- offer an outstanding comparison! They were quite similar this season, although Hart (in his 8th season already!) was just slightly better.

Here are their numbers per 48 minutes on the floor:

https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players/compare?utf8=%E2%9C%93&player_ids%5B%5D=4264&player_ids%5B%5D=3284&season=2024

Hart is much better on assists, a little bit worse on the rest of the stuff. Overall, it's easy to see how productive they both are -- & how close they are in productivity!

You could call Hart an elite role player if you wanted to, but he's a hell of a player -- probably the best player on the Knicks last year.

Rinse & repeat for Justin, except that Justin is more than six years younger than Hart. He's our best player right now, & I will be surprised if anyone surpasses -- even equals him! -- any time soon.

Justin Champagnie is our Josh Hart.

[doclinkin]

...honestly the Per 40 aspect I think sometimes skews the data for roleplayers with minimal touches....

It can't skew the data itself, obviously. I'd say you are reluctant to value other forms of productivity as highly as scoring --

I’m not the only one. Dr Dean Oliver said of his ‘Four Factors’ scoring is the most important. Counting for 40% of the win. Scoring matters most. Everything else follows.

Stat nerds tend to lionize the marginal role players who feed off the scraps of the high usage players. However if those players are funnel-fed more possessions or forced to create for themselves their efficiency tanks.

Witness Corey Kispert. His early efficiency under the Wes Jr offense fell apart under a Coach BK system that requires players to be able to create for themselves. Corey looked excellent when he could hit open shots or crash back door for opportunistic buckets unguarded. Not when he had to create for himself instead of being pass-dependent.

The teams that win have a reliable heavy usage scorer who can warp defenses and allow those easy buckets for everyone else. Nowadays as much as it chafes me— and as much as I try to re ignite the era of the interior scoring giant— those defense benders are most often three point shooters. They improve efficiency elsewhere by opening up the inside.

A guy like Otto was a smart and opportunistic player. He was never the first option scorer. He benefited from the John Wall effect, where multiple wing players like Ariza etc suddenly discovered confidence shooting from the corner because of Wallstars remarkable ability to collapse a defense the opposite way. John Wall was such a threat to drive that even when he was inefficient at it teams would load up on the interior and leave the corners open. With his height and passing inclination he spoonfed them free looks with those drive and kick possessions. Yes he was driving into the heart of the defense and ended up with offensive fouls and empty possessions but his perimeter partners feasted when he could flip it to them over the heads of the defenders packing the paint.

Ultimately we lost under that system. The league was feasting on Small Ball where high volume three point shooting proved more effective than drive and kick. And Wall never added a reliable outside shot or figured out what to do on possessions that he didn’t have the ball. A flaw in his game.

Still. I don’t think the answer would have been to start possessions with the ball in Otto’s hands. That would have made both players worse at what they do.

[doclinkin]

But, both teams score, & despite what we think when we see a guy drop a ton of points, it's not a player's scoring volume that helps you win, it's his scoring volume at high efficiency.

And yet. That scoring volume is often what dictates the defense. It has an outsized effect on the scoring efficiency of the peripheral players. We see it most pronounced with Jokic whose ridiculous efficiency from outside coupled with his passing genius turns the court inside out like a used sweatsock. But if Jokic only took one 3 a game he wouldn’t have that effect.


If Stef was a situational sniper who set up in the corner and waited for open shots he wouldn’t be the labeled the most terrifying player to guard in the NBA.

Obviously you want your gunners to hit those shots. You want them to hit regardless of the defense. That’s what determines stardom. We don’t have a star on this team yet. Maybe. Unless Tre can translate what he did in college directly to the NBA.

But you make my point for me. Ultimately we should find a way to credit more heavily the sort of players who are able to maintain efficiency while their usage increases. Not just the guys who feed off their scraps. Naturally it shows up in the box score if a high usage player is also scoring well. That’s factor One. But sneakily it also shows up in the efficiency of the players around that guy. Role players look better supporting a star.

