Unit Analysis: Curry, Ellis, Wright, Lee, Player X

I recently modified the ezPM code so that I can now analyze any arbitrary lineup during the season. For example, you may have already read my with-or-without Ellis analysis over at GSOM. Here, I'm going to look at a specific "core" unit (Curry, Ellis, D. Wright, and Lee) — presumably these 4 will be starters next season — with the fifth ("Player X") being one of Biedrins, Udoh, Radmanovic, and Amundson. These lineups were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th most used units this season, respectively, in terms of minutes (possessions). If you're wondering the 4th most used unit had Williams instead of Curry, and Biedrins as Player X. That unit will be analyzed in a future post concerning the guard position.

Ok, so let's get started. What I'm going to present are the usual ezPM stats for each unit, along with the best and worst opponent performances against that particular unit. I will also give two measures of opponent quality: ezPM100 and games started (weighted by possessions against the unit). Here's a summary table:

Player X
Player Biedrins Udoh Radmanovic Amundson
Curry -1.90 0.83 2.12 -4.60
Ellis 2.45 4.49 7.58 -2.91
Wright -0.56 2.73 7.82 -1.11
Lee -2.07 3.19 -4.59 -4.12
Player X -0.29 -7.23 -0.51 -3.98
Unit ezPM -2.36 +4.01 +12.43 -16.72
POSS 1370 704 281 244
OPP GS 54.3 51.0 49.7 52.2
OPP PyWins 44.6 46.2 44.3 52.4

Note that opponent quality is actually not that different between these units. In fact, surprisingly, it is the unit with Amundson that had the strongest opponent quality according to ezPM. It's interesting that in the smallest unit (with Radmanovic/Lee), Curry, Ellis, and Wright all performed best, while Lee had his worst performance. If you look at the breakdown below, the reason for Lee's poor rating in this unit is almost entirely due to rebounding. Lee's best unit (Udoh) is also his best rebounding unit.  Smart finally realized towards the end of the season that Udoh should replace Biedrins in the starting lineup — even if his stats look bad, his teammates clearly played better when he was on the floor. But these data suggest that Smart should have also played the combination of Lee/Radmanovic quite a bit more. Radmanovic probably won't be around next season. Assuming the core is still Curry, Ellis, Wright, and Lee, then it's a little scary to think that Biedrins or Amundson will be the backup center.

Andris Biedrins

Opponent ezPM = 0.28 (44.6 PyWin equivalent)

Opponent GS = 54.3

NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
Monta Ellis GSW 1.51 1370 80 2.45 2.45 0.70 2.37 -0.62 13.89% 75.44% 2.56 27.32% 20.22 54.60%
Andris Biedrins GSW 5 1370 55 1.29 -0.29 -1.38 0.65 0.45 42.67% 60.09% -12.74 10.86% 22.41 59.31%
Dorell Wright GSW 2.5 1370 82 1.17 -0.56 -0.61 0.37 -0.32 21.74% 72.50% -3.54 17.19% 19.93 55.27%
Stephen Curry GSW 1.5 1370 74 0.61 -1.90 1.50 -2.92 -0.47 8.16% 77.63% 6.48 23.07% 20.88 48.22%
David Lee GSW 4.5 1370 73 0.54 -2.07 0.78 -1.61 -1.24 26.80% 63.13% 3.45 22.51% 22.70 60.85%

