Game 10: Cavs @ Kings 11/13/2023

[JujitsuFlip]

Bottom line is if they fire JBB, they'd better at least have convinced themselves they have a better plan. Ty Lue was basically fired because he wouldn't let the FO tell him how to coach. The end result for the FO was the same, lots of minutes for Collin Sexton and very few wins from playing vets that were not expected to make it through the rebuild.

In this case, there's a lot more on the line and they can't just assume anything is better than JBB.

In all honesty it probably is though, won't really know until they trim the fat and dive in the deep in.

I for one am very excited to see how much better this team can be under a competent head coach.

Sacramento didn't feel Luke Walton was competent. Maybe he's better? Do we want to risk our season and Mitchell's decision to extend on that?

I for sure don't want Luke, that guy sucks without question lol

I feel like retaining JB is the quickest way to 100% make Mitchell not extend. JB is the exact same guy he was in April 2022 and April 2023. Nothing this season from JB points to April 2024 having any kind of different result than the previous 2 seasons.

[jbk1234]

What we suspect is the problem is not necessarily the root problem. The data will eventually show us the truth. Maybe we need to go 4 out or even 5 out to provide the spacing needed for Mitchell or Garland to play significantly different and you know we're in no rush to roll that out except in certain bench units. Or maybe they just need more time. We shall see.

I think both you and Tooskie are overly reliant on data sets that include information that is potentially misleading. We beat bad teams because we have more talent than they do, we play bettet defense than they do, and they usually make more mistakes than we do. It almost doesn't matter who the 5th starter is against bad teams. What we need to solve for is beating good teams.

Also, as one of Garland/Mitchell AND Allen/Mobley are almost always on the floor with the second unit, we dont really have a second unit. The result is that our core 4 players don't get enough minutes playing with one another (let alone the 5th starter) while simultaneously managing to play too many minutes over the course of the season. I get why JBB does it, but it has its downsides.

Again, you're trying to turn an argument on it's head. Pointing out what the evidence says or doesn't say, is not the same thing as drawing bad conclusions from a lack of evidence.

Fact is our intended starting lineups do end up getting the most minutes. 60 minutes of lineup data for our intended starters is not good, but health be willing those guys will get up over 100 minutes soon enough and that's enough to at least consider.

Given the injury and possibly chemistry problems, I'll mostly be looking at how that lineup is trending.

How is 100 minutes of data stretched out over somewhere between 12-15 games anywhere near enough data? Starters normally average more than 30 minutes per game. It's the equivalent of a three or four game sample size taken against tough opponents before the team has had any meaningful chance to gel. Moreover, you don't really have a similar sample size to compare it to as far as other starters.

[JonFromVA]

I think both you and Tooskie are overly reliant on data sets that include information that is potentially misleading. We beat bad teams because we have more talent than they do, we play bettet defense than they do, and they usually make more mistakes than we do. It almost doesn't matter who the 5th starter is against bad teams. What we need to solve for is beating good teams.

Also, as one of Garland/Mitchell AND Allen/Mobley are almost always on the floor with the second unit, we dont really have a second unit. The result is that our core 4 players don't get enough minutes playing with one another (let alone the 5th starter) while simultaneously managing to play too many minutes over the course of the season. I get why JBB does it, but it has its downsides.

Again, you're trying to turn an argument on it's head. Pointing out what the evidence says or doesn't say, is not the same thing as drawing bad conclusions from a lack of evidence.

Fact is our intended starting lineups do end up getting the most minutes. 60 minutes of lineup data for our intended starters is not good, but health be willing those guys will get up over 100 minutes soon enough and that's enough to at least consider.

Given the injury and possibly chemistry problems, I'll mostly be looking at how that lineup is trending.

How is 100 minutes of data stretched out over somewhere between 12-15 games anywhere near enough data? Starters normally average more than 30 minutes per game. It's the equivalent of a three or four game sample size taken against tough opponents before the team has had any meaningful chance to gel. Moreover, you don't really have a simpler sample size to compare it to as far as other starters.

It's just a cut off I personally use. For instance, with that cutoff we only had 4 lineups last season that played 100 minutes or more.

A single piece of lineup data is also not the only evidence at our disposal.

Also specific lineup data is a lot cleaner and more useful than aggregated data plus it easily leads to follow on questions and checks. For instance, I haven't even bothered to bring up that the units with Caris and the Core 4 were a whole lot stronger than even the units with Isaac .... +16.2 .vs. +6.8. We know the drawbacks of starting Caris, but the data makes it clear it should be an option even though there are problems and it clearly didn't work against the Knicks.

Another example is that Max's on-court and on-off are actually pretty nice at the moment, so, there are other units he's part of that are doing great. Do we wait for the starters? Or is he just a bad fit with them. tbd.

Please, notice I did not draw a conclusion. I'm raising questions.