We’ve never seen a team win yet that is entirely comprised of Josh Harts. You can’t simply throw out on court a bunch of efficiency stars and role players and expect them to win. You need a Brunson to make a Hart. You need the guy that the other team is forced to foul to stop. Which was my point on FT attempts not being weighted heavily enough in most player evaluation metrics. The guy that teams are forced to foul has a real effect on the outcome of the game.

I dunno. Maybe it’s worth trying. Building a team of seniors and box score heroes from college. BBIQ guys. Then try to win with passing and rebounding and an evenly distributed load. Outside shooting. Not worrying about forcing fouls.

In a way I think that’s what the recent Celtics championship was. Tatum and Brown got the most credit but what won for them was the fact that every position on court had a skilled 3pt shooter deep into the bench.

[DCZards]

...which I think we can call the Justin Champagnie problem -- although I'm sure I'll also get negative responses to the high ranking of Josh Hart, & for the same reasons.

In fact, these two guys -- Hart & Champagnie -- offer an outstanding comparison! They were quite similar this season, although Hart (in his 8th season already!) was just slightly better.

Justin Champagnie is our Josh Hart.

Wrote this last April:

No…can’t sleep on Champagnie. He’s a baller and has shown that he’s an important piece going forward. He’s quietly emerging as a Josh Hart-type player.

[DCZards]

I dunno. Maybe it’s worth trying. Building a team of seniors and box score heroes from college. BBIQ guys. Then try to win with passing and rebounding and an evenly distributed load. Outside shooting. Not worrying about forcing fouls.

In a way I think that’s what the recent Celtics championship was. Tatum and Brown got the most credit but what won for them was the fact that every position on court had a skilled 3pt shooter deep into the bench.

Yes…but Tatum and Brown were the stars who created that gravity which made it easier for guys like White, Holiday, Horford and Pritchard to get open 3pt shots.

As much as I love what players like Hart and Champagne bring to the table they are still just very good role players. They are not the kind of elite players you can build a championship team around.

[doclinkin]

Line up wise I think JC benefited by playing with a perimeter Big in Sarr. Many of his easy points came from posting up in the dunkers spot while Sarr noodled around outside.

Watch on YouTube

The rest mostly came from running the floor harder than anyone and hitting open threes. Opportunistic heads up play. Love his defense and rebounding. That will earn him PT on any winning team.

I’m intrigued by flashes of chemistry with Vukcevic. Love to see those two anchor the 2nd line bench mob. With Middleton at guard/wing you add a ton of savvy and smart play.

Ultimately though I’m curious if Cam and Champ can play together. Both are undersized in length if they’re playing as forwards but sturdy and tough to handle. I think Cam might not see some of those hit-ahead passes that rewarded Champ for running the court but players like Vuk, Sarr, Key are all ball movers. And Bub vies with George as the smartest young player on court.

Bub
Cam
Champ
Kyshawn
Vuk

Could be a fun shock troop to watch off the bench. Especially if we see even incremental improvement in outside shooting from Bub, Kyshawn, Tristan. You leave room in the middle for JC and Cam to attack the paint, while the passing gun towers in Vuk and George stretch the defense outside. Bub hits open jumpers off screens and picks from the midrange on out.

Again though, someone needs to teach Cam what a weapon he will be if he learns to set hard screens and picks. He will always be open for a slip screen attack once players learn how much it hurts to run into him. Those low center of gravity fire hydrant types are a pain to bang into.

Defenders chasing the shooter see Cam setting up a road block. Dance wide to the outside to avoid him. Cam cuts hard to the basket unimpeded instead. High post passing big hits him on the move. Easy dunk.

[nate33]

Truth is in todays NBA 3pt makes and FT attempts probably have a stronger effect on the game than most roll ups take into account.

Not even 3pt efficiency. Simply makes. Teams will run defenses out to challenge high volume gunners even if they miss. You can’t afford to let them get on a streak. This makes other players more efficient since the gravity gets dragged to the shooter.