 10 Best Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
1 Samuel Dalembert SAC 4.99 28 2 0.26 26.47 3.77 9.25 13.45 75.00% 100.00% 22.87 16.50% 10.71 0.00%
2 Kevin Garnett BOS 4.01 35 2 0.29 23.66 6.33 14.16 3.18 50.00% 83.33% 39.28 16.11% 22.86 14.29%
3 Roy Hibbert IND 5 28 1 0.23 22.82 5.47 17.20 0.15 50.00% 62.50% 31.72 17.25% 14.29 0.00%
4 Manu Ginobili SAS 2.5 79 4 0.62 22.00 6.50 12.38 3.12 50.00% 100.00% 35.41 18.35% 18.99 42.31%
5 Steve Nash PHX 1 75 4 0.54 19.80 12.70 3.88 3.22 66.67% 100.00% 34.46 36.85% 13.33 38.89%
6 Al Horford ATL 4.5 31 2 0.22 19.18 8.54 3.74 6.90 50.00% 100.00% 43.91 19.45% 9.68 50.00%
7 Joe Johnson ATL 2 31 2 0.22 19.13 -1.17 15.95 4.35 100.00% 100.00% -5.48 21.29% 25.81 12.50%
8 Carlos Delfino MIL 2.01 33 1 0.23 19.04 0.62 16.02 2.40 33.33% 100.00% 3.71 16.70% 12.12 50.00%
9 Kurt Thomas CHI 4.48 32 1 0.22 18.48 4.21 10.79 3.48 0.00% 100.00% 25.95 16.22% 34.38 40.00%
10 Kevin Durant OKC 3 64 3 0.42 17.96 9.46 6.39 2.11 50.00% 80.00% 30.34 31.17% 10.94 16.67%

 10 Worst OpponentS

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
115 Kwame Brown CHA 4.99 32 1 -0.27 -30.70 -11.67 -10.47 -8.56 36.36% 0.00% -69.69 16.75% 28.13 71.43%
114 Tayshaun Prince DET 3 26 2 -0.20 -27.90 -19.10 -4.85 -3.95 NA 50.00% -111.82 17.08% 26.92 64.29%
113 Amare Stoudemire NYK 4 34 2 -0.19 -21.83 -5.52 -7.00 -9.32 20.00% 44.44% -22.38 24.68% 41.18 62.50%
112 Richard Hamilton DET 2.01 26 2 -0.15 -21.44 -11.68 -10.83 1.07 0.00% 100.00% -46.94 24.88% 23.08 75.00%
111 Antawn Jamison CLE 4 34 1 -0.17 -19.83 -13.77 -3.60 -2.45 16.67% 66.67% -47.34 29.09% 17.65 66.67%
110 Baron Davis LAC 1.02 97 4 -0.42 -17.41 -5.48 -11.07 -0.86 16.67% 66.67% -21.82 25.11% 26.80 83.33%
109 Derek Fisher LAL 1 34 4 -0.14 -16.64 -4.12 -10.06 -2.45 0.00% NA -28.81 14.29% 8.82 83.33%
108 Earl Watson UTA 1.03 44 1 -0.14 -13.43 -7.83 -5.50 -0.10 25.00% NA -58.10 13.48% 31.82 50.00%
107 George Hill SAS 1.01 30 0 -0.09 -12.81 -9.57 -5.09 1.85 NA 100.00% -54.17 17.67% 36.67 50.00%
106 Derrick Rose CHI 1 39 2 -0.11 -12.64 -5.78 -9.60 2.74 100.00% 100.00% -15.87 36.44% 10.26 83.33%

Ekpe Udoh

Opponent ezPM = 0.41 (46.2 PyWin equivalent)

Opponent GS = 51.0

NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
Monta Ellis GSW 1.51 704 80 1.70 4.49 1.46 3.01 0.01 17.14% 81.40% 5.64 25.98% 21.16 51.14%
David Lee GSW 4.5 704 73 1.42 3.19 1.78 -0.72 2.12 40.78% 72.73% 8.59 20.77% 22.44 62.30%
Dorell Wright GSW 2.5 704 82 1.32 2.73 0.23 2.72 -0.22 22.22% 73.81% 1.29 17.85% 19.60 58.27%
Stephen Curry GSW 1.5 704 74 0.91 0.83 1.54 -1.00 0.29 20.45% 86.11% 6.03 25.55% 19.46 42.72%
Ekpe Udoh GSW 4.52 704 18 -0.85 -7.23 -2.66 0.40 -4.98 30.83% 32.98% -24.42 10.88% 19.03 62.67%

