What to do with Klay Thompson?

[Archx]

Did you see my post before this?

They played 119 minutes together and have a net rating of 23.5, the second-most played lineup has played 89 minutes together and got a net rating of -8.8.

The difference between those lineups is Gafford is playing instead of Lively. So how can you use that stat to defend Thompson should be starting when it is very clear that the stat is skewed because of the few minutes?

You literally answered yourself here. The reason why the 2nd lineup had negative NET is because you switched out Lively for Gafford. Gafford (until this point) hasn't been good, that's something every Mavs fan noticed. He was bad at defending the space and fell for every single pump fake, which then put him out of position. Lively is a much more mobile and versatile defensive center that can also grab more rebounds.

So all in all, Klay played amazing with Luka, he shoots over 41% from 3 when he's playing with Luka and 32% without him. (That was before injury).
Klay also receives the most passes from Luka because he's the only guy who can create shots for him and doesn't ignore him when he's open. There was literally a huge topic on Mavs reddit about this few days ago with video material. I suggest you check it out.

Long story short, Klay plays fine but he does need a coach or a player, who is capable of creating open space for him. Kidd is not a serious coach and we see this now more than ever, but having the real coach coming back from calf injury will also help out Klay a lot.

At the end of the day it doesn't even matter if he starts or not, Grimes often finishes games ahead of him anyway....

I don't think you understand how the numbers work,

Here’s a simple way to picture why a lineup that’s only played around 13 games (or ~100–120 minutes) is far more “fragile” than, say, a team like the Timberwolves that has a much bigger sample of minutes played together:

Small Sample = Small Total Point Gap

If a five‐man unit racks up a nice +25 net rating over just 13 games (maybe ~120 minutes together), they might only be, say, +30 or +40 total points above their opponents in those minutes.
One or two bad games (20+ point losses) can wipe out that entire +30 or +40‐point cushion. Suddenly, the net rating (points per 100 possessions) drops all the way down to zero or even negative.
Large Sample = Larger Cushion

A team like the Timberwolves, playing hundreds more minutes together, builds up or loses far more total points over time. If they have a strong net rating over several hundred minutes, they might be, for example, +200 or +300 total points in the big picture.
It would take many consecutive bad games (20+ point blowouts) to burn through that larger cushion. Their net rating is more “stable” because it isn’t as easily flipped by a few outlier nights.


For example, last season when Gafford joined the Mavs they played together for 19 games and had a defensive rating of 99. That is better than Lively has ever done. Now this season with Gafford it is suddenly 127 or something.


You just can't argue with those numbers.

Dude, Gafford has -6.7 ON/Off and he was even worse up until lately when he started playing better. Klay had 2nd highest On/Off on the team behind Luka and Lively. The starting lineup with Lively is the only Mavs lineup over 100 minutes, which is a reasonable sample size to consider.

You could also go and check out 2-man lineups with Gafford, then check same lineups with Klay and Lively. The only player out of 3 is Gafford with most negative impact. Use logic and you'll see what i said in my post goes hand in hand what was actually happening on the floor. For most of the season Gafford was the weakest link, hence why there were also rumors of using him in a trade as a bait.

If you have an agenda against Klay, fine.. whatever, but don't skew it in a way like Klay is responsible that other players have worse impact numbers lol. You literally swap out ONE player (not named Klay) and their netrtg balloons to 2nd best in the league.

Additional stat. When starting lineup was healthy, their record was 11-3, that's with Klay in the lineup instead of Gafford. So what i said earlier, is 100% correct.

[Chuck Everett]

Until Luka and Lively are back none of this matters. They need them healthy. Just going to have weather the storm. And now Kleber just broke his foot.

[dirkdiggler4177]

You literally answered yourself here. The reason why the 2nd lineup had negative NET is because you switched out Lively for Gafford. Gafford (until this point) hasn't been good, that's something every Mavs fan noticed. He was bad at defending the space and fell for every single pump fake, which then put him out of position. Lively is a much more mobile and versatile defensive center that can also grab more rebounds.

So all in all, Klay played amazing with Luka, he shoots over 41% from 3 when he's playing with Luka and 32% without him. (That was before injury).
Klay also receives the most passes from Luka because he's the only guy who can create shots for him and doesn't ignore him when he's open. There was literally a huge topic on Mavs reddit about this few days ago with video material. I suggest you check it out.

Long story short, Klay plays fine but he does need a coach or a player, who is capable of creating open space for him. Kidd is not a serious coach and we see this now more than ever, but having the real coach coming back from calf injury will also help out Klay a lot.

At the end of the day it doesn't even matter if he starts or not, Grimes often finishes games ahead of him anyway....

I don't think you understand how the numbers work,

Here’s a simple way to picture why a lineup that’s only played around 13 games (or ~100–120 minutes) is far more “fragile” than, say, a team like the Timberwolves that has a much bigger sample of minutes played together:

Small Sample = Small Total Point Gap

If a five‐man unit racks up a nice +25 net rating over just 13 games (maybe ~120 minutes together), they might only be, say, +30 or +40 total points above their opponents in those minutes.
One or two bad games (20+ point losses) can wipe out that entire +30 or +40‐point cushion. Suddenly, the net rating (points per 100 possessions) drops all the way down to zero or even negative.
Large Sample = Larger Cushion

A team like the Timberwolves, playing hundreds more minutes together, builds up or loses far more total points over time. If they have a strong net rating over several hundred minutes, they might be, for example, +200 or +300 total points in the big picture.
It would take many consecutive bad games (20+ point blowouts) to burn through that larger cushion. Their net rating is more “stable” because it isn’t as easily flipped by a few outlier nights.


For example, last season when Gafford joined the Mavs they played together for 19 games and had a defensive rating of 99. That is better than Lively has ever done. Now this season with Gafford it is suddenly 127 or something.


You just can't argue with those numbers.

Dude, Gafford has -6.7 ON/Off and he was even worse up until lately when he started playing better. Klay had 2nd highest On/Off on the team behind Luka and Lively. The starting lineup with Lively is the only Mavs lineup over 100 minutes, which is a reasonable sample size to consider.

You could also go and check out 2-man lineups with Gafford, then check same lineups with Klay and Lively. The only player out of 3 is Gafford with most negative impact. Use logic and you'll see what i said in my post goes hand in hand what was actually happening on the floor. For most of the season Gafford was the weakest link, hence why there were also rumors of using him in a trade as a bait.

If you have an agenda against Klay, fine.. whatever, but don't skew it in a way like Klay is responsible that other players have worse impact numbers lol. You literally swap out ONE player (not named Klay) and their netrtg balloons to 2nd best in the league.

Additional stat. When starting lineup was healthy, their record was 11-3, that's with Klay in the lineup instead of Gafford. So what i said earlier, is 100% correct.

You clearly don't watch the games or have ever taken a Probability and Statistics class.


Anyway, don't need to reply. We just disagree too much and I won't bother

[Archx]

I don't think you understand how the numbers work,

Here’s a simple way to picture why a lineup that’s only played around 13 games (or ~100–120 minutes) is far more “fragile” than, say, a team like the Timberwolves that has a much bigger sample of minutes played together:

Small Sample = Small Total Point Gap

If a five‐man unit racks up a nice +25 net rating over just 13 games (maybe ~120 minutes together), they might only be, say, +30 or +40 total points above their opponents in those minutes.
One or two bad games (20+ point losses) can wipe out that entire +30 or +40‐point cushion. Suddenly, the net rating (points per 100 possessions) drops all the way down to zero or even negative.
Large Sample = Larger Cushion

A team like the Timberwolves, playing hundreds more minutes together, builds up or loses far more total points over time. If they have a strong net rating over several hundred minutes, they might be, for example, +200 or +300 total points in the big picture.
It would take many consecutive bad games (20+ point blowouts) to burn through that larger cushion. Their net rating is more “stable” because it isn’t as easily flipped by a few outlier nights.


For example, last season when Gafford joined the Mavs they played together for 19 games and had a defensive rating of 99. That is better than Lively has ever done. Now this season with Gafford it is suddenly 127 or something.


You just can't argue with those numbers.

Dude, Gafford has -6.7 ON/Off and he was even worse up until lately when he started playing better. Klay had 2nd highest On/Off on the team behind Luka and Lively. The starting lineup with Lively is the only Mavs lineup over 100 minutes, which is a reasonable sample size to consider.

You could also go and check out 2-man lineups with Gafford, then check same lineups with Klay and Lively. The only player out of 3 is Gafford with most negative impact. Use logic and you'll see what i said in my post goes hand in hand what was actually happening on the floor. For most of the season Gafford was the weakest link, hence why there were also rumors of using him in a trade as a bait.

If you have an agenda against Klay, fine.. whatever, but don't skew it in a way like Klay is responsible that other players have worse impact numbers lol. You literally swap out ONE player (not named Klay) and their netrtg balloons to 2nd best in the league.

Additional stat. When starting lineup was healthy, their record was 11-3, that's with Klay in the lineup instead of Gafford. So what i said earlier, is 100% correct.

You clearly don't watch the games or have ever taken a Probability and Statistics class.


Anyway, don't need to reply. We just disagree too much and I won't bother

If you would read your entire thread, you would notice a ton of people disagree with you. So you can continue playing your mathematical probability game and come up with speculations, but the results and data are there. Mavs don't have a Klay problem, that's just how it is.

[SpreeChokeJob]

At this stage of his career, he could contribute as a bench player. His ego thinks he’s a starter and one of the 75 greatest all time NBA players. He’s living in the past where his injuries robbed him of his prime. Put him on the bench and for spot situations for shooting is ideal but he won’t accept that reality.

[Memories]

Mavs have the same problem with Klay like the Warriors (and every team except the Thunder) do with Dennis Schroder: treating him like a starter when he’s a bench player.

It’s annoying to see something so obvious with how badly utilized certain players are, and how easy it is to make that simple change and make them look better. Klay as a 6th/7th man off the bench would be a fine addition. As a starter, hes a liability at this point in his career.

I can’t tell if it’s reputation, sheer incompetence or both with these coaches that don’t just simply do the right thing.

[floppymoose]

Mavs don't have a Klay problem, that's just how it is.

As a Warriors fan, I think you should wait until the 4th quarter of your first close playoff game before making up your mind.

[MrGoat]

The Mavs fans concerned about perimeter defense don't realize why we got Klay. The the Finals last year Boston shot under 34% from deep as a team and failed to hit the 110 point plateau once, the Mavs' defense wasn't the problem. Yet I still heard so many people wanting us to try to trade for Herb Jones before his injury because he's an outstanding defender even though he's shooting 30% from deep

The Mavs have had a recent rough stretch of bad perimeter defense but that's actually because Lively is out, not because we don't have Herb Jones or Matisse Thybulle. Grimes and Marshall are perfectly capable and Luka and Kyrie have even shown they can bring it in the playoffs before. Perimeter defense requires a center who is a good communicator and can use his height help quarterback the defense to tell his teammates where they need to be. Lively's late mother and more recently Tyson Chandler have taught him the position very well, it's hard to criticize Gafford with the way he's been playing since Lively went down but he just doesn't have the BBIQ on defense that Lively does

If Luka and Lively aren't both back the Mavs' contention chances are cooked, simple as that

[MrGoat]

Until Luka and Lively are back none of this matters. They need them healthy. Just going to have weather the storm. And now Kleber just broke his foot.

Your first sentence is dead on. Losing Kleber was addition by subtraction at this point, though