The most effective lineup in the NBA last season was a Blazer lineup...and it's not the one you think

by UDUB on Oct 24, 2009 9:42 AM PDT Comment 26 comments

I'm relatively new here, so someone else may have already pointed this out, but at 82games.com they rank all of the 5 man lineups in the NBA who play at least 100 minutes together over the course of the season. I was was somewhat surprised to see that, by this metric, the best 5 man lineup in the NBA last season (by a fair amount) was a Blazer lineup. And it's probably not the one you think. The most effective lineup in the NBA last season was the Blazer lineup of Blake-Fernandez-Roy-Aldridge-Przybilla. That particular lineup outscored the opposition by a whopping 35 points per 48 minutes of play.

What's most interesting to me about this lineup is that (if memory serves) it's the one we typically saw in the 4th quarter in close games. And it's one I think we're likely to see a lot of this year as well in order to keep Rudy in the game in key situations. I also think it's interesting because it has Roy playing the 3-spot, something I know he's said he doesn't like doing. But regardless of Roy's feelings, the effectiveness of this particular lineup suggests that he does pretty well when he's forced to play the 3. And that makes sense. Roy is a solid 6-6, 212 lbs, and is more than capable of playing SF, especially in situations where the opposing team is playing small. And playing Roy at the 3 opens up minutes not only for Rudy (which is crucial), but potentially Jerryd Bayless as well.

For the record, the second most effective Blazer lineup last year was Blake-Roy-Outlaw-Aldridge-Oden, which clocked in a +21 per 48 minutes and the third most effective Blazer lineup was (surprisingly) Rodriguez-Fernandez-Outlaw-Aldridge-Przybilla at +18 per 48 minutes. The typical Blazer starting lineup (Blake-Roy-Batum-Aldridge-Przybilla) was the 4th best Blazer lineup at +15 per 48 (which is still pretty good).

One lineup to note: this year's projected starting lineup (Blake-Roy-Batum-Alrdridge-Oden) did relatively mediocre last year, getting a net +1 per 48 minutes. Also, when Rodriguez replaced Blake in the first unit (Rodriguez-Roy-Batum-Aldridge-Oden), the team broke even per 48 minutes (+0).

The worst Blazer lineup (at least the worst one that saw over 100 minutes of playing time) was Rodriguez-Fernandez-Outlaw-Frye-Przybilla (basically the full second squad), which clocked in a -4 per 48 minutes.

For reference, here are a few top lineups from other teams. The Dallas lineup of Kidd-Terry-Howard-Nowitzki-Bass clocked in a +30. The Orlando lineup of Nelsen-Lee-Turkoglu-Lewis-Howard was at +23; the Clevelend lineup of West-Williams-James-Wallace-Ilgauskas was at +19.

The worst lineup in the NBA was Sacramento's Udrih-Martin-Salmons-Thompson-Hawes at -31.

13 recs | Comment 26 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

it has Roy playing the 3-spot, something I know he’s said he doesn’t like doing.

I don’t remember Roy saying he doesn’t like playing the SF, I believe the closest he came was a comment about having success at the 3, but preffering o play at the 2

Obviously I’m now going to have an epic quest trying to find it…

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Oct 24, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

it was during a media day interview with BT Smith

this should narrow down your search

http://www.columbian.com/section/blazers

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember that also - what he said was he was not going to guard 3's this year

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 24, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work UDUB...

I’ll say the Blazers most effective lineup THIS year will be:

Miller, Rudy, Roy, Aldridge,Oden.

This is the the lineup I hope to see finish close games…

by Visionary2 on Oct 24, 2009 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Agreed

That’s the lineup I’m most optimistic about, too. It should be the lineup they use in close games in the 4th.

by UDUB on Oct 24, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This lineup is strong on O

weak on D, No perimeter defenders and an invitation to get into the paint and get Oden into foul trouble.

