Thunder design analysis

[getrichordie]

Big picture, if they decide to move fully into future, they could try to:

Trade Paul for 3 players (or keep longer, depending on quality of offers)
Sign n trade Gallinari for 2 players / assets
Trade Schroder for 2 players (or keep longer)
Sign n trade Noel for 2 assets (possibilities include 2nd rounders, pick swaps & swap rights) or re-sign at acceptable price.
Let Burton, Hall, Hervey and Roberson go.
Trade Ferguson for a 2nd rounder or less.
Trade Diallo for a different backup or draft compensation or cash.
Add the 2 draft picks.

I think you might get to 17 plus players in some scenarios. So trade or cut a few more from the group if / as necessary in camp. Maybe 2way the 2nd round pick.

Could do less. Could do even more.

I like this scorch the earth approach

I also like this scorched earth approach.

Keep SGA and Bazley. Everyone else is up for grabs. Get best value possible whether that's in the form of picks, cash, prospects or a mixture of those.

Only guys I might consider keeping other than those two are Diallo (if we can retain him for cheap) and Muscala (never hurts to have a stretch 5 for developmental purposes) and Schroder (if we can extend him at same or lower price).

Schroder // x
Gilgeous-Alexander // x
x // x // x
Bazley // x
x // x // Muscala

[itzmrgigglez]

Big picture, if they decide to move fully into future, they could try to:

Trade Paul for 3 players (or keep longer, depending on quality of offers)
Sign n trade Gallinari for 2 players / assets
Trade Schroder for 2 players (or keep longer)
Sign n trade Noel for 2 assets (possibilities include 2nd rounders, pick swaps & swap rights) or re-sign at acceptable price.
Let Burton, Hall, Hervey and Roberson go.
Trade Ferguson for a 2nd rounder or less.
Trade Diallo for a different backup or draft compensation or cash.
Add the 2 draft picks.

I think you might get to 17 plus players in some scenarios. So trade or cut a few more from the group if / as necessary in camp. Maybe 2way the 2nd round pick.

Could do less. Could do even more.

I like this scorch the earth approach

I also like this scorched earth approach.

Keep SGA and Bazley. Everyone else is up for grabs. Get best value possible whether that's in the form of picks, cash, prospects or a mixture of those.

Only guys I might consider keeping other than those two are Diallo (if we can retain him for cheap) and Muscala (never hurts to have a stretch 5 for developmental purposes) and Schroder (if we can extend him at same or lower price).

Schroder // x
Gilgeous-Alexander // x
x // x // x
Bazley // x
x // x // Muscala

I would like to keep dort especially since we’ve got him at a low price tag. Idk really care for diallo, nothing spectacular besides this athleticism.

Who ever we get back in these trades is importance and there needs to be an emphasis on shooting/shooters especially from the 3. I feel like you can teach defense easier than teaching someone how to shoot

[ThunderBolt]

I would like to keep dort especially since we’ve got him at a low price tag. Idk really care for diallo, nothing spectacular besides this athleticism.

Who ever we get back in these trades is importance and there needs to be an emphasis on shooting/shooters especially from the 3. I feel like you can teach defense easier than teaching someone how to shoot

I would say the amount of times Diallo has managed to slam a layup off the backboard without touching iron or dribble the ball off his foot while going 1 on 3 is spectacular.

[jambalaya]

Thunder playoff starting lineup (with Dort): -39 pts / 100 possessions. Seems like almost anything would have been better.

3 PGs together, +10 pts / 100p but underutilized. It was the huge winner in regular season and the only major positive in playoffs and they still failed to max it. Slugs.

Team lost on coaching / analytic / front office failure on lineup usage.

[jambalaya]

In mid-July I posted a specific playoff lineup rotation with 30 min / gm of the 3 PGs. They played 15 min / gm.

[ThunderBolt]

Just some quick browsing, the only other playoff teams that their most used lineups had a significantly negative rating are Dallas, Denver and Philly. None were nowhere near as bad as the thunders and those team's were missing starters- KP, Harris, Simmons.

[jambalaya]

In 6 games that starter unit was mildy negative in one and horrible to super horrible in 5. Impossible for me to accept not leaving it in game 4 or 5.

Regular season results were mildly negative. That might not been enough to totally skip attempt but it should have made getting off it quicker or even considered. Not though.