And FT attempts because they alter late game play by forcing fouls on opponents best defenders. Even more important: High volume Foul harvesters like SGA can control the pace of play by scoring with a stopped clock.

This is why the most well-regarded metrics incorporate on/off data into their formula. You just don't get enough information from box score stats alone. Scoring with efficiency on low usage because some high-usage but less-efficient "star" set you up for your shot isn't as impactful as scoring with efficiency when the defense is focused on you. Likewise, good perimeter shooters who can score with a quick, high release, have more gravity and draw defensive attention away from other players, yet the high gravity shooter may not even touch the ball on the possession. How does the box score account for that?

[payitforward]

...which I think we can call the Justin Champagnie problem -- although I'm sure I'll also get negative responses to the high ranking of Josh Hart, & for the same reasons.

In fact, these two guys -- Hart & Champagnie -- offer an outstanding comparison! They were quite similar this season, although Hart (in his 8th season already!) was just slightly better.

Justin Champagnie is our Josh Hart.

Wrote this last April:

No…can’t sleep on Champagnie. He’s a baller and has shown that he’s an important piece going forward. He’s quietly emerging as a Josh Hart-type player.

Yup, you did. & well done too!

[payitforward]

As much as I love what players like Hart and Champagne bring to the table they are ...not the kind of elite players you can build a championship team around.

OTOH, you also cannot build a championship without players like them.

& I have no trouble applying the term "elite" to Hart (Champagnie needs to do it for another season first!).

Everything he does is done at an elite level. That's why, even though he doesn't score a whole lot of points, he is one of the best players in the league -- by which I do mean one of the players with the highest positive impact on wins.

At the 2-3, he gives you a 61% TS%, plus over 10 boards per 40 minutes to go with a half dozen assists, high steals, low turnovers, etc.
There's just no way to deny the guy's value -- nor any reason to.

[nate33]

As much as I love what players like Hart and Champagne bring to the table they are ...not the kind of elite players you can build a championship team around.

OTOH, you also cannot build a championship without players like them.

& I have no trouble applying the term "elite" to Hart (Champagnie needs to do it for another season first!).

Everything he does is done at an elite level. That's why, even though he doesn't score a whole lot of points, he is one of the best players in the league -- by which I do mean one of the players with the highest positive impact on wins.

At the 2-3, he gives you a 61% TS%, plus over 10 boards per 40 minutes to go with a half dozen assists, high steals, low turnovers, etc.
There's just no way to deny the guy's value -- nor any reason to.

It's interesting that Josh Hart had a much lower on/off differential than the other guys who played a similar role on his team.

Hart posted a -2.1 differential
Anunoby posted a +3.2
Bridges posted a +5.9
McBride posted a +5.6
Shamet posted a +2.7

It would appear that Hart is more deleterious to his team's success than his box score stats would suggest. Could it have anything to do with the fact that his .333 3P% and slow windup means teams can ignore him defensively and jam up actions for other players?

Again, box score metrics simply don't capture everything about basketball. A team of 5 Josh Harts would be terrible. A a team of 5 OG Anunobys or 5 Mikal Bridges would beat them with ease; I don't care what "wins produced" says about them.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

...honestly the Per 40 aspect I think sometimes skews the data for roleplayers with minimal touches....

It can't skew the data itself, obviously. I'd say you are reluctant to value other forms of productivity as highly as scoring --

I’m not the only one. Dr Dean Oliver said of his ‘Four Factors’ scoring is the most important. Counting for 40% of the win. Scoring matters most. Everything else follows.

Stat nerds tend to lionize the marginal role players who feed off the scraps of the high usage players. However if those players are funnel-fed more possessions or forced to create for themselves their efficiency tanks.

Witness Corey Kispert. His early efficiency under the Wes Jr offense fell apart under a Coach BK system that requires players to be able to create for themselves. Corey looked excellent when he could hit open shots or crash back door for opportunistic buckets unguarded. Not when he had to create for himself instead of being pass-dependent.