 10 Best Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
1 Chuck Hayes HOU 4.5 42 4 0.27 17.19 5.03 5.18 6.98 100.00% 50.00% 20.69 24.33% 9.52 50.00%
2 Tyson Chandler DAL 4.97 68 3 0.40 15.68 1.54 4.22 9.91 85.71% 91.67% 13.99 11.04% 13.24 57.14%
3 LaMarcus Aldridge POR 4 32 3 0.17 13.75 2.78 5.16 5.82 60.00% 75.00% 11.73 23.69% 12.50 50.00%
4 JaVale McGee WAS 4.99 65 2 0.31 12.16 4.23 3.30 4.64 71.43% 71.43% 26.39 16.02% 15.38 37.50%
5 Paul Pierce BOS 3 34 2 0.13 9.47 7.29 -0.14 2.33 50.00% 100.00% 35.96 20.26% 17.65 60.00%
6 Andrew Bynum LAL 5 33 2 0.13 9.31 -0.62 1.63 8.30 83.33% 66.67% -4.27 14.45% 18.18 0.00%
7 Kobe Bryant LAL 2 37 4 0.13 8.29 -5.33 14.37 -0.75 0.00% 100.00% -16.39 32.51% 21.62 43.75%
8 Kevin Durant OKC 3 86 3 0.29 7.41 1.01 6.07 0.32 25.00% 80.00% 4.45 22.77% 19.77 43.75%
9 Andray Blatche WAS 4.5 35 1 0.09 5.13 13.05 -10.06 2.14 37.50% 66.67% 46.19 28.26% 14.29 75.00%
10 Grant Hill PHX 2.5 38 4 0.10 4.84 4.89 1.42 -1.46 33.33% 0.00% 23.54 20.76% 21.05 50.00%

 10 Worst Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
43 Jordan Crawford WAS 1.99 45 1 -0.30 -24.94 -9.74 -10.45 -4.76 0.00% 50.00% -40.83 23.84% 31.11 63.64%
42 James Harden OKC 2 33 0 -0.21 -23.56 -8.04 -14.67 -0.84 0.00% 100.00% -49.03 16.39% 33.33 85.00%
41 Russell Westbrook OKC 1 72 3 -0.31 -17.35 -3.11 -15.40 1.16 33.33% 83.33% -7.35 42.26% 25.00 83.33%
40 James Johnson TOR 3.98 39 1 -0.16 -16.74 -1.37 -15.97 0.60 25.00% 100.00% -5.58 24.49% 23.08 93.75%
39 DeMar DeRozan TOR 2.5 39 2 -0.12 -13.10 -2.50 -11.32 0.71 NA 100.00% -11.37 21.95% 28.21 75.00%
38 Vince Carter PHX 2 32 3 -0.08 -11.73 -14.85 5.73 -2.61 0.00% 100.00% -58.10 25.56% 18.75 50.00%
37 Rodrigue Beaubois DAL 1.01 45 3 -0.11 -11.51 -11.17 -1.58 1.24 0.00% 100.00% -34.97 31.93% 31.11 68.18%
36 Andre Miller POR 1.02 31 4 -0.07 -10.68 -2.80 -3.54 -4.35 0.00% 0.00% -14.92 18.74% 29.03 55.56%
35 Wes Matthews POR 2.5 31 4 -0.06 -9.65 2.72 -11.47 -0.90 0.00% 100.00% 9.76 27.90% 25.81 75.00%
34 Dirk Nowitzki DAL 4.02 57 4 -0.10 -9.19 1.04 -3.06 -7.17 0.00% 50.00% 3.91 26.63% 19.30 55.56%

 Vladimir Radmanovic

Opponent ezPM = 0.26 (44.3 PyWin equivalent)

Opponent GS = 49.7

NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
Dorell Wright GSW 2.5 281 82 0.97 7.82 3.11 5.76 -1.04 22.22% 63.16% 16.17 19.23% 18.51 38.04%
Monta Ellis GSW 1.51 281 80 0.95 7.58 6.30 2.39 -1.11 0.00% 73.68% 23.13 27.25% 22.42 55.00%
Stephen Curry GSW 1.5 281 74 0.47 2.12 6.75 -4.92 0.30 25.00% 81.82% 28.69 23.51% 24.20 62.26%
Vladimir Radmanovic GSW 4 281 6 0.25 -0.51 -0.25 1.77 -2.03 21.21% 58.33% -1.96 12.99% 23.49 54.76%
David Lee GSW 4.5 281 73 -0.11 -4.59 0.68 -0.57 -4.71 34.88% 45.61% 3.67 18.62% 16.01 51.61%

 10 Best Opponents 

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
1 Gerald Henderson CHA 2 12 0 0.18 44.53 11.88 3.94 28.71 100.00% 100.00% 53.98 22.00% 25.00 66.67%
2 Dwight Howard ORL 5 11 2 0.10 27.27 5.06 0.23 21.98 75.00% 80.00% 25.42 19.91% 18.18 0.00%
3 Tiago Splitter SAS 5 13 0 0.10 21.68 4.38 2.98 14.32 100.00% 100.00% 39.85 11.00% 15.38 50.00%
4 Kevin Love MIN 4.5 25 4 0.17 19.03 3.21 3.15 12.67 80.00% 100.00% 20.94 15.32% 12.00 50.00%
5 Thaddeus Young PHI 3.5 20 0 0.12 15.61 -0.44 14.66 1.39 50.00% 66.67% -2.41 18.10% 5.00 0.00%
6 Chris Bosh MIA 4.5 34 2 0.19 15.03 7.67 11.32 -3.97 25.00% 33.33% 39.66 19.35% 26.47 31.25%
7 Jodie Meeks PHI 1.98 15 2 0.08 13.07 16.78 -3.71 0.00 NA NA 108.52 15.47% 13.33 50.00%
8 Jrue Holiday PHI 1 18 2 0.08 10.66 23.90 -19.19 5.94 100.00% 100.00% 121.17 19.72% 33.33 83.33%
9 Kobe Bryant LAL 2 14 4 0.06 10.17 12.10 -5.90 3.97 NA 100.00% 31.48 38.43% 28.57 62.50%
10 Steve Nash PHX 1 18 4 0.06 7.58 6.98 2.15 -1.55 0.00% NA 93.00 7.50% 11.11 50.00%

10 Worst Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
43 Luke Ridnour MIN 1.02 20 4 -0.21 -37.68 -25.03 -14.04 1.39 0.00% 100.00% -58.82 42.55% 25.00 100.00%
42 Jameer Nelson ORL 1 11 2 -0.09 -28.72 41.64 -72.50 2.14 33.33% NA 50.17 83.00% 81.82 100.00%
41 Wesley Johnson MIN 2.01 19 4 -0.13 -24.73 -16.91 -4.90 -2.93 0.00% NA -79.70 21.21% 15.79 66.67%
40 Evan Turner PHI 2 22 0 -0.14 -23.54 -22.14 -11.13 9.73 100.00% 100.00% -67.19 32.95% 18.18 83.33%
39 Carlos Delfino MIL 2.01 14 1 -0.08 -22.90 -5.66 -15.26 -1.99 0.00% 100.00% -107.00 5.29% 42.86 66.67%
38 Stephen Jackson CHA 3 45 2 -0.23 -19.94 -4.61 -14.71 -0.62 0.00% 100.00% -14.47 31.82% 24.44 88.89%
37 Elton Brand PHI 4.5 11 2 -0.05 -19.08 -5.34 -4.01 -9.73 0.00% 0.00% -49.35 10.82% 18.18 100.00%
36 Derek Fisher LAL 1 11 4 -0.05 -17.07 -7.20 -2.67 -7.20 NA 0.00% -107.00 6.73% 9.09 0.00%
35 Ron Artest LAL 3 11 4 -0.04 -15.55 -13.12 2.63 -5.06 0.00% NA -65.90 19.91% 36.36 83.33%
34 Gary Neal SAS 2 15 0 -0.06 -15.50 -1.02 -9.20 -5.28 NA 0.00% -3.13 32.73% 20.00 66.67%