However, all good from the line and can score in an number of ways

by Rip City Reign on Oct 24, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup. That should be the end of game assassin line-up. 5 guys that can score, 3 of them from pretty much anywhere, 1 with a great midrange game, and 1 ferocious inside presence.

I think that line-up will eventually strike fear in the hearts of opposing teams.

by dario argento on Oct 24, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been calling that as our game-closing lineup for a while

I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.

by jscot on Oct 26, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff

Here’s more:

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2008-2009&sortnumber=17&sortorder=DESC&team=POR

If you include all units played by the Blazers (with no minute restrictions), the best unit was Aldridge, Batum, Bayless, Oden, Roy.

I don’t worry to much about last years starting line-up with Oden struggling. Oden has improved

by PoliSam on Oct 24, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you include all units played by the Blazers (with no minute restrictions), the best unit was Aldridge, Batum, Bayless, Oden, Roy.

Of course, this line-up didn’t play a lot of minutes, so it could be a fluke.

by PoliSam on Oct 24, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joel was a lot better defensively than Oden last year

That should hopefully change this year, and Oden is much more of a force on the offensive boards than Joel. I do think Roy and Rudy will continue to play well together and that the Blazers should make use of that.

by jksnake99 on Oct 24, 2009 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Joel will probably be ahead of him this year too defensively, but Greg looks like he is closing the gap.

by dario argento on Oct 24, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roy is a solid 6-6, 212 lbs

Brandon said he’s going to play between 205-and 210 this year, he also said he lost 15 lbs from his playing weight, last year

A regular lineup/rotation with Roy at the 3 is moot. Martell is back, and Batum needs more mpg than his rookie year. If the other coach wants to play a 3 guard lineup, then Nate will be ready. But if the other team has a post-up SF who weighs 225+ Roy is not going to be guarding him, for long.

Why allow your best player to get “beat up on” by a larger player when it’s no longer necessary?

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not saying Roy should play the 3 all game

Just pointing out that our most effective lineup last year was when Roy was at the 3. It probably wouldn’t have been that way if he was playing the 3 all game long, but it shows that he is plenty capable of doing so for stretches. I think it will be especially important for him to play this role toward the end of close games, so that Rudy can be in the game.

by UDUB on Oct 24, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

play this role toward the end of close games, so that Rudy can be in the game

It’s easier to get away with the smaller lineup on offense at the end of games, because a defensive SF can be substituted in for Rudy at timeouts or during FTs. I don’t think Nate would “choose” to keep a 3-guard lineup on the floor for long at the defensive end, if the other team had a larger SF who could punish Brandon in the post (ref: Ron Artest, last April)

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 24, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are 3's that may beat up on Roy.

And there are 3’s that Roy can abuse without absorbing abuse. I hope Nate looks for these opportunities to get an extended run for Rudy with Roy and Blake. Roy can collapse the defense and find the open perimeter shooter.

by 52therim on Oct 24, 2009 2:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

The bottom line for Nate is that he has more weapons this year and more experienced weapons to choose from

Nate has said he wants to be the lineup that forces the other teams to try to match up. But depending on the flow and needs he can use a number of combinations. KP and Nate both have indicated that the versatility of many of our players is highly prized.

I agree that Roy will play few minutes at the 3 this year. LAL, Denver, Houston, NO, Dallas, Cleveland, all have bigger stronger players at the 3 that would limit its use there (likely many more).

So how does Rudy get his minutes this year? What combination allows Rudy to play with Roy and Andre/Steve? It is the 1 that must yield minutes for him to get 28-30. Or maybe he must be content with 15-20.

And If Roy does not guard 3s will Nic or Martell or Travis be on the floor at all times?