[jambalaya]

If they move on from Gallinari and Paul... but still truly want to win as much as possible next season (right or not to have that posture), then probably should start Schroder, SGA, x, Bazley and Adams (or Noel, if Adams is traded). SGA plays well with Adams, Bazley better with Noel. Dort vastly better so far with Noel and I might bring off bench. Depending who else can be x. Not Ferguson. Not Diallo for me. Possibly Nader last resort but hopefully someone new in draft, by trade or remote chance free agency. Dort - SGA was ok in regular season and terrible in playoffs. Got to test more, but I have concerns / doubts.

This is only 6-7 players assigned and only half are virtually certain to be back. Everything else is up for consideration.

[jambalaya]

I'd prefer to trade Adams. Letting him go next summer is 2nd best. Paying him big to re-sign would be pretty absurd but might happen. Depends how big you call big.

[getrichordie]

Just some quick browsing, the only other playoff teams that their most used lineups had a significantly negative rating are Dallas, Denver and Philly. None were nowhere near as bad as the thunders and those team's were missing starters- KP, Harris, Simmons.

All things considered, It's not like our starting lineup was any better on paper even given their starters/stars were out.

At the beginning of the season, If you told me that CP3-SGA-Dort-Gallinari-Adams-Schroder was going to take the Rockets to a 7-game series, I would've said you were smoking crack...

[jambalaya]

In playoffs, Dort increased his usage by 70% over regular season. Either Donovan was ok with it considering the defensive tactics or he lacked control. Dort had a big game but overall shoot poorly and should not have been 3rd highest on usage (ignoring low minute Diallo). Dort or Donovan / Dort took the Rockets bait and that alone probably cost the series, though you could point at other things too as being sufficient unto themselves. Only had to make one less huge or small mistake.

SGA's usage went down 25%. From defensive targeting and / or lack of priority on offensive play calls, Dort's situation, or indecision / passitivity, etc. Not a good sign whatever, but the why is important to assess and followup on.

Bazley's usage went down about 7%. Probably should have been encourage to go up 25% or more. If not this time, next season and beyond.

I'd suggest the next coach monitor Dort's usage and efficiency carefully and decide how much freedom to allow and when to check it.

The assumption has been that the future offense would have SGA with the highest usage eventually after several exits. Dort appears to want to challenge that. I am thinking early next season they might want to try Bazley as #1 or at minimum #1B. I am open to Dort earning #1 on usage if he either gets much more efficient and / or his push makes for easier / more efficient SGA and Bazley. But not if he is inefficient and unhelpful.



Gallinari's usage down about 10%, Schroder's down slightly, Paul's up slightly.

[jambalaya]

If they move on from Gallinari and Paul, leaving a base of Schroder, SGA, x, Bazley and Adams (or Noel, if Adams is traded), I used a new method to try to find x (assuming it is not Dort for time being). It is based on player style and similar lineup performance trends. So far it shows that it may be tough to build strong around that core, at current performance levels. The best free agent fits suggested so far are surprisingly McLemore or Dunn (or both and either move Schroder out or to bench). You have to believe in styles / similarities but this approach takes advantage of unprecedentedly comprehensive leaguewide data and trend analysis. There may be better 1-3 change options for the immediate future core lineup but I haven't found them yet, by this method or other.

If you keep Paul, then this core will operate better in short term. But if you move him, it may be most important to replace either some of his shooting or some of his defense. His creation value may be less important, especially if Schroder is retained.

[retrobro90]

If they move on from Gallinari and Paul, leaving a base of Schroder, SGA, x, Bazley and Adams (or Noel, if Adams is traded), I used a new method to try to find x (assuming it is not Dort for time being). It is based on player style and similar lineup performance trends. So far it shows that it may be tough to build strong around that core, at current performance levels. The best free agent fits suggested so far are surprisingly McLemore or Dunn (or both and either move Schroder out or to bench). You have to believe in styles / similarities but this approach takes advantage of unprecedentedly comprehensive leaguewide data and trend analysis. There may be better 1-3 change options for the immediate future core lineup but I haven't found them yet, by this method or other.

If you keep Paul, then this core will operate better in short term. But if you move him, it may be most important to replace either some of his shooting or some of his defense. His creation value may be less important, especially if Schroder is retained.