Louis Amundson

Opponent ezPM = 0.90 (52.4 PyWin equivalent)

Opponent GS = 52.2

NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
Dorell Wright GSW 2.5 244 82 0.17 -1.11 -0.60 0.64 -1.15 23.08% 65.38% -3.96 15.12% 19.26 53.66%
Monta Ellis GSW 1.51 244 80 0.03 -2.91 -0.32 -0.17 -2.42 0.00% 50.00% -1.26 25.01% 25.00 59.48%
Louis Amundson GSW 4.51 244 7 -0.05 -3.98 -1.14 -0.73 -2.11 34.15% 50.00% -9.22 12.31% 16.39 60.00%
David Lee GSW 4.5 244 73 -0.06 -4.12 -5.23 0.89 0.23 36.36% 65.71% -24.08 21.73% 22.13 53.13%
Stephen Curry GSW 1.5 244 74 -0.10 -4.60 0.75 -6.02 0.67 21.43% 87.50% 3.05 24.57% 21.72 53.49%

 10 Best Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
1 Chris Paul NOH 1 17 3 0.25 44.12 35.36 5.49 3.27 NA 100.00% 117.17 30.18% 29.41 40.00%
2 Grant Hill PHX 2.5 19 4 0.27 42.58 11.67 26.74 4.17 33.33% 100.00% 116.68 10.00% 31.58 0.00%
3 Josh Smith ATL 4 43 2 0.47 32.01 15.15 17.31 -0.45 66.67% 60.00% 63.74 23.77% 18.60 37.50%
4 Kobe Bryant LAL 2 16 4 0.14 24.01 19.54 4.47 0.00 NA NA 38.78 50.38% 31.25 25.00%
5 Tony Allen MEM 2.01 17 1 0.14 23.61 14.22 9.40 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 57.68 24.65% 23.53 66.67%
6 Shawn Marion DAL 3.5 19 0 0.15 22.26 -5.34 23.43 4.17 50.00% 100.00% -34.84 15.32% 15.79 0.00%
7 Marc Gasol MEM 4.98 17 3 0.13 20.84 -0.07 6.94 13.97 75.00% 100.00% -0.62 11.06% 11.76 50.00%
8 Jose Barea DAL 1.02 13 0 0.10 20.77 26.82 -6.05 0.00 NA NA 109.30 24.54% 7.69 NA
9 Zach Randolph MEM 4 11 2 0.07 17.16 26.53 -9.37 0.00 0.00% 100.00% 101.33 26.18% 27.27 50.00%
10 Dirk Nowitzki DAL 4.02 13 4 0.08 16.63 -11.14 19.54 8.23 100.00% 100.00% -40.80 27.31% 7.69 NA