This is a good analysis – one of many metrics which indicate Portland is ready to advance beyond 54 wins and ready to go deeper in the playoffs.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 24, 2009 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Another victory for

Playing your 5 best players

by Sound_Automatic on Oct 24, 2009 7:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

It may have been the most effective offense last season

but that does not mean it will be this year. There are 3 small forwards on the team, Brandon and Rudy dont need to take minutes from them. Batum should be playing a lot of the minutes at small forward, and Webster and Outlaw should take the rest. In certain situations it may be ok, but I dont think it should be used on a regular basis. I think I have said similar things multiple times on here, but I will say it again: There is no reason to play the teams best player out of position when there are 3 highly capable players already fighting for minutes at that position. In my opinion, if Rudy does not learn how to handle the ball better, he is going to have a hard time finding minutes.

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting"

"I don't like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in there"
Charles Bukowski

by jpaulson on Oct 24, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That line up only works against opponents playing "small ball"

If you’ll recall, we got bounced out of Game 6 starting that “amazing” line up, which managed to rack up some good stats, in limited time, which makes it look good on 82games, but is horrible against teams who have SFs or SGs with size. Rudy scored 2pts with Artest guarding him. That being the top Blazers line up is a statistical illusion. Most likely the second highest which saw a lot more time in fourth quarters was the most effective. Despite how many may feel about Outlaw, he scored a lot of fourth quarter points, and was the team’s third leading scorer last year. He saw a lot more forth quarter time than Rudy due to the fact that he doesn’t play the same spot as Roy.

More time on the floor means more opportunities for averages to balance out. Last years starters played a lot more minutes, in contested/close games, so of course their numbers would be closer to even with opponents. A lot of these other line ups were used when the score wasn’t close one way of the other.

As someone else said, Oden is a different player this year, so expect the line up with him to improve it’s stats quite a bit. I think Miller/Roy/Rudy will be great in “small ball” situations, or Miller/Roy/Blake in “smaller ball” situations too. If the rest of the league would cooperate, three guard line ups would be great for the Blazers, but the truth is, that the good teams (the ones that get past the first round of the playoffs), have size at a few positions if not all positions. We won’t see any “small ball” against the Lakers, Nuggets, Boston, Orlando, Cleavland, or likely SA, unless we roll the dice and put it out there first.

Last year, everyone was talking about the awesome Boston/Chicago series. That awesomeness was a result of KG being hurt, and Boston going “small ball”. The result was a bunch a excellent shooters and dribble drivers on the floor for both teams, which is actually more fun to watch than typical NBA “big ball”. But, it’s an arms race, and if KG were available, it would force Chicago to play “bigger” to have a chance to defend KG, and the quality of, or lack there of of Chicago’s bigs, would have tilted the series more definitively in Boston’s favor. Boston hit the wall when they had to play against a good team with a good big(Orlando) thus “small ball” is probably every team’s most talented line up, but not one that can go all the way.

by wingzeta on Oct 24, 2009 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No one's disputing this

The point of this post isn’t to suggest that we should play a 3 guard lineup all or even most of the time. I was simply pointing out that one particular 3 guard lineup (with Roy, Rudy, Blake) did particularly well last year. Indeed, it was the most effective lineup in the NBA. For all the reasons you state, it’s simply not going to be feasible to play that lineup in many situations. But I think, given its effectiveness last year, Nate should try to find as many opportunities as he can to use it. Obviously you need to be careful reading too much into statistics like these, but I think you’re being a little too dismissive. The particular lineup in question played well over 100 minutes of game time last year. That’s a big chunk. You can’t just write off its success as a statistical anomaly.

There are actually quite a few situations where this lineup would work. Roy is big enough and quick enough to guard all but the most explosive SFs, at least for small stretches. Indeed, he’s probably a better defender at the 3 than Travis or Martell. So, other than length, we’re not sacrificing all that much of the defensive end by putting Roy at the 3. Moreover, if we play a lineup with Roy, Miller, and Fernandez—all of whom are very quick with and without the ball—it will very often create defensive issues for the other team. There are many SFs in the league who would have major problems keeping up with that lineup. So much so that it may well force the opposing coach to go small as well.