Mclemore or Dunn? They might as well be complete opposites lol. Not sure what your methodology is. Think Dunn could be had for relatively good value but he's an older guy for his 2nd contract. Mclemore probably earned a pay day above the minimum after this past season

[getrichordie]

I never understood why we didn't go after McLemore in previous years. We had nothing to lose. He's exactly the type of underachieving player you can hope to scoop up for little to no value and attempt to reanimate the dead.

To me, there's excellent upside in acquiring guys who are low cost but have high potential of at least increasing trade value if they can turn things around, get healthy, show signs of life, etc.

Kris Dunn and Ben McLemore fit the bill if Paul and Gallinari are gone and we can't fill minutes in those spots through the draft... Hell, we should be taking on any wing that has the potential to play above what Ferguson and Diallo's level.

What I don't want to see is us bringing in a bunch of veterans that are going to soak up important developmental minutes and lower our lottery odds for the 2021 NBA Draft. That would be absolutely disastrous in my mind. One veteran? Okay. Doable.

my current perimeter target considerations:

kris dunn
ben mclemore
zhaire smith
frank ntilikina
josh jackson
p.j. dozier
jaylen adams
bruno caboclo

my current big man target considerations:

donta hall
harry giles

[spearsy23]

I'm not a fan of going after bad players because they're young. Almost every fringe nba player will produce at some level when force fed minutes, but that doesn't mean they're actually developing into rotation players on a good team.

Guys like Dunn, mclemore and Ntilikina I don't mind because they've displayed an nba level skill. But dunn and McLemore aren't really even young anymore, and ntilikina has looked like Terrance Ferguson playing pg.

[jambalaya]

Of course Dunn and McLemore are different.

This experimental approach looks at lineup production for lineups with a similar mix of player styles. Compared to lineups similar to Schroder-SGA-Bazley-Adams with a player like Dort or Nader, lineups similar to that quad with McLemore (a strong spacer ) or Dunn (a strong defender, especially for steals) on average do a few points better. It suggests useful addition of skills & fit. The tool is an attempt to understand the team game based on actual lineup results. It is just a start, a way to get leads to check out further. I've identified enhancements that could be made to the tool. I wanted to try it out.

McLemore and Dunn could bring different skills. I doubt Presti will try for or get either. They are a bit older than desired if the focus is truly 3-5 years from now. They could fit in they want to be competitive in next 1-3 years. But he probably should look for guys of similar types either way.

I tried plugging in tall wing shooters and other types including some at star level to that lineup core without hardly any positive feedback from the lineup data set. That was disappointing. In addition to Dunn and McElmore, I got some positive feedback on Gary Harris and maybe a few others.

I dunno if this approach is that useful yet. Don't know if you don't try.

[jambalaya]

Of Getrichordie's target names, adding similar to them to lineups similar to this Thunder core did not help with the performance of those similar lineups, in fact they hurt moderately. Korkmaz was the best name / type of that list (but edited out I guess) but similar lineups were not as good as those with similar to Dunn or McLemore and no better than with similar to Dort or Nader.

[getrichordie]

Of Getrichordie's target names, adding similar to them to lineups similar to this Thunder core did not help with the performance of those similar lineups, in fact they hurt moderately. Korkmaz was the best name / type of that list (but edited out I guess) but similar lineups were not as good as those with similar to Dunn or McLemore and no better than with similar to Dort or Nader.

What method/tool are you using? You realize that most of those guys are young and have upside and can improve, right?

[jambalaya]

I described the basic method. It is very indirect but potentially useful. However an hour ago I identified an issue with the tool. It might be cosmetic or colossal. Put my comments from it aside for the time being. I have to see the fix before I can decide.

Yes, players can / often do get better. I mostly go by what they've done until they have done more. Projections come second for me and I wasn't weighing in on that at this time.

[retrobro90]

I described the basic method. It is very indirect but potentially useful. However an hour ago I identified an issue with the tool. It might be cosmetic or colossal. Put my comments from it aside for the time being. I have to see the fix before I can decide.

Yes, players can / often do get better. I mostly go by what they've done until they have done more. Projections come second for me and I wasn't weighing in on that at this time.

I think that's an interesting concept Jamb. Wasn't trying to come off as dismissive by pointing out the two were very different players/archetypes. I think this is a really useful approach under different circumstances (when OKC is trying to win as opposed to chasing the bottom this next year). Lord knows the org/coaching staff needs to start paying more attention to lineup data.