 10 Worst Opponents

RANK NAME TEAM POS POSS GS WARP EZPM100 O100 D100 REB100 ORR DRR OEFF USG OWN OEFG
46 Emeka Okafor NOH 5 12 2 -0.10 -30.82 -11.25 -10.65 -8.92 0.00% 0.00% -58.97 19.08% 25.00 100.00%
45 Rudy Fernandez POR 1.99 22 2 -0.10 -18.33 -14.40 -3.94 0.00 0.00% 100.00% -107.00 13.45% 22.73 37.50%
44 Gerald Wallace POR 3.5 17 1 -0.07 -16.45 -6.85 3.24 -12.84 0.00% 50.00% -60.37 11.35% 23.53 75.00%
43 Channing Frye PHX 4.51 18 4 -0.06 -14.23 -13.24 2.11 -3.09 0.00% 100.00% -63.23 20.94% 33.33 60.00%
42 Shannon Brown LAL 1.99 11 0 -0.03 -12.26 -21.59 2.14 7.20 100.00% NA -107.00 20.18% 27.27 33.33%
41 Andres Nocioni PHI 3.03 24 1 -0.06 -11.19 -10.09 1.22 -2.32 0.00% NA -56.07 18.00% 16.67 125.00%
40 Ian Mahinmi DAL 4.98 16 0 -0.04 -10.87 -12.15 -11.83 13.11 57.14% 66.67% -42.06 28.88% 18.75 NA
39 Mike Bibby ATL 1.01 30 1 -0.06 -9.84 -0.69 -8.22 -0.93 0.00% 100.00% -2.70 25.57% 33.33 28.57%
38 Marco Belinelli NOH 1.98 14 2 -0.02 -9.01 7.25 -14.27 -1.99 0.00% NA 38.28 18.93% 28.57 75.00%
37 Spencer Hawes PHI 5 22 2 -0.03 -7.86 -19.46 7.81 3.79 66.67% 66.67% -85.13 22.86% 22.73 50.00%

15 thoughts on “Unit Analysis: Curry, Ellis, Wright, Lee, Player X”

  1. This set of data is a useful display and allows some further analysis.

    The average position of the best 10 opponents for Biedrins is 3.4 (a bit bigger than SF), Udoh 3.8 and Radmanovic 3.0 are all higher in the position order than the worst ten opponents and by an average of 1.2 positions. The position is close to equal between best and worst 1o for Admundson, with the worst 10 actually being a little higher on the position order.

    For Biedrins the best opponents are far better on defense. The worst are very bad on both offense and defense.

    For Udoh the best are equally good on offense, defense and rebounding. The worst are worse on defense.

    For Radmanovic the best opponents are best on offense and rebounding. The worst are worst on defense.

    For Admundson the best opponents are very good on offense and defense, a bit more on offense. The worst are terrible on offense.

    Radmanovic's lineup with the core 4 is a very powerful performer in modest use. I might try to retain him if the core 4 stays the same, especially if the style of play stays similar with the core 4. He has good traditional APM for this season as well. I do think he is a good example of a guy who is easier to dislike / dismiss by just boxscore stats than enhanced boxscore stats with lineup context and Adjusted +/-. His type of stretch 4 is often associated with positive team offensive impact.

  2. Biedrins-Lee is getting beat by the best bigs because this lineup is not performing well on offense against them.

    Lee-Udoh is getting beat equally on 3 fronts, at least by the best opponents.

    Radmanovic-Lee at least does well on offense.

    Admundson-Lee is god on rebounding as expected but that is it.

    If they don't keep Radmanovic, Udoh is a pretty clear pick for the 5th spot over at least these 2 alternative but I'd probably keep Rad for at least situational use. There would be other options if one were willing to change from the core 4.

  3. Ellis and Wright benefit the most from being with Rad. He is Curry's best pick for the 5th guy too. The only one who is worst with Rad is Lee but he is bad with 3 of the 4 5th guys so it may be more a general issue with him in this core 4 and system than being with Rad.

    I am surprised that a Curry Ellis Radmanovic Lee Udoh lineup only got 5 minutes all season. Based on logic and these numbers, it should have at least gotten a look. But then again I am not surprised.

  4. Substitute in Wright for either Curry or Ellis and that would be worth a look too. Or take Lee out and put Rad in. Or maybe other stuff.

    1. Yes, this is what I've been wishing to see, Wright play some 2, so we can have a bigger more defensive unit out there. This year it would have looked like:

      Curry
      Wright
      Radman
      Lee
      Udoh

      This unit was purely hypothetical. It got...wait for it...0 possessions on the season.

