ElGee wrote:Way way moreso with lineup data, where the most used lineup of a team might play 200 min. Variance/error are off the charts
And you still use that and interpret the stuff you think into it. Showing further your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
ElGee wrote:(a) The Mavs pick and choose lineups brilliantly.
Yeah, that's why they played the Stevenson lineup the most times. :lol: Brilliant choice, play your rather weak lineup the most of the minutes. But yeah, it probably makes sense to you.
ElGee wrote:
(b) The Mavs were video-game hot during stretches WITH hand-picked lineups.
Because other teams never are hot and don't pick lineups to their liking.
ElGee wrote:(c) The Mavs also struggled with other lineups which is
(d) why the Mavs won an extremely close title and didn't roll people like the 96 Bulls, despite their outlying lineups.
Yeah, it couldn't be the case that the other teams were actually rather strong.
The 96 Bulls played weaker opponents in the 1st and 2nd round, while also having the luck to face the Magic with an injured Grant. Oh well, you probably didn't account for that, do you? Or how about the 1997 Bulls, winning by a smaller margin than the Mavericks in 2011?
ElGee wrote:Because we could just also use the RS data and we'd see it's the 3rd-best offensive lineup of the last 5 years, but only the 13th-best overall lineup:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... y=diff_pts Of course, they play in strategically beneficial situations, as you'll notice they are the BEST big-minute lineup of the last 5 years...but they only average 5.5 mpg together. (!) The other "notable" top lineups -- as in, this is our best lineup, we want to play it as much as possible -- average 13 to 16 minutes.
:lol:
Talking about sample size and then come up with date where you compare lineups with sub 200 min and declare those lineups being better. Seriously, that is called intellectual dishonest. And just shows further how biased you are.
http://bkref.com/tiny/3OI7pBest lineup over the years with 200 and more minutes:
1. T. Chandler | J. Kidd | S. Marion | D. Nowitzki | J. Terry
2. C. Butler | T. Chandler | J. Kidd | D. Nowitzki | D. Stevenson
Oh well ... Doesn't fit your agenda, I guess ...
ElGee wrote:For an actual, no holds bard, holy **** impressive lineup, look at the Rondo-Allen-Pierce-KG-Perkins lineup -- they played 4400 minutes together at +13.5 and 19.2 mpg. Now THAT's a freaking impressive lineup. (Or even the Pho starting lineup in 2005 -- 1520 MP, 19.5 mpg, +14.7. The Det starting 5 played 4700 MP over 3 years at +11.5 while playing 21.2 mpg. And on and on...)
Then you look at the age, stamina and actual talent and you realise that the Mavericks were FORCED to switch players in and out, because they either needed rest or became incredible limited talentwise with certain player pairs. Stevenson+Marion was an awful fit for example, they just used Stevenson as a starter to save Terry. AND their best lineup was actually their closing lineup; just trying to stay in the game and then overwhelm the other team with fresher players, that was their game plan. Yeah, if you have Pierce and Allen anno 2008 instead of Marion and Terry, you for sure don't worry about those problems as much.
You are blind to the obvious things, because you seem to be obsessed with finding a different explanation. That your argumentation has huge holes (like claiming, the Mavericks would pick lineups brillantly while then playing a far worse lineup the most minutes). Then you rant about sample size only to ignore that completely later. It became pretty much worthless to read a post by you, because it is too damn obvious, that you are not applying your method in the same way to all players.