The teams that win have a reliable heavy usage scorer who can warp defenses and allow those easy buckets for everyone else. Nowadays as much as it chafes me— and as much as I try to re ignite the era of the interior scoring giant— those defense benders are most often three point shooters. They improve efficiency elsewhere by opening up the inside.

A guy like Otto was a smart and opportunistic player. He was never the first option scorer. He benefited from the John Wall effect, where multiple wing players like Ariza etc suddenly discovered confidence shooting from the corner because of Wallstars remarkable ability to collapse a defense the opposite way. John Wall was such a threat to drive that even when he was inefficient at it teams would load up on the interior and leave the corners open. With his height and passing inclination he spoonfed them free looks with those drive and kick possessions. Yes he was driving into the heart of the defense and ended up with offensive fouls and empty possessions but his perimeter partners feasted when he could flip it to them over the heads of the defenders packing the paint.

Ultimately we lost under that system. The league was feasting on Small Ball where high volume three point shooting proved more effective than drive and kick. And Wall never added a reliable outside shot or figured out what to do on possessions that he didn’t have the ball. A flaw in his game.

Still. I don’t think the answer would have been to start possessions with the ball in Otto’s hands. That would have made both players worse at what they do.

Wall never became a reliable three-point shooter. True.

However, he improved remarkably. As a rookie, John Wall went an abysmal 3-41 3FG%. (No search engine. IIRC) Sam Cassell discouraged John from attempting threes at all. This explains some of his poor shooting, IMO.

Wall improved and expanded his range some before his career ended.

[payitforward]

You know what a high opinion I have of you, nate -- as a basketball thinker &, in general, as an intelligent person. Of course, I am also aware of opinions you hold in other areas of life & thought that I can effortlessly prove irrational -- ideas, in some cases, that were expressly created for reasons other than any interest in anything like truth.

So... you're not perfect, amigo! As you or anyone might say of me as well!

A box score, its *stats*, account entirely for the final score of the game -- they tell me who won & account entirely for why they won. That's what we mean when we use the word "explain" or the phrase "account for."

Of course, the stats don't tell the story of *how* they were created. They impart no narrative, they convey no drama. They are, therefore, not inherently appealing or exciting. There's plenty they don't explain. But, they do explain -- altogether, leaving no gap & no need to learn any other facts -- who won the game.

Moreover, to an extremely high degree of accuracy, (percentage-wise somewhere in the mid 90s if I remember correctly) a team's season-long box score stats accounts for its place in the standings. Fact. Not theory. If we agree that the standings represent how good the teams are, at least to a reasonably accurate degree, then those same stats tell us, overall, how good the teams were that season.

As to Wins Produced (or any other such from PER to whatever), it emerges from those stats; it doesn't create them. The stats themselves are created by the activity of players on basketball courts -- nothing else.

Analytically, those various roll ups can be tested against the world of facts: against those actual win-loss records. The one that correlates closest to actual results is the best of them. Period. It is the most explanatory. Period.

It really doesn't matter whether you "care" or don't about what one or another of them "says," nate. Or whether I do either. We don't test facts in the world against our opinions to find out if they are true. We do the opposite. Moreover, even if something is true, that doesn't make it interesting. No one has to be interested in any of these methodologies. Certainly, watching a basketball game is more interesting!

That's just the way things are. Nothing I can do about it. Or that you can. Numbers don't lie.

Opinions, OTOH, can reflect many things. Often, we find, they represent something other than a thorough-going investigation of the facts.

Then again, I don't work for Josh Hart. Nor is he my younger brother. You don't have to like him; really you don't. The game's not worth the candle: isn't that how the saying goes?

[gesa2]

Just asking - PIF you state correctly that we can use box score stats to determine which team won the game - undeniable. But you use this fact to say that a player’s individual value is only expressed in his box score stats. Isn’t it logically possible that a player behaves in such a way on the court that he improves the team’s chance at winning in a way expressed only through his teammates’ stats?