  5. The 6 best lineups on Adjusted +/- used over 40 minutes for the season had about 4.3 guys from the core 4 and Rad with the other guy being mostly Williams. The question would be whether these lineups that worked well were in really better than the lineups pulled together with 4-5 guys from the same 6 that did poorly.

  6. Yeah for all the lineups that get used situationally on purpose or at random there are often lineups that don't get use that probably should have at least been given a decent look or a bigger look.

    Curry Wright Radman Lee just happened to have the best cumulative +/- for a quad for the season and by far the best +/- per minute (at +19.8 per 48) but hey why give that more than 192 minutes in a season? There were 9 other quads with 150+ minutes that were positive but they must not have been used enough either. (The quads are of course overlapping and not completely unique so the total minute count is probably not as high as it might seem.)

    Of these 10 quads, Curry was in 8, Ellis 7. Wright 8, Williams 1, Radmanovic4, Lee 8, Udoh 4, everyone else 0.

  7. Curry, Ellis, Wright, Lee is actually the least positive of these 10 quads at just +2 per 48 minutes. That is a pretty powerful argument against making it the core 4 going forward. Sure it had more 3 times as much trial and some of the other quads might have benefited from small sample variance or weaker average opponent quality... but all of them were better. Were all of them advantaged by chance and / or circumstance? I doubt it.

  8. Of the 5 best on +/- per minute, Curry was 4, Ellis 3. Wright 4, Williams 1, Radmanovic4, Lee 4, Udoh 0, everyone else 0.

    The best 5 would make Curry Ellis Wright Radmanovic Lee. How did that lineup do? +13 per 48 on raw +/-, +12 on Adjusted +/- ! Used just 156 minutes for the season. What the "l" do they want?

  9. Your initial graphic showed that Rad was by far the best piece to match with the core 4. I later showed that Rad was in the best quad and other strong performers. If they let him go elsewhere, I will just shake my head. Are they going for better than a proven double digit positive per 48 minute winner? The odds of getting better than that are slim. Maybe the odds of repeating the performance fully at bigger minutes aren't that strong either but the odds of getting at least moderately positive results would probably be at least pretty good.

    Are these Rad quads and 5 man lineups just fit for specific rare circumstances? That could be, would have to look at the opponent file and tape further. But you'd have to prove that argument rather than just assume it.

      1. Seems like a good topic. I made a few points in favor but there other details are certainly worth looking at. I guess a lot if it comes down to who they replace him with. On the roster and on the court with the core 4 you named in particular if they stay with that core 4 getting by far the most minutes.

        What does the sum of the core 4 individual stats show with and without Rad? What was most needed in the boxscore and did Rad provide that himself directly or did others step up with him on the court in ways they didn't without him and was that because of him or was it more independent of him?

  10. Confidence intervals could be calculated to give a better estimate of the bounds for good results in the future.

  11. In lieu of assembling the discrete stat detail, I compared the EZPM100 and its 3 components for this core 4 with Rad vs one of the other 3 non-Rad alternatives. Here is the with Rad - without results (possessi0n weighted, if I did it right):

    WARP EZPM O D REB
    Monta Ellis -1.0 5.1 5.5 0.1 -0.5
    Dorell Wright -0.1 7.4 3.5 4.6 -0.7
    Stephen Curry -0.2 3.5 5.3 -2.3 0.4
    David Lee -0.9 -3.9 0.2 0.5 -4.6
    Rad as 5th guy -0.2 2.3 1.5 1.3 -0.6

    EZPM100 improves at 4 of 5 spots, O100 at 5 of 5, D100 at 4 of 5, Reb100 at only 1 spot. That is still quite good in favor of Rad as the 5th guy for this core 4, especially since 3 of the 4 rebound declines were small. (The WARP decline puzzles me a bit.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>