Obviously Nate needs to experiment. If playing the 3 guard lineup costs us more on the defensive end than it gains us on the offensive end, then that will be pretty evident and we’ll stop using it. My bet, though, is that this particular lineup will be a net plus for us in many situations and may well become the default lineup in the late 4th quarter.

by UDUB on Oct 24, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just pointing out the argument against that lineup as "the lineup"

In other words, statistically it may have been our best five, and I love that group of guys, but I wouldn’t start that group, because it is a “small ball” group, and most other teams won’t be starting a small ball group, and defense would be an issue. You may be right that in the fourth quarter, it may be very useful, and feasible, because other teams are also trying to field their best five playmakers at that time, which for a lot of teams does equal “small ball”. Really it’s just another situational call Nate has to make. Part of that lineup’s efficiency may be due to Nate using them at the right times, or even in response to other teams going small. If he threw that five out there every time the other team went small, they probably would be the better team on the floor every time. If Oden can start demanding Yao Ming-like attention, and clogging the middle as well as Ming on D, we may be able to get away with three guards more, but we are not there yet.

by wingzeta on Oct 25, 2009 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice post

the dirty secret last year was that roy (and the team) were best when roy was at the 3. he was actually statistically better as a 3 than a 2. of course, this creates all sorts of problems when you consider that we have 3 other starting-caliber players at the 3 and a rudy-at-2 and roy-at-3 combo means serious defensive problems. but there’s no doubt that late in close games, this is by far our best option with miller, oden, and LMA. This will absolutely be our line-up late in close games, barring foul trouble, injuries, etc.

by hambone17 on Oct 25, 2009 12:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

it surprises me that

Rodriguez-Fernandez-Outlaw-Frye-Przybilla lineup wasn’t +50 or somthing…I mean Rodriguez and Frye in the same lineup…whoa, watch out!

"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"

by Eat Politicians on Oct 25, 2009 3:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Of the lineups mentioned in the OP

Ours is the only one still intact.

I think any lineup this year with Oden in it will be super.

These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx

by RDreamer on Oct 25, 2009 4:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good writeup. coupla comments

Nice job… Coupla comments Excellent points about Roy needing to grow…

Roy will need to adopt the superstar attitude that the first 20 minutes are for getting everyone else involved and the last 28 are go-time.

In a way, I’m hoping for an early-season, very minor short-term injury/illness for BRoy that results in Nate using a starting lineup of:

Miller, Rudy, Batum, LMA, GO.

I honestly believe that unit would start off games at a fiendish pace. And, what better way for Roy to defer early than… to come off the bench as a sixth man… Again, not saying he shouldn’t still lead the team in minutes (well, actually, I expect that will be LMA), but man, that’d be awesome. (Yes, I know I’m crazy in most eyes… I’ve been called worse..)

Re: Nate letting Greg play with fouls… Super-rec there… I’d sure want the additional production from Greg rather than having him not foul out…

I think a good metric for Nate this year will be, how many minutes per game is he sitting down? If he’s sitting down, and letting the guys play for most of the game, I’ll be pretty happy…

I think Nate’s a great coach for young players, a teaching coach… I’m not all that happy with his ‘game-day’ coaching; I think he gets out-coached on the floor often. In particular, I really hope he lets Dre and the guys that want to run, run, turnovers be damned…

Re: GO:

That’s not to say he should be considered as important as LMA or Brandon,

Well, you didn’t say it, but I will, and I’ll go further: GO (I would argue is now, but I certainly believe he will be) the MOST important player on the Blazers. He will definitely get a max deal next year if he plays this season like he has shown in the preseason. He presents more of a matchup problem offensively than any other Blazer. He is the key to our improving defense… If Roy was truly threatened by Dre (I agree with that assessment), he is really going to be threatened by the big guy’s emergence. I hope he can handle it.

by Visionary2 on Oct 